37 pages • 1 hour read
Thomas SavageThe Power of the Dog
Fiction | Novel | Adult | Published in 1967A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Themes
Kindness vs Cruelty
A common trope in the frontier mythology is that only the strong survive. In the novel, the trope is apparent, though what constitutes strength has more to do with intellect than physical force or will. In the harsh world of the frontier as portrayed in the novel, the alpha male, represented by Phil, is not immune to the dangers it poses. What Phil tries to do, and for the most part succeeds in doing, is to exercise his will over his environment and the people in it. Phil operates by instinct and is not led astray by emotion. In this way, he resembles the dog that only he—and later Peter—sees the shape of in the mountain he gazes upon. He believes that the way to survive is not just to use his strength to sustain his own territory; instead, survival is dependent on the subjugation of others. He is like a big dog who, once fed, guards his food rather than eats it and growls at other dogs who come close to it. Sometimes it is in the expression of dominance, rather than the actual use of force, that enables Phil to hold onto authority over his world. Cruelty, harshness, mockery, ridicule, and scorn are the tools he uses to keep others down and away from challenging his place as the alpha.
By contrast, Peter possesses a different kind of ethic. He is not physically strong in any definition of the phrase. He is awkward, and his interest in flowers, in Phil’s eyes, reveals an effeminate character. However, Peter is intellectual and driven by love of his mother and father. He is selfless, whereas Phil is entirely selfish. This is a critical distinction between the two figures. Peter’s empathy is clearly apparent when he tells Rose, “You don’t have to do this” (232), referring to her alcohol abuse. His tone in this conversation is different, as the narrator points out: “He had spoken with such unusual intensity that she stared at him, and noted the rare flush that suffused his clear skin” (232). Watching his mother suffer brings out an emotional intensity heretofore unseen in Peter. He empathizes with her suffering when he promises that he is going to do something about it; thus, the stage is set for the final confrontation.
In his defeat of Phil, the novel ultimately subverts the stereotype of the typical frontiersman and the bravado that goes with it. In the world of the novel, strength as manifested through compassion and kindness wins out in the end over cruelty. Even in that harsh environment, human kindness prevails.
Authenticity of Self
The central characters of the novel, with the exception of Peter, find themselves living an inauthentic life. The roles in the social fabric do not necessarily fully mesh with how they view themselves or who they truly are. As an example, George at times almost seems stuck in his role as the money man of the ranch. He dresses differently than those with whom he works. He is described as a man of few words which could mean that he is simply introverted, or it could also mean that he finds so little in common with those in his life that he has no real use for conversational skills. When George makes that first move on Rose, he is uncomfortable. He has never fallen in love, and the sensation enters him into a world beyond his imagination. He does not know what to do when later, his feelings for her become more intense. The feelings open up a portal inside him that he was unfamiliar with but had been searching for. He says to Rose, “Isn’t it funny…I used to think that’s all I had, was money, until we sat here and laughed and talked. Isn’t it funny that even when I’m alone now, I feel so good” (88). The connection with Rose draws him out of his shell and allows him to explore his inner self in a way that was foreign to him.
Phil’s secret grove is the shelter under which he performs his ritualistic self-purification. It is the only place where he allows himself to be naked. In this case, his clothing and even the dirt that he carries with him serve as disguises. When he enters the grove and removes these disguises, he also removes the persona that he constructs for himself. This is not to say that his cruelty is somehow separate from who he is because he uses it to inflict pain on others. The ritualistic purification sessions imply Phil’s identity as a gay man, and it is only when he goes to the grove that he allows himself access to it. For him, as for George, there is an apparent barrier that prevents the authentic self from manifesting itself. But unlike with George, Phil’s barrier is intentionally constructed.
Peter is the only one of the characters who remains true to himself. Strange by others’ standards, he is a solitary individual. Often, he is seen conducting experiments alone or reading in his father’s medical books. When he arrives at the ranch, he wears tennis shoes—a sure way to bring on the heckling. When he marches in front of the tent and is whistled at, Peter does not shy away. By this time in his life, the taunting and bullying he has endured has built for him a thick skin. He does not try to be anything that he is not. The devotion to his mother and father is what forms the core of who he is, and when he poisons Phil, he fulfills the obligation of the avenger.
Toxic Masculinity
One of the novel’s central questions is: What constitutes a good man. The answer is unclear in the affirmative, but after reading the novel, it is clear that a man should not be like Phil. He is the antithesis of what a man should be according to the ethos of the novel. In 1920s Montana, just at the tail end of the frontier age, Phil’s ruggedness is looked upon as a favorable masculine quality. However, the way he uses his ruggedness, as a show of his masculinity, is problematic. Ruggedness in and of itself is not the problem; the hubris associated with it is. There is a balance between ruggedness and sensitivity that the novel leaves open to interpretation and which no character fully represents—although of them all, George perhaps comes closest to the novel’s masculine ideal.
The novel suggests that the best men do not feel it necessary to showcase their manliness. They are comfortable enough in their own skin and do not see the necessity of ostentatiously showing off their machismo. This is best embodied by George. On the other hand, Phil and many of the other ranch-hands revel in their masculinity, which in and of itself is not a bad thing. However, when they use it as a shield behind which hides misogyny, their masculinity becomes toxic. They are not admirable characters, nor are they an example of how men, civilized or not, should behave. There is no dignity in their actions. This applies especially to Phil, who prides himself on his strict adherence to codes and virtue. He thinks his behavior dignified, but in his treatment of Rose, he betrays a lack of dignity instead. Phil is also antisemitic and racist, as is evidenced by his treatment toward Edward Nappo and by his hostility at Jewish people who come to purchase his extra hides. Rather than sell the hides to a Jewish person, Phil instead would rather burn them. In Phil, readers see that chauvinism is not a dignified brand of masculinity. Instead, it is a projection of his own insecurities. He acts the way he does, in a toxically masculine way because he is insecure about how he views himself as a man. His behavior is a form of overcompensation.
The novel suggests that while rugged masculinity enables men to thrive in hostile environments, without a corresponding ability to treat others with dignity and have compassion, the rugged frontiersman is doomed by his hubris. Toxic masculinity leaves the man who adopts it alone and solitary in the end, a sad and pathetic creature whose misunderstanding of his role in the world destroys him.
