Death of a Pig (1948)
I have to say I really don&#x27;t understand this story.  For those of you who don&#x27;t want to read, it&#x27;s a 1948 story about a farmer (presumably E.B. White?) who tries to save his pig before slaughter that has fallen sick and dies (from erysipelas presumably?).<p>The narrator seems to have a lot of investment in the pig&#x27;s health:<p><pre><code>    The pig&#x27;s lot and mine were inextricably bound now,
    as though the rubber tube were the silver cord. From 
    then until the time of his death I held the pig
    steadily in the bowl of my mind; the task of trying
    to deliver him from his misery became a strong obsession.
    His suffering soon became the embodiment of all earthly
    wretchedness.
</code></pre>
The ending few sentences concludes with<p><pre><code>    I have written this account in penitence and in grief,
    as a man who failed to raise his pig, and to explain
    my deviation from the classic course of so many raised
    pigs. The grave in the woods is unmarked, but Fred can
    direct the mourner to it unerringly and with immense
    good will, and I know he and I shall often revisit it,
    singly and together, in seasons of reflection and
    despair, on flagless memorial days of our own choosing.
</code></pre>
On a superficial reading, there might be a confusion as to the empathy of the narrator, but the narrator clearly understands what the conclusion of a healthy pig is:<p><pre><code>    I had assumed that there could be nothing much wrong
    with a pig during the months it was being groomed for
    murder; my confidence in the essential health and
    endurance of pigs had been strong and deep, particularly
    in the health of pigs that belonged to me and that were
    part of my proud scheme.
</code></pre>
So it&#x27;s understood that in the best of cases, the pig is being cared for so that it can be murdered for food.<p>Is the sense of loss one of not conforming to a rigid script that society sets out?  Is it because the narrator has a genuine sense of empathy but just ignores the fact that they&#x27;ll slaughter and eat the thing they have empathy for?  Or is it a statement that we are all eventually bound for a soulless premeditated murder and the only thing we can hope for is a comfortable prison before the time comes?<p>Or am I just expecting too much introspection from someone who hasn&#x27;t examined their own motives and actions?