Reviews

Lad: A Dog by Albert Payson Terhune

lgpiper's review against another edition

Go to review page

God, this is awful. I love dogs. I love dog books. Silver Chief, Dog of the North and Big Red were among my favorite books growing up. I didn't even much mind reading James Oliver Curwood's Swift Lightening a year or so ago, although it was a pretty silly book. But this piece of crap is beyond the pale. To begin with, it's hideously racist, both in describing the behavior of people and that of dogs. The protagonist dog, Lad, is allegedly a collie, but his behavior isn't evenly remotely collie-like according to my understanding of collies. And yes, you can infer undying love and loyalty in some aspects of dog behavior, but please do not endow dogs with the powers of complex moral reasoning, a trait bestowed upon them, according to Terhune, by dint of their being "thoroughbred". WTF?

Then too, the stories are hideously melodramatic and extremely morally judgmental. Great melodrama might have sold a century ago, but melodrama has always been a cheep way to cheat people out of authentic experience. As for moral judgments, I don't generally mind them, so long as they're apt. Dogs, however, are not beings capable of such, and whether or not one is a true dog person or not is not a matter of moralism. After forcing myself to read five of the stories, trying hard not to vomit each time, I took a rest. Then, after a month I tried a sixth story, and I couldn't get past a couple of paragraphs. God is this awful dreck!

0scar219's review

Go to review page

I'm sure the book is lovely but I don't want to read about animal abuse and other outdated ideas about dogs.

Expand filter menu Content Warnings

shellys's review against another edition

Go to review page

4.0

The perfect obedience of a well trained and loyal dog.

hannahmcmurphy's review

Go to review page

adventurous lighthearted slow-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? Plot
  • Strong character development? No
  • Loveable characters? No
  • Diverse cast of characters? No
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? No

3.0

aprilleigh's review

Go to review page

3.0

Wonderful stories, although some of the ideas presented in them would not sit well with modern audiences. For example, saying nothing as a self-invited guest (no matter how pompous) beats your dog, destroys heirloom furniture, and insults your way of life is not something even an unfailingly polite person is likely to put up with today. However, the obvious love of dogs, and particularly collies, shines through even the rather odd parts of the stories. The stories are based on a real dog, and he must have been a very well-loved member of the family, indeed.

garleighc's review

Go to review page

2.0

Kind of cool to see how dogs were viewed in the late 1920s. There were many references to utilitarianism and getting rid of dogs because they were luxuries, which was interesting... But the stories weren't too captivating, repetitive plot (makes sense... it's a children's book) and there were a lot of sentence fragments that bugged me because it was the author's style of storytelling but it wasn't rubbing off well on me.

lieslindi's review

Go to review page

I remember this from the shelves of Phoebe (on the left side of the bay closer to the desk). I didn't read it as a child because I knew that in dog books, the dog usually dies. I read it now because Nicholas Kristoff included it in his list of the best children's books ever. Well, that's his opinion.

The dog dies, and the only thing surprising is that such a godlike creature could be mortal. Swimming a mile-wide river in a muzzle? Reaching the pinnacle of collie-hood without doing anything collie-like such as herding? Could he have reached such an acme if he hadn't belonged to such a wealthy family?
More...