Final answer:
Characterization in literature, including that in Cavendish's 'The Hunting of the Hare' and London's works, employs both direct and indirect techniques to create complex characters and convey deeper messages about societal attitudes towards animals. The humanlike portrayal of animals invites empathy and challenges the human-animal divide.
Step-by-step explanation:
Characterizing animals in literature often involves a balance between direct and indirect methods, such as the anthropomorphizing seen in Margaret Cavendish's “The Hunting of the Hare.” This approach not only characterizes the hare as humanlike but also raises ethical concerns, as argued by scholars like Bruce Thomas Boehrer and Donna Landry, who look at the implications of diminishing the human-animal divide and promoting empathy towards animals.
Similarly, London’s use of a 'proper wolf-dog' to contrast with the man in his story reveals deep insights into the nature of their relationship and adaptation to their environment. The use of direct characterization is evidenced when an author explicitly states what a character is like, for instance by calling a dog “happy.” Contrastingly, indirect characterization is shown when qualities are implied through actions or reputation, such as when a dog is described as “tricky” or when the rabbit's actions indirectly portray its cunning nature in evading predators.
Such literary techniques invite readers to connect more deeply with nonhuman characters and examine personal values relating to nature and animal welfare. For example, Margaret Cavendish employs humanlike features and empathy in her portrayal of the hare, which may serve as an invitation to reconsider the rightful treatment of animals. This characterization becomes a vehicle for broader social commentary, extending beyond the individual character to reflect societal attitudes towards other living creatures.