What Would Jack Do About Today's Hot Topics?

The question today is how would Jack London react to the economic recession we are currently enduring? It has already been stated in this blog the political opinions of Jack London. Let me offer a refresher… Jack London was a socialist supporter, and in fact ran for office under the socialist ticket. The fact is, Jack London was in favor of the most popular stance on an issue. For example, the hot topics of our day are illegal immigration, economic recession, gays in the military, etc. I could infer that since Jack London was from San Francisco, California that he would be liberal in his political ideals. The reason for this, obviously, is the simple fact that the major political views of the residents of San Francisco leans to the left as much or more than any city in the United States. Let me just say to be clear that this is in no way meant to be good or bad. I am objectively attempting to make observations and report my findings based on information known about Jack London.  Jack London would be a controversial political figure if he were alive today. His far-reaching ideals would put him in the fore-front of the political realm. It would be very interesting to see what ideas Jack London would take from today’s society. Jack London, although controversial and a bit of a political flip-flop, would have had an arsenal of hot issues to write about in today’s time. The world will never know, but it sure is fun to imagine.

Stasz, Clarice. "Jack [John Griffith] London." Jack London. Dr. Clarice Stasz, 19 AUG 2001.       Web. 24 Oct 2010. <http://london.sonoma.edu/jackbio.html>.

Literary Analysis – “To Build a Fire”

 

Jack London’s works are well known through out the world of academia. One of his most notable works is “To Build a Fire”. After researching other literary analysis I found that there was more than one version of “To Build a Fire”. This intrigues me enough to base my literary analysis on the major differences between the two stories and then take a stab at why London changed the first story will start with a brief bit of history. The first notable fact that will be discussed in greater detail is that the second story was much more brutal and harsh. The first version of the story has much less consequence for the main character. Now we have established that there is a difference between the two stories we can move on to one of the most intriguing parts of the whole saga that is “To Build a Fire”: The second version of the story was published first on May 29, 1902. Yes, you read that correctly. The second, more brutal, version was published first in the Youth’s Companion in August, 1908. The first version, which was more youth friendly, was published for the adult audience in The Century Magazine in 1908 (Stasz). So confuse you more let’s recap these facts: the first version was less brutal and better for children, but was published second in an adult magazine; the second version which was much more brutal was published first in a childrens magazine. One can only hypothesize why London would do such a thing. Was this chain of events intentional, or did was it just an odd coincidence? Personally, I think London knew exactly what he was doing and I think he liked to stir up public opinion. You can decide for yourself.  

Now that the time and order sequence has been established let’s dive into the major differences of the two works. The best way to do this is to summarize the story as one work pointing out the differences in order, as they happen. The first notable difference is the fact that the main character was given a name in the first story, but not the second. The characters name was Tom Vincent. To give a character a name in a story is a way for the reader to identify with him and get to know him better. That fact that the character does not have a name in the second story gives a cold detachment from the reader. The second story has the unnamed character set out with a half-wild dog, while in the first story Tom Vincent is alone. In both stories the first major event is the character soaking his feet and starting a fire. However, Tom lets he fire burn out before starting a new one and the unnamed character, as luck would have it, had snow fall on, and extinguish, his fire (Enotes.com). Once the fires in both stories go out the protagonist fails to light another fire immediately. In the first story Tom remembers a hunting camp close by, but is devastated to find the camp abandoned. Then Tom is able to build another fire and warm himself. Ultimately, this saves his life and he “limps” back to his camp and is humbled by the experience of nature. On the contrary, one of the most major differences between the stories is the ending. We pick up the tale of the second story after the falling snow puts out the fire and unnamed character is unable to start his new fire. The character is desperate for warmth and considers killing his half-wild dog in order to use the dog for warmth.  The unnamed character is unable to kill the dog. The man realizes his fate and runs bare foot and frozen until he falls into the snow and succumbs to his fate. The second story is much more brutal and portrays London’s naturalistic style. In both stories the protagonist struggles to build a fire to stay alive. The fire is the one constant element in both stories (Young). The common struggle is the ever present theme throughout London’s work: man vs. nature.

Citation:

Stasz, Clarice. "Jack [John Griffith] London." Jack London. Dr. Clarice Stasz, 19 AUG 2001.       Web. 24 Oct 2010. <http://london.sonoma.edu/jackbio.html

"Short Story Criticism l To Build a Fire, Jack London - Introduction." Enotes.com. Enotes.com Inc., 21 NOV 2010. Web. 21 Nov 2010. <http://www.enotes.com/short-story-criticism/build-fire-jack-london/introduction?print=1>.

Young, Charles. ""To Build a Fire" Analysis." Associated Content. Yahoo!, 03 JUN 2010. Web. 21 Nov 2010. <http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5446582/to_build_a_fire_analysis.html>.

The Naturalist Movement

Today we are going to look at the movement associated with Jack London’s writing. London helped start the literary revolution of Naturalism. Even though Jack London was one of the most notable naturalist writers we will look at the Naturalist movement as a whole. The literary Naturalist movement can be best described as “a type of literature that attempts to apply scientific principles of objectivity and detachment to its study of human beings” (New World Encyclopedia). This movement intentionally differed from other movements around the same era such as the Romantic or Realist movements. These movements focused on the feelings and emotions of human beings whereas the Naturalist movement focused on the “scientific principles of objectivity and detachment to its study of human beings” (Campbell). Naturalist writers applied science to their work; therefore most often the scientific method was used in their writing. Authors would study cultures that are governed by human instinct: this study would give the writer an idea of how humans react to their surroundings. The naturalist movement is devoid of feeling or human emotion. Some of the key themes were survival, determinism, violence, and taboo (NWE). It is truly a study in the scientific realm. Although my blog is for Jack London; I would be doing the topic a great disservice if I did not mention Stephen Crane. Crane was most prominent Naturalistic writers of the movement. Crane’s book Maggie: A Girl Of The Streets (1893) was heavily sexual and brutal. The book had to be privately printed at first, but eventually was hailed as the first work of the Naturalistic movement. Crane is also credited with the first American War novel in The Red Badge of Courage. Other notable authors of the Naturalist movement are Abraham Cahan, Ellen Glasgow, and David Graham Phillips (Davies). I will leave readers with a poem written by Stephen Crane which helps describes the detached emotionless character of the Naturalist movement.

A man said to the universe: 
"Sir, I exist!" 
"However," replied the universe, 
"The fact has not created in me 
A sense of obligation." --Stephen Crane (1894, 1899)



Citation:

Davies, Jude. "American Naturalism". The Literary Encyclopedia. First published 05 November 2001
[http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?rec=true&UID= 764, accessed 07 November 2010.]

Campbell, Donna M. "Naturalism in American Literature." Washington State University, 27 Jul 2010. Web. 7 Nov 2010. <http://www.wsu.edu/~campbelld/amlit/natural.htm>. 

"Naturalism (literature)." New World Encyclopedia. Paragon House Publishers, 2008. Web. <http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Naturalism_%28literature%29>.

The Life of Jack London

Jack London was born John Griffith London to Flora Wellman. There is only speculation as to who his father was. Flora was ill and jack was raised throughout his infancy by a former slave Virginia Prentiss. In 1876, Flora married John London, a civil war veteran. The family settled in Oakland, where Jack went to grade school. The name Jack was adopted as he began to look for work as an adolescent. Jack had numerous jobs but return to finish school at age 19. He found socialism upon returning to school and was known as the "Boy Socialist of Oakland at the street corner oratory". Jack even ran, although unsuccessfully, for mayor on the socialist ticket.

Jack decided to become a writer because the prospect of working in a factory for the rest of his life seemed bleak.  Jack spent the winter of 1897 in the Yukon which provided him with his naturalist style that we know today. Jack went to write on of his most well known works, The Call of the Wild (1903). Jack then took a two year voyage across the Pacific which gave him material for more writing. Jack broke through the "taboo" barrier of writing about leprosy. He was also instrumental is popularizing Hawaii as a tourist spot.

Jack was one of the most publicized figures in his day. He used this fame to spotlight a few of his political views such as socialism, women's suffrage, and prohibition. However, Jack London was an inconsistent man in his views. He publicly accepted Social Darwinism, yet he claimed the "inevitable white man"(Stasz) would destroy the rich cultures of various native groups he had encountered through his travels. He openly supported women's suffrage, and created some of the most strong female characters known in American fiction, yet he was controlling and "patriarchal" over is wives and two daughters. He was an avid socialist, but he had a strong bond with his own capitalistic success. All of these issues where Jack London contradicts himself are why he remains such an interesting figure today.

Jack London was troubled by several physical ailments throughout his thirties. Jack developed a kidney disease, and died of a renal failure on November 22, 1916 at his ranch in California. Jack’s writings have been translated into several dozen languages and are more widely read around the world than in his home country. Jack's work has given way to several studies of the contradictory nature of the American writer. His work also gave us an idea as to the "key movements and ideas prominent during the Progressive era." Jack London was portrayed as a womanizer, and an alcoholic, however "recent scholarship based upon firsthand documents challenge this caricature"(Stasz).

Citation:

Stasz, Clarice. "Jack [John Griffith] London." Jack London. Dr. Clarice Stasz, 19 AUG 2001.       Web. 24 Oct 2010. <http://london.sonoma.edu/jackbio.html>.