Charles Siebert’s ‘Call of the Wild’ tells of the death of his beloved Jack Russells terrier in the hands of coyotes. It is set in the woods of Quebec, in a rundown property called Wickerby where the author and his wife Bex visit every summer. From the very beginning of the story, the coyotes and their habits seem to dominate over everything else. The story is however not an expose on coyotes as a species, although the author does reveal that he has studied up on the coyotes in the twelfth paragraph.
In the beginning paragraphs of the story, specifically in the third paragraph, the author clearly states his feelings about the coyotes despite their impressive howling. He simultaneously, informs the reader of the death of his dog and accuses the coyotes of causing it. It is the position of this essay that the author did this deliberately because the whole story is his way of laying up a case against the coyotes for the ‘murder’ of his dog much in the same way a prosecutor would in a court of law. By extension, he enlists the reader as a member of the jury before which the coyotes are being tried. The following paragraphs explain how the author goes about the exercise of ‘prosecuting’ the coyotes.
First, the readers, or the members of the jury, is bought into the courtroom which in is Wickerby. The author, being the prosecutor in the case against the coyotes, brings to the attention of the members of the jury the presence of the coyotes, or the accused, in court. This is done by pointing to the fact that all the howling heard, despite the various tones and pitches, came from coyotes who roamed the area. Immediately after establishing that the accused is present in court, the author, like a competent prosecutor, launches his attack. The accused is charged with murder. This is a pivotal point in the story. Just like the reading out of charges in court informs the jury why they are in court, the author tells us why we are reading his work. It is because his dog was murdered and he is convinced that it is the coyotes that did it. The author knows that he has to adduce evidence to sustain his accusations against the coyotes and therefore proceeds to systematically lay out this evidence in the following paragraphs.
First, like in many murder cases, he describes the death of the poor dog. This is done from the fifth paragraph to the seventh paragraph. He explains how the dog went for his usual inspection of his territory and took an unusually long time about it. He explains the unsuccessful attempts at calling out to the dog and the state in which they found Angus. He was injured and bruised and at the brink of death.
More evidence is adduced in the following paragraphs. The author describes the investigation that led to the conclusion of the guilt of the coyotes. Stories and speculations by neighbors of what might have killed poor Angus suggest a number of animals ranging from wolverines to bobcats, and from foxes to bears. These suggestions do not seem to satisfy the author and he dismisses them.
Paragraph ten brings to focus the reason why the author believes that it was the coyotes that killed his dog. He discovered, by carefully listening to the howling of the coyotes that there were some puppies in the pack. It is at this point that he explains how he understood the motive for thus injuring Angus. The coyotes were protecting either their young. This, as is establishing motive in murder cases, seems to be important for the author, for it created a full picture for him of what happened to his dog. It is at this point that he settles on coyotes as the culprits.
In the twelfth and thirteenth paragraph, he explains the findings of his research on coyotes, which seem to have adopted better to human encroachment than other wild members of the canine family. He attributes this to their disregard for boundaries and their ability to retain their wildness while partaking of domesticity, even the pets. This research, while it reveals the admirable adaptability of the coyote, seems to have been done to build evidence against the coyote. It points to their tendencies to wander into human spaces. However, he does not put all the blame on the coyotes. In the last paragraph, he admits that Angus was partly to blame for obeying his wild instincts when he was not a wild dog. In no way however, does this admission seem to take the sting out of the murder accusations leveled against the coyotes.
When looking at the story in this light, it is clear that the description of the dog’s death in the beginning of the stories was strategic. It was meant to lay a foundation for the rest of the story, which is mainly evidence gathered to support the authors position that the coyotes killed Angus.
Works cited
Siebert, Charles. Angus: Call of the Wild. Wickerby: London, 2000.
