If the Horse was old and decrepit then the Boy would have to make the decision to send the Horse away. In the long term this would benefit the Horse because he would be in pain no more and the Boy would know it would be for the best, but in the short term keeping the Horse would be more beneficial to the Boy because he would be able to make more memories until the Horse was gone.
The Boy does not think that the Horse will be happy in the long term if he is sent to the Girl. Maybe in the short term the Horse will experience some euphoria as well as the Girl but the Boy will sit alone sending away Strangers as they come to see the Horse, but he will not be there. For long term happiness the Boy sees the Horse experiencing this irrelevant amount of happiness, that could be equalled by staying with the Boy, as something that would not be beneficial to the Horses life over time, it will be forgotten. Who knows, when the Girl has no use of the Horse who's to say he will come back? Who's to say the Horse and his Boy will be the same together again? Who's to say Strangers will want to ride the Horse upon his return to the yard?
The Boy believes that for the greatest amount of happiness the Horse and his Boy should not part, but he also feels that the Horse deserves a different kind of happiness, his life needs a change after all these years. Who's to say the Girl will tire over time?
Then he should keep the horse and find other ways to make changes for it.
ReplyDeleteGo to different places.
Have different riders.
Maybe the horse needs a female companion ?
I wish you could understand the irony of what you just said.
ReplyDeleteSo do I.
ReplyDeleteI wish you would explain...but I get the whole writing for you not us, so I'll just keep on making ironic presumptions.