In life, we sometimes feel as though we did the correct thing, but didn’t get the correct response. We may feel like our good deeds have been viewed wrongly by others. Ike, the main character and dog of the story Dear Mrs LaRue, feels this way. The story talks about how Mrs LaRue sent Ike to obedience school for misbehaving, and how Ike wrote letters to explain himself and his situation. From Mrs LaRue’s words, we can decipher there are four main things that show Ike misbehaved: He steals food, he chases the neighbor’s cats, he howls too much while Mrs LaRue is away (according to her neighbors), and he dragged down Mrs LaRue while she was crossing the road, also tearing her camel’s hair coat. Ike defends himself throughout his letters, yet I refute his defenses. These are all Ike’s “misbehaviours” and how he should be rightly sent to obedience school.
Firstly, Ike stole food right off the counter. Ike defends himself by saying that no one told him not to eat it, so he thought he could eat it. However, this is wrong. Ike has to understand that he is not the one in control here. It is Mrs LaRue, his owner, who tells him what to do and what not to do. If Ike wants to do something, he has to ask Mrs LaRue first before proceeding. It’s like going to the restroom in the middle of a lesson without telling the teacher beforehand: We have to ask permission. And just because Mrs LaRue didn’t say Ike couldn’t eat the pie doesn’t mean he could. Ike states that if Mrs LaRue wanted him not to eat the pie, she could’ve just told him. However, he doesn’t mention that he also could’ve just asked her. When we are not the ones in charge, we need to ask permission from the person who is in charge, and not blindly do it because no one said not to.
Secondly, Ike chases the neighbor’s cats. Ike argues that he did it because the cats were being melodramatic and were making out on the fire escape. But this can be refuted on a number of levels. First, Ike again takes charge of things his own way instead of notifying others. He must learn that he can’t just chase the neighbor’s cats. Those cats are not his, they’re his neighbor’s. So he shouldn’t just chase them without even telling the neighbor what he was doing. Also, the cats weren’t melodramatic because they are “hardly the little angels Mrs Hibbins makes them out to be” according to Ike. They were melodramatic because Ike was chasing them. Cats have instincts hard-wired into their species that dogs are dangerous. Of course they were going to be melodramatic. So Ike is both not respecting the neighbor’s property and accusing cats of their nature.
Thirdly, Ike is accused of barking and disturbing the neighbors while Mrs LaRue is away. This claim has the most amount of controversy to it, as there is no evidence. Ike said he didn’t bark that much, but he can’t prove it. But while the neighbors also have no proof on the topic, we can know that there are multiple neighbors who all complained, so they have less of a chance to be lying. Ike on the other hand could be easily lying, knowing the fact that no one can prove anything. Ike also states that the neighbors also bother him with vacuuming, but this can be refuted. Vacuuming is done in the daytime, compared to Ike’s nighttime howls. Vacuuming is also a part of daily routine, and it is necessary if one wants the house to be clean. Howling however is not a routine and can be avoided. In fact, Ike probably would have resisted it, or didn’t want to because of spite.
Last but not least, Ike pulled down Mrs LaRue while she was crossing the street and tore her camel’s hair coat. Ike claimed that he did it to save Mrs LaRue’s life, since she had a habit of “not looking both ways” while crossing the street, and he pulled her to safety. He said Mrs LaRue was ungrateful by complaining about her coat. It is reasonable that saving someone’s life would be justified, but again, we have no proof. First, Mrs LaRue didn’t notice herself in danger, and second, seemingly no one else was there to actually witness it. And if Ike really did want to get Mrs LaRue out of danger, he would warn Mrs LaRue the moment she started crossing that there was a vehicle. Pulling Mrs LaRue seems unnecessary and not really convincing. Ike would have warned Mrs LaRue beforehand and if he did actually save Mrs LaRue, he would get more commotion from the witnesses.
In conclusion, Dear Mrs LaRue is a short story composed of a collection of letters. It talks about how Mrs LaRue sent her dog Ike to obedience school because he was supposedly spoiled. However, Ike attempts to defend himself. First, Ike stole food. Ike defends by saying no one told him not to, but he still needs to ask permission, because he isn’t the owner. Secondly, Ike chased the neighbor’s cats, because they were on the fire escape, but he shouldn’t go chasing other people’s cats, he should tell them the issue instead. Also, the cats were melodramatic because he was chasing them. Thirdly, Ike howls while Mrs LaRue is away. Ike says he didn’t howl much, but he could be lying, and he probably howled because of spite for the neighbor’s vacuum. Finally, Ike pulled down Mrs LaRue on the street to save her life, but we have no evidence he wanted to save her life and if he did, he would’ve done it in a better way. So Ike deserves to be blamed.
Comments