Deep Dive Into Jane Lee

This was a nice classic. Even as I read it, I was like, this book is old- but it’s a good type of old. And I like it.

If I were to talk about good-old books and bad old-books, The good old books are the ones that give us a nice feeling- a nice warm fuzzy feeling that makes us feel like it’s the good old times with stretching fields- although a lot of the times the family is poor, there is that innocent brightness, and a rather wild touch to it- not like our busy and Loud lives. (Not that I’m complaining that much- I am rather a city person) A bad old book are the ones with the prejudices stated so…obviously and as if it is the rightest thing in the world. Those kind of books might have a good story, but the prejudice can be annoying to read sometimes.

I would say the part I liked most about this book was the wilderness of it. How much wildness there was to the woods, and everything- unexpected in the wild, and humans interacting with nature. It was sweet, and also, bittersweet.

To decide between the two dogs, I definitely liked little Anne more. She was a good dog- smart, and also fierce. Old Dan was way too dumb and unthinking about the future, or any consequence. Sometimes his eagerness made a mess, and I wished that he would have been a bit smarter with his choices, and not always go for what he felt like, because then I feel as though he would have lived longer. (That’s pretty ominous). I loved how Anne won the prize for the best-looking dog when everyone thought they were small and puny.

Overall, I loved the plot. I loved the story, and, you have to admit, the characters were lovable. Billy was a good kid, his mother and father were supportive, his sisters were either teasingly lovable or cute. Billy’s dogs were loyal and fierce.

  The thing is, the story is perfect- which is not a problem to me, (because I love overall happy stories- you know, the ones that have a good background but of course have some kind of problem going on?) but sometimes I wonder, (when I think about this book) what it actually teaches us.

And then it hit me. It was a fairly simple moral, but there was two of those very simple morals which made the characters so good, and everything perfect.

Love, and that fighting spirit.

Billy knew that he had to not give up on his dream of dogs, and that he couldn’t just ask for one  without working for it. He saved for more than two years, two years. These days, a lot of people want, but they don’t work for it. They just sit and whine and moan about how unfair it is, how much they need it, but they don’t do anything to get it. Billy knew he had to do something. So he did it. And that was all that mattered, because he got it. Even if, the dogs had been sold out, he would have had the money, to go and buy two dogs. Or he could save up even more if that wasn’t enough. Because he had that fighting spirit. That spirit to go for his dreams, and that left him with the two greatest dogs he could ever dream of, and the greatest memories.

The love that he had for his dogs- and his way of treating them as family, not a possession is what I think truly made them the champions. They were able to communicate in something more than just owner and dog. They were true partners, and I think that’s how they won the hunting challenge.

And that was this books greatest moral of all times.