For those of you who've read the novel, is it at all plausible for a bear to follow a child through the forest for nine days, thus probably leaving his territory behind (are bears territorial?), and not eat her ? What could prompt such a behavior ? Aren't bears strictly predatorial ? Does the story make sense from a naturalist/behaviorist point of view ?
2006-09-25 01:33:05 · 3 answers · asked by Falbala 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Zoology
A bear would never follow someone for that long. Not only are bears not very good land hunters, but they wouldn't leave their territory to simply follow something. Behaviorally, the creature acted nothing like a bear. And i think that that was what stephen king was going for in that novel. The bear was not really a bear, it was a minion of the Crimson King (the devil), just as Randall Flagg, and most of his evil characters are. If you read the Dark Tower Series you will see that according to King all that is bad and evil in our world (as well as other worlds) is controlled by the Crimson King. The bear in the novel was a bear, but it was possessed....this is a fiction novel, and though it is not at all plausible it does make you wonder, and that is what Stephen King is all about!
2006-09-25 02:42:14 · answer #1 · answered by ileenie 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think its possible that the girl and the bear were travelling in the same direction but keep in mind, the bear, if I remember correctly,( its been a few years) was somewhat fantasy didn't the hunter at the end who shot at it believe he saw something greater than a bear? something possesed maybe?
2006-09-25 08:00:49 · answer #2 · answered by cameron b 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think bears do that, though I am no expert. Remember, though, that the book is fiction. I think that the bear, or whatever it was that was following the little girl around was another of her hallucinations.
2006-09-25 01:37:39 · answer #3 · answered by Joy M 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋