1. Describe the role of time in this story.  Why does time matter?
2. Compare and contrast the narrator with the dog.  Is one character wiser than the other?  How so?
3. The last paragraph in this story always bothers me because the dog continues along the trail.  Why is this move so significant?  Make sure that you reread the last paragraph.  Hopefully, you will begin to see why it is such an odd ending. 
4. The opening paragraph gives away much of the story.  How so?

      Instinct over intellect:  Though the man is hardly an "intellectual," he exercises intellectual properties more than instinctive ones. He uses complicated tools (matches) to build a fire; he understand how cold it is through temperature readings; he identifies where he is (Henderson Creek, the Yukon) through language on a map. The dog, on the other hand, is pure instinct. It remains warm through its fur coat or by burrowing into the snow; it has an innate understanding of the cold and its dangers; it could not point out its location on a map, but it knows by scent where to find the nearby camp with men. In the Yukon, instinct is far superior to intellect.

Accountability and Responsibility:

A curious revision occurs when London writes that the man's second accident with the snow was his "own fault or, rather, his mistake." While both are damning words, "fault" is much more serious; it implies an underlying moral responsibility and role in future consequences, while "mistake" suggests an isolated incident outside of one's control. Likewise, the man believes his first accident is bad "luck," another word that connotes lack of free will. "Accident," too, insinuates an unforeseen or unanticipated event out of one's power.