The incident is also representative of how the father finds pleasure in others suffering, a tenet of sadism. While this incident may not seem to define the father as an abuser, it remains as a hint of the full extent of the father's sadistic nature. In fact, the entire magnitude of the father's abusiveness is encapsulated by the turning point of the story in which the boy and the dog come home from one of their adventures only to arrive to the sight of the father throwing cooking utensils in a drunken rage. The sight drove the boy to seek shelter from under a table while the dog trounced around the room excited by the spectacle, unaware of the danger. The dog's vulnerability and naivety led the father to take advantage of it as he beat the dog with a pan, force the dog into submission, and eventually, "swung him two or three times hilariously about his head, and then flung him with great accuracy through the window" (Crane 6). The father was clearly enlightened by his ability to prey upon a defenseless dog and to murder him without a second …show more content…
For instance, when the boy and the dog first encounter one another, the dog acts playfully with the boy who promptly hit the dog and sent him into a prayer like stance showing the dog's submission. This submission was foud comical as it was stated that, "the child was greatly amused and gave him little taps repeatedly, to keep him so" (Crane 1). Superficially, this depicts the child simply amusing himself. However, there exists an underlying layer that reveals the sadistic trait of the child as he finds delight in the dog's pain and fright. It shows how the child extracts a feeling of superiority over the dog which Crane further establishes in his story by describing the child as a terrible despot and the dog as a subject. In addition to this occurrence, the child had displayed his abusive nature on a separate instance. Crane describes this instance as a general and recurring case as he describes how, "Sometimes, too, the child would beat the dog, although it is not known that he ever had what truly could be called a just cause" (Crane 4). What is established here is that the child harms the dog for no reason. Through the conclusion derived previously, it is inferred that the child had done this deed because he found pleasure in exerting his might over the dog. This reestablishes how the child exhibits the sadistic traits