The quote that most benefited my understanding of the ambiguity of In the House from our reading of Bruce Kawin’s essay was, “Science fiction is open to the potential value of the inhuman: one can learn from it, take a trip with it (Close Encounters), include it in larger sense of what is. Horror is fascinated by transmutations between human and inhuman (wolfmen, etc.), but the human characteristics decisively mandate destruction.” We see this same interaction with this book as the humans transform into bears or bears transform of act as destructive humans. We take an adventure with ourselves into idea that our most horrific experiences are a reality of the natural world and progression of time. I also found it interesting he highlights the idea that worst actions committed are committed by man. As we see the narrator of the story (if he is human) makes the most atrocious decisions. But his transformation into bear becomes and reveals a docile character brooding in his past. As for the Foundling (a bear) it remains a docile character. The bear is wrecked, the female bear has its child taken away. Our previous inclination is that humans in this story are the decent characters. However, I have come to the conclusion with the help of Bruce’s essay that we identified with human and projected our own understanding of the real world on the “human’s” of this book. As we become adjusted to the this world we slowly find, to our horror, that we were wrong. And the answers maybe found in the natural realms of this story.