Do pet's make a place a home? Or are pet's just something that we add to our homes for companionship? In the case of my house my kitty is part of my family. According to my daughter he is her child and she is his mommy. However, I tend to think of him like he is my kid also. Ultimately, I think that what people think of their pets really depends on their own personal interpretations, but looking at our recent texts we see two very different perspectives.
Of mice and men is an excellent example of how pet's can make a place a home. In this novel we see just how important it is for Lenny to have bunny's at the home he and George plan to some day have. For Lenny, this place will never really be his place, his home, without those bunny's. They are just as important to him as the actual house itself. In fact, I think that he would be happy living in a tree just as long as he had those bunny's with him.
Breakfast at Tiffany's, on the other hand, is a novel that shows us how a pet can be there to just offer companionship. In this novel, Holly's cat is just there because he happened to be in the right place at the right time. As Holly was so fond of saying, they are each "independents." This is obvious by the way that Holly carelessly tosses the cat to the side when she is attempting to flee the country. Sure, she ended up feeling about about abandoning him, but that doesn't change the fact that she had no intention of taking the cat along with her when she left. To Holly, this cat was just a companion to her while she was still living in New York City. He was not part of her home. Really, she didn't necessarily have a home, but having a pet was not something that could make a place a home for Holly.
It's interesting to see how things, whether they be objects or pets, can effect how a person views their home. I think that what I have began to notice so far this semester is that, often, it's not the dwelling so much as the objects and/or the family that makes a place a real home to many people. What do you think?