Open Boat (Crane) and To Build a Fire (London) revolve around the common theme of naturalism, which implies philosophical action. Both stories depict the inferiority of humans to nature. Both Crane and London try to assert that man does not have free will and is entirely under the control of nature. The men in both stories have a similar fate since both are found trapped in natural forces way beyond their control.
Similar to the theme of natural forces, in The Open Boat, Crane describes the plight of four men who have been shipwrecked and are isolated on the ocean in a tiny dinghy. The fate of these men has been decided by the roaring seas, as a force of nature they cant circumvent. The central theme in The Open Boat is the struggle for survival against extreme natural forces.
Londons To Build a Fire shows the helplessness of a man facing adversely cold conditions. It is absolutely impossible for him to change his fate, and he is left with no option but to try and endure the harsh realities of nature. Building a fire is the mans main goal, for it provides him with the hope of life and survival. However, after building a fire, the man and his dog bask in its momentary pleasure when they find that for a moment the cold of space was outwitted, not realizing that the flames would soon wear out and give way to the frigidly cold conditions.
Soon the fire dies down, bringing him closer to death. His hopes for life are revised with the lighting of the second fire, which promises him life with every dancing flame . Once again, this is short-lived as the fire ends with the falling of snow from a tree, ending not only his hope for life but his life.
Nowadays, literary critics are being well aware of the fact that it was namely throughout the course of late 19th and early 20th centuries, that the naturalist motifs in European and American literature have come to their all-times-high prominence.
In its turn, this can be explained by the fact that, during the course of this historical period, more and more writers have been realizing that Darwins evolutionary theory, concerned with the survival of the fittest, correlates perfectly well with the essence of human societies inner dynamics.
As it was noted by Cuddy and Roche (2003): [In early 20th century] The notion of the survival of the fittest in relation to inherited traits and response to environmental factors became fertile conceptual ground for literary analysis of human nature and society (22).
The validity of such an idea can be well explored in regards to the literary legacy of one of Americas greatest writers Jack London, as the extreme naturalism of many of his short stories and novels conveys a clearly defined philosophical message only the objectively existing laws of nature, to which people are being subjected as much as plants and animals, which should be thought of as the basis of true ethics.
According to McClintock (1970): Since, for London, science had dislodged idealistic concepts of man, his temperament insisted that affirmations of the human condition, too, have a scientifically justifiable rationale (336).
Therefore, it comes as no surprise that in literary works of Jack London, naturalist motifs do not only serve the purpose of increasing the extent of plots emotional appeal, but they are also being expected to enlighten readers on the true essence of their existential mode. In this paper, we will aim to substantiate the validly of an earlier articulated thesis at length, while exploring the emanations of literary naturalism in Londons short story To Build a Fire and in the novel The Call of the Wild.
Analytical part
The close reading of Londons Northern short stories and novels, points out to the fact that naturalistic themes and motifs, contained in them, are being utilized not only for the purpose of exposing a particular ease, with which a formerly civilized individual can be reduced to a primeval savage, while facing the elements, but also for the purpose of revealing a variety of Western ethical conventions conceptually fallacious, since they do not correspond to the essence of their carriers physiological functioning.
As Rossetti (2006) had put it: Naturalism rebukes the primitive for his or her debasement. At the same time, however, it necessarily posits a privileged class and confirms that classs elite status (5).
The soundness of this suggestion can be explored within the context of a following quote from To Build a Fire: As he [traveler] turned to go on, he spat speculatively. There was a sharp, explosive crackle that startled him. He spat again. And again, in the air, before it could fall to the snow, the spittle crackled (The World of Jack London). Apparently, the author had made a deliberate point in drawing readers attention to purely physiological process of spitting.
Nevertheless, given storys overall context, the fact that the traveler has been spitting rather excessively, does not degrade him in readers eyes, as this context confirms the validity of Londons conviction that whatever is natural, cannot be referred to as immoral or anti-aesthetic, by definition.
In its turn, this explains why the apparent distastefulness of Londons preoccupation with expounding upon utterly graphic aspects of human existence, clearly visible in this particular story, did not result in lessening the extent of storys literary appeal.
The same can be said about the effects of utilization of naturalist motifs in Londons novel The Call of the Wild, where author had gone a great length while describing physical violences mechanical subtleties with great precision.
For example, in the scene where Buck receives his first submission beating, London appears to have deliberately strived to produce a heavy blow onto readers sense of aesthetic appropriateness: The man, shifting the club from right to left, coolly caught him [Buck] by the under jaw, at the same time wrenching downward and backward.
Buck described a complete circle in the air, and half of another, then crashed to the ground on his head and chest (11). It is needless to mention, of course, that the way, in which London had gone about describing the scene of Bucks beating, can be best referred to as utterly graphic.
And yet, given the fact that London had never made a point in treating the subject of violence as thing in itself, while aiming to simply entertain intellectually marginalized readers, we cannot be referring to this particular scenes clearly defined naturalism as being distasteful, in semantic sense of this word.
The earlier suggestion helps us to realize the essence of Londons literary talent. Apparently, unlike what it used to be the case with many of his writing contemporaries; he was not only able to benefit from tackling the issue of violence in intellectually honest manner, but also to show that, under no circumstances, should emanations of physical violence be regarded as ethically inappropriate, by definition, because in the natural environment, they do provide an additional momentum to the process living organisms becoming ever-more complex hence, violences high morality.[1]
In its turn, this explains the phenomenon of why it were authors particularly naturalistic literary pieces that appealed to intellectually sophisticate readers the most whatever the ironic it might sound.
In his article, Nash (1966) states: His [Londons] readers had little difficulty seeing the moral for their own lives of Bucks reversion to the primitive. Significantly, Londons White Fang (1906), in which a wolf becomes a family dog, never enjoyed the popularity of The Call of the Wild (530). Thus, it will not be much of an exaggeration, on our part, to suggest that it is due to London naturalisms strongly defined philosophical sounding that even today; most readers consider it contextually appropriate.
Another reason why it is being the case is that London often exposes naturalistic themes and motifs in conjunction with his characters being on a great mission. For example, even though authors description of travelers physical appearance in To Build a Fire, implies his lessened ability to conform to the conventions of Western civilized living: The mans red beard and mustache were likewise frosted&
Also, the man was chewing tobacco, and the muzzle of ice held his lips so rigidly that he was unable to clear his chin when he expelled the juice (The World of Jack London), it nevertheless does not imply his lessened ability to act as such livings actual agent. The reason for this is simple in To Build a Fire, the character of a traveler never loses its cool, right to the very end. In its turn, this subtly confirms the sheer objectiveness of a so-called White mans burden notion.
It is namely the fact that White peoples exposal to the hostile environment does not usually undermine their ability to face lifes challenges in a rational manner, which created objective preconditions for them to be given the mission of spreading the light of civilization throughout the world.[2] This is exactly the reason why in To Built a Fire, authors utilization of naturalistic motifs invokes perceptional stoicism in readers.
As Gurian (1966) had rightly noted: Jack Londons men fight, as heroes, against surrounding force& London depicts protagonists fighting to win in a causative naturalist universe (112). By naturalistically juxtaposing the character of traveler against the hostile forces of nature, London provides readers with the insight onto Faustian workings of White peoples psyche.
There can be very little doubt as to the fact that the strongly defined naturalism of many scenes in The Call of the Wild, serves essentially the same purpose. Given the fact that in this novel, dogs are being endowed with essentially human psychological traits, it comes as not a particular surprise that, while being exposed to the scenes of bloody rivalry between Buck and Spitz, readers gain a better understanding of what accounts for the essence of dynamics, within just about any human society.
Apparently, London believed that the representatives of Homo Sapiens specie are nothing but primates, with the layer of their civilizational sophistication being only skin-deep.[3] Just as it is being the case with apes, people think of ensuring the propagation of their genes (through sexual mating) and of gaining a dominant position within social hierarchy, as such that represent their foremost priorities in life.
Therefore, the following naturalistic scene, where Buck and Spitz fight to the death, while trying to ensure their dominance, within the pack, can be best referred to as perfectly connotative of how people go about gaining social prominence, within a society to which they happened to belong: In vain Buck strove to sink his teeth in the neck of the big white dog.
Wherever his fangs struck for the softer flesh, they were countered by the fangs of Spitz. Fang clashed fang, and lips were cut and bleeding, but Buck could not penetrate his enemys guard (35).
Apparently, throughout the course of his life, London never ceased being aware of a simple fact that, on this earth, there is simply no enough place under the sun for all only the smartest and the strongest enjoy dialectically predetermined existential superiority. This is exactly the reason why there are clearly defined Social-Darwinist[4] undertones to naturalist themes and motifs, contained in both: The Call of the Wild and To Build a Fire.
Nevertheless, it would be wrong to think that these motifs are being essentially nihilistic. According to Auerbach (1995), the utterly naturalist way in which Londons characters address lifes challenges, is itself can be thought as the source of a new morality, based upon peoples recognition of natural laws full objectivity: This [Darwinian] struggle& demands the dominance of one man over another; hence the origins of a master/slave dialectic& by working, [slave] becomes master over nature, and in doing so frees himself from nature as well as from himself (59).
What it means that it is utterly inappropriate to refer to Londons literary naturalism as an indication of the fact that he thought of primitiveness and realness as basically synonymous concepts.
Quite on the contrary as the reading of The Call of the Wild and To Build a Fire points out to, characters exposal to naturalistically defined primitivism, on the part of nature itself (in the short story) and on the part of gold-seeking brutes and their dogs (in the novel), cannot be discussed outside of how it helped these characters to realize the sheer extent of their perceptional nobleness.
Conclusion
We believe that the line of argumentation, deployed throughout papers analytical part, confirms the validity of an initial thesis that the presence of naturalist motifs and themes in Londons The Call of the Wild and To Build a Fire, should be thought of as having philosophical rather than purely instrumental purpose.
While never ceasing to treat readers in intellectually honest manner, sublimated in his tendency to provide graphically detailed accounts of characters struggle with the hostile environment and with viciously-minded competitors for the same environmental niche; London strived to promote an idea that it is only those capable of understanding the full spectrum of survival of the fittest concepts implications, who deserve to remain on the leading edge of biological evolution.
Given the fact that, due to being subjected to ideological oppression of political correctness, more and more men in Western countries now grow exceedingly feminized, it is very likely that in the future, Londons literary naturalism is going to be increasingly referred to as such that contains clues as to very essence of masculine virtuousness.
References
Auerbach, Jonathan Congested Mails: Buck and Jacks Call . American Literature 67.1 (1995): 51-76.
Carroll, Joseph. Literary Darwinism: Evolution, Human Nature, and Literature. New York: Routledge, 2004.
Cuddy, Lois & Roche, Claire. Evolution and Eugenics in American Literature and Culture, 1880-1940: Essays on Ideological Conflict and Complicity. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 2003.
Gurian, Jay The Romantic Necessity in Literary Naturalism: Jack London . American Literature 38.1 (1966): 112-120.
Labor, Earle Jack Londons Symbolic Wilderness: Four Versions . Nineteenth-Century Fiction 17.2 (1962): 149-161.
London, Jack The Call of the Wild . Ibiblio. The Publics Library and Digital Archive. 2011. Web.
London, Jack To Build a Fire . The World of Jack London. 2011. Web.
McClintock, James Jack Londons Use of Carl Jungs Psychology of the Unconscious . American Literature 42.3 (1970): 336-347.
Mills, Gordon Jack Londons Quest for Salvation . American Quarterly 7.1 (1955): 3-14.
Nash, Roderick The American Cult of the Primitive . American Quarterly 18.3 (1966): 517-537.
Rossetti, Gina. Imagining the Primitive in Naturalist and Modernist Literature. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 2006.
Seitler, Dana. Atavistic Tendencies: the Culture of Science in American Modernity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008.
Footnotes
Gordon Mills. Jack Londons Quest for Salvation . American Quarterly 7.1 (1955),8.
Earle Labor Jack Londons Symbolic Wilderness: Four Versions . Nineteenth-Century Fiction 17.2 (1962), 153.
Dana Seitler. Atavistic Tendencies: the Culture of Science in American Modernity. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008), 221.
Joseph Carroll. Literary Darwinism: Evolution, Human Nature, and Literature. (New York: Routledge, 2004), 117.
Jack London, through his short story, To Build a Fire, narrates the saga of a lone man who dares the extreme cold conditions of Klondike territory, and undertakes a journey through the wilderness to meet his friends at the base camp located nine miles away. As the story unfolds, the mans journey progresses through an extremely hostile terrain where he confronts the savage treachery of nature. Calamities befall him one after another, and numbed by cold, he tries to build a fire but fails in all his attempts. Again, in the last bid to save his life, he runs hard but fumbles and falls. Finally, he realizes that he cannot withstand the fury of nature, slumps down beneath a tree, and honorably accepts his death. Through the tragedy portrayed in this story, London postulates the idea that mans doom originates from his own folly as humans often live in an idealistic world without recognizing the realities, which becomes evident from various episodes in the story.
In the beginning, when the man plans his journey, the old-timer at Sulfur Creek warns him that he should not travel alone. The old man has a clear understanding of the terrain and the climate condition there, but the protagonist is only a stranger to the area and he doesnt really appreciate the implications of the journey under weather conditions of fifty degrees below freezing point. This signifies the fact that the man is just cherishing an idea about the journey and he sees it as a glorified achievement to pursue it and reach his friends. On the other hand, the old-timer who knows the terrain well and understands in a realistic context what it means to travel alone in such a climate. London emphasizes this aspect of the lone mans character when he writes, The trouble with him was that he was without imagination. He was quick and alert in the things of life, but only in the things, and not in the significances. (London).
To further accentuate the mans folly, the author contrasts his character against the animal and the readers get the full impact from the lines, But the brute had its instinct. It experienced a vague but menacing apprehension that subdued it and made it slink along at the mans heels, and that made it question eagerly every unwonted movement of the man as if expecting him to go into camp or to seek shelter somewhere and build a fire. (London). The writer thus stresses the fact that the animal, though inferior in intelligence, appreciates the savagery of nature by its instincts whereas the man fails to recognize it despite his gift of knowledge, which the animal lacks.
The mans fallacy of not appreciating the realities again becomes evident in the fact that he decides to build the fire under the spruce tree, instead of building it in the open. (London). The tree has been carrying the weight of snow on its boughs. (London). The man, who is thoughtless, has been pulling twigs from the tree, to build his fire, and Each time he had pulled a twig he had communicated a slight agitation to the tree-an imperceptible agitation, so far as he was concerned, but an agitation sufficient to bring about the disaster. (London). Thus, the burning fire gets blotted out, exposing the man again to the fierceness of the winter. Had he remained apprehensive of the consequences of his action, he would have built the fire in the open. Thus, through this episode, London once again establishes the fact that it is human folly that ultimately brings disaster upon them.
Another factor of human folly that London highlights in the story is mans selfishness and his lack of love and sympathy to other animals that have an equal right to live on the earth. The man takes the dog on the journey not because he treats the animal as a companion; instead he wants it to carry the burden. The author makes this point very conspicuous when he explains that there was no keen intimacy between the dog and the man. The one was the toiling slave of the other, and the only caresses it had ever received were the caresses of the whip-lash and of harsh and menacing throat-sounds that threatened the whip-lash. So the dog made no effort to communicate its apprehension to the man. This strikes home a concept that if the man has been fair in his treatment of the animal, perhaps it would have alerted him of the dangers that are lurking in the wilderness. In yet another episode in the story, the author illustrates the cruel and selfish design of humans when he refers to the man entertaining thoughts about the dogs belly and dipping his hands in its warm blood to remove the numbness in his hands. As the man makes the move, the dog senses his intentions by its instincts and backs away to safety. Thus, throughout the story a reader encounters well-illustrated examples of human folly which become the reason for their own doom.
Writers use several literary devices for putting their ideas across to the readers. As discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, London achieves his objective of implying that the errors and misjudgments humans make finally bring doom upon them, through various episodes in the story that clearly illustrate the lack of understanding of the realities by the man. On the other hand, the dog, though an inferior creature that is endowed with lesser faculties of intelligence and wisdom, fully realizes matters that are relevant to its existence, by sheer instincts that nature has blessed it with. Thus, by contrasting the main character of the story with a dog, London successfully strikes home the point that the human fallacy of underestimating the realities of life and living in idealistic pursuits often lands them in trouble.
Naturalism was an offshoot of determinism and Darwinism. These schools of thought held that man had minimal control over his fate because the environment shaped his life. The Open Boat and To Build a Fire epitomize this literary movement. Not only do the writers use practical and succinct language that is typical of this school, but they also place greater emphasis on processes over people. This approach was in keeping with their reverence for neutrality.
How the two narratives exemplify naturalism
Naturalists often make conservative use of language in their narrations and these two books are no exception. These authors detached themselves from their characters as well as the human situations. The Open Boat describes the four mens adventures with a great degree of temperance. The author had opportunities to exaggerate their accomplishments as well as their failures, but he did not.
The desperate nature of the characters is consistent with their dreary settings, so every stylistic choice matches developments in the story. One should also note that only one of the characters in the story has a name Billie. This level of detachment testifies to the realism that naturalists liked. Similarly, the writing in To Build a Fire was objective and concise. London stays away from the emotions and insecurities of his protagonist.
Nothing sets him apart as a special individual. In fact, the hard language in the narration and the twists and turns of the story make the man seem like a sideshow. The authors language is objective and factual. For instance, he talks about the number of matches that the man used and why ice froze on his beard (London 36).
This stylistic choice was in tandem with his naturalist thought. He wanted to furnish the audience with objective information such that they can competently assess the environment. Naturalism also explains why London did not name his central character. Doing so would have detracted readers from the subject matter.
As the name implies, naturalism was a school of thought that focused on nature. It dwelt on what is rather than what should be. Therefore, when pioneers of the intellectual school wrote about something, they gave precedence to the environment rather than the people in them.
For instance in To Build a Fire, readers can find a lot of information about nature. London talks about springs, creeks, fires, snow and how each of these natural processes can change and affect the elements surrounding them. In the book, one understands the repercussions of exposing ones cheeks to extremely cold weather.
Likewise, the same description of all things natural can be found in The Open Boat. Most of the discussions in the piece dwell on how the sea operates; its waves and tides can change dramatically and thus affect those who are standing on its way. At the beginning of the story, the sea seemed like a merciless monster that the men personified.
However, towards the end of the story, they soon realize that the sea is a natural object (Crane 14). It has no intentions and does not inflict deliberate harm. Crane wanted to prove that nature is what is. Man is the one that gets too preoccupied with what it should be.
Naturalists ascribed to Darwinian and determinist thought. Darwin led the determinist school by demonstrating how evolution occurred. The scholar affirmed that the environment shapes organisms over extremely long periods of time. It caused them to develop different physical characteristics (mutate) from those of organisms within the same species. In subsequent times, groups that had favorable traits survived while the ones with unfavorable ones died.
Determinism proved that man was helpless against his environment. His free will had little to do with what occurred to him (Sorrentino 104). These themes are present in both narrations. In The Open Boat, the waves are frequently changing; the men have little control over these waves even after spending a substantial amount of time at sea. Man can do little to change the forces of nature. Therefore, he must accept this condition and only focus on reacting to what nature presents.
Naturalists believed in the insignificance of free will. Likewise, the author of To Build a Fire, wanted to show how even intellectualism could not save many from nature. The man had a map and was set on hunting for gold. However, he later had to abandon these ambitions because of the harsh weather.
The dog had a higher chance of survival than the man because it understood its place in the natural world. It reacted to its environment and thus outlived the man. However, the protagonist did not respect the power of the natural world and thus subjected himself to danger. The deterministic environment altered his goals and thus triumphed over his free will.
Many naturalists acknowledge the determinism of the environment, but they do not believe in its divinity. Nature was neither against or for man; it was simply present. Therefore, one should not expect moral judgment from nature as this will not materialize (Bender 92).
London does not blame the man for the fall in the snow, and neither does he blame the snow. If one must ascribe moral responsibility on a party, then it should be placed on man since he can predict the consequences of his actions. Nature is also indifferent to man in The Open Boat.
The men initially blame the sea for their predicaments. In one occasion, they claim that the sea is hissing and snarling. However, the narrator later learns that nature was not against them when one large wave carries him to shore. One can thus deduce that nature is not a partisan party if it can rescue and cause harm at the same time.
Adherents of the naturalism movement favored members of the lower classes. Alternatively, their characters became classless in the wake of environmental forces. In To Build a Fire, the protagonist is probably one such character because he leaves his home for a dangerous expedition, in hostile weather, so as to hunt for gold (London 8). Conversely Open Boat has an oiler, a correspondent, a cook as well as a captain. None of these titles matter in the grueling and unpredictable sea; all that counts is their survival.
Conclusion
Naturalists strongly espoused neutrality. This is evident in their succinct and factual language as well as their focus on plot rather than the people in their narrations. The authors under analysis show that mans free will is irrelevant, and even his intellectualism cannot fight nature. Conversely, London and Crane acknowledge the impartiality of nature and its inability to wield moral judgment over man.
Works Cited
Bender, Bert. Sea-Brothers: The Tradition of American Sea Fiction from Moby-Dick to the Present. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990. Print.
Environmentalists have long theorized and contemplated many different methods to determine the effects of humanitys innovative nature on the natural environment. However, there is a different view of nature and the story by Jack London named To Build A Fire is a theme that manifests the opposite notion. Here we find man and nature in a situation where nature becomes a deadly antagonist.
Nature and Man
The theme of the story is the conflict between man and nature. This conflict includes the study of how humanity and the environment interact and what that can do to both the human condition as well as the condition of the environment in which humanity would fail to survive. (Robertson, 28) However, the struggle is reflected all over the story. It starts with the line, Day had broken cold and gray, exceedingly cold and gray (London, 301). The repetition of the adjectives that dines the day indicates the seriousness and severely difficult situation and the challenges the parson is about face. This description is then emphasized by indicating, There was no sun nor hint of sun &and that was due to the absence of sun. (London, 301) Later, we find that the man is attempting to take help from nature in form of spruce trees and fire in order to counter nature. We find in the description that tangled in the underbrush about the trunks & dry, last-years grasses . (London, 306) This was another encounter between Man and nature. Here there was a possibility that the tree would provide him with firewood needed for the fire to keep him warm and dry in the midst of freezing cold. However, the possibility was diminished as there was thick layer of snow over the branches and that kept the fire from burning. It was evident that under such conditions the man would not survive in that below freezing temperature.
Dog
Though there is a character of a wolf dog, it can be stated that the dog is the link between man and nature or the manifestation of the achievement of the humankind. This is because; in the first place the humankind domesticated and tamed a wild and natural creature. However, at the end we find that the dog runs towards human settlement once the man dies to survive indicates that under such extreme condition a human being is alone in the mercy of the nature and all his accomplishments are of no help to him. A little longer it delayed, howling under the stars &where were the other food-providers and fire-providers. (London, 312) This is a situation where man and nature are rivals of each other on neutral ground and without any help. The link of the dog also indicates the vitality of the theme. It is mentioned, The dog sat facing him &snow and make no fire. (London, 312) The writer indicates that whatever the humankind has achieved is due to cunning strategy of bribery. The dog has been modulated from wolf in lure of easy food and shelter and the moment it is available the dog returns or withdraws help. (Cameron, 224) This is the most punishing sub-theme of the entire theme of struggle between man and nature.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it should be noted that the theme of the struggle between man and nature is a wonderful aesthetic approach. Nevertheless, to truly create something that gives off a strong aesthetic presence, one usually must feel some sort of emotional attachment to whatever it is writers are working on. Only then will one truly pour out everything from your heart and mind. (Lamb, 167) When one can accomplish this, one can create something with true aesthetic value with meaningful theme.
Works Cited
Cameron, Elaine. Making Sense of Nature. NY: Kogan Page Publishers, 2004.
Lamb, Davis. Cult to Culture: The Development of Civilization. Wellington: National Book Trust, 2004.
London, Jack. To Build A Fire . Richard Fay (ed) Stories and storytellers. Fourth Ed. Wellington: BLT, 2006. P. 301-312
Robertson, Ian. Society: A Brief Introduction. New York: Worth Publishers, Inc, 1989.
Jack London’s story, “To Build A Fire” is about a struggle of survival between man and nature, which happens through overconfidence and arrogance as opposed to experience and intelligence. These struggles arise through the man’s arrogance and overconfidence by ignoring the signs of nature. The man tries hard to meet his boys at the agreed location and time, but the thick ice makes his journey impossible. The man tries to overcome the challenges of his environment to survive, but nature proves to be more powerful than the man.
The central character in this story is the “man”, although we never learn his name. The man’s main goal is to reach the old camp to meet his boys (458). The man is a dynamic character, who believes that he can conquer anything. In the end he changes by confessing that he should have listened to the old timer, he also discovers that he isn’t just in danger of losing his fingers and toes, but that he is in danger of losing his life (470). The man did not realize how dangerous his actions would be, resulting in his ignorance that leads him to his death.
The supporting character in this story is the dog. The dog is static because he doesn’t change at all throughout the story. The dog is the only companion that the man had, but unlike the man the dog uses his instinct and good sense of smell to survive in the cold wilderness. This portrays when the dog goes to a nearby camp of men, where he could get warmth and food because it could not provide these items on his own (471).
The central conflict in the story is man versus self. The man conflicts with himself by remaining overly confident in himself and his unfamiliar surroundings. He doesn’t pay attention to the danger that he is facing, and attempts to overcome this danger by forcing nature to his will. Man versus self helps us understand the decisions the central character makes throughout the story, and gives us a better understanding as to why he is the way he is.
The supporting conflict in this story is man versus nature, by struggling to survive in the cold wilderness. This conflict is never resolved, resulting in the man’s death. His lack of supplies and food forces him to submit to the forces of nature. He regrets not listening to the old-timer’s advice (470). He is then overwhelmed by panic and tries to make his last attempt at survival, but he fails. At this point he accepts his death and tries to meet it with dignity. This conflict helps us better understand the central character and conflict, because by knowing of the man’s arrogance and cockiness, it is no surprise that in the end of the story he dies by not being more understanding of nature’s warning signs, proving the point that nature is more powerful than man.
The man came to terms with the fact that he was going to die. He was well aware that he made a mistake and his fight was over, but he did his best to survive. London explains how, “Well, he was bound to freeze anyway, and he might as well take it decently. With this new-found peace of mind came the first glimmerings of drowsiness. A good idea, he thought, to sleep off to death. It was like taking an anaesthetic. Freezing was not so bad as people thought. There were lots worse ways to die” (pg 328). The man is accepting his fate because he knew there was no way to escape death and decides to take it well instead of in a panic. He was aware that his actions led him to this point which is why he finally gave in. His obliviousness finally caught up to him. The man was the cause of his own death. If he made different survival decisions from the beginning, then he would have had a chance to survive. London says that, ‘There were no signs of a fire to be made… its eager yearning for the fire mastered it…’ (pg 329) when referring to the man’s dog. The dog knew that the man could no longer make a fire for the both of them. It knew the man lost his battle against nature, but the dog still had a chance to survive. The dog leaves the man once it realized he was not going to wake up. Unlike the man, the dog knew when it was time to leave.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the man in Jack London’s “To Build a Fire” was put up against nature and lost due to his obliviousness which caused a wide variety of actions and emotions throughout his journey. The man went from hopeful, to desperate and finally to acceptance. All the man really wanted was to get to his friends at a camp. The man was warned about the weather yet chose to do his own thing which cost him his life. He was oblivious to all of the warning signs until it was too late. The dog knew that it was dangerous to be out in the cold well before the man did. In a way, Jack London was trying to tell his audience to be aware of what is going on and know what someone is getting into. His character died because he was not fully prepared to be in the environment that he was attempting to travel in. The man was his own biggest enemy in London’s story.
On a bleak and dreary Yukon day, the man in Jack London’s “To Build a Fire”, embarks on a quest searching for gold. Although an old-timer advises the man to not venture out in such frigid cold, the man decides that he is well-equipped for his journey and can make it alone using only his dog and naturalist abilities. The man cannot seem to imagine the extreme possibilities of his adventures, and this inability causes him to overlook the sheer intensity of the below-zero temperatures. The man tries his best to see pools of water in the land, but he does not notice some of them and falls into one of these areas himself. He knows that he must build a fire if he wants to come out of his situation alive. The man scrambles for twigs and branches to make his fire and decides to build the fire under a tree so that the twigs are closer to him, and then he will not have to expel that much more energy. Building the fire under a tree causes melting snow from a branch to fall and extinguish his fire. As the man struggles to produce another fire, he is left to only a diminishing, freezing body to fend off the cold. The man was not fit for survival because of his arrogant demeanor in which he believes in his skills, extreme overconfidence in his abilities to survive in such harsh weather conditions, and his foolish independence in thinking he could do anything alone.
During the traveling on the Yukon trail, the man shows many signs of his arrogance towards the end of his life, as he remembers how truly arrogant he was. Just after the man broke through the ice and gets his feet wet, he decides to build a fire. As the man is freezing because of his blunder, he realizes his mistake: “The old-timer on Sulphur Creek told him about it in the previous fall and now he was appreciating the advice. Already all of the sensation had gone out of his feet” (20). Even after being told about the danger of this extreme cold from a wise old-timer, the man still thinks that knowing how to build a fire can save him. The man’s fire had just gone out, and he thinks that “Perhaps the old-timer on Sulphur Creek was right. If only he had a trail mate he would no longer be in any danger now. Well, it was time to build the fire over again, and this second time there must be no failure” (24). After all of these acts of insolence, the man still believes that he can recover. These mistakes caused by the man’s arrogance lead him into believing he can do anything became his ultimate demise, and the man never prepares and does not think that he should not venture on the trail alone.
Throughout the entirety of the story, the man portrays himself as a remarkably confident human being in the fact that he can do whatever he sets his mind to. The main purpose of the man’s journey is to see the boys, and he believes that he can make it to them in a remarkable time: “He was making four miles an hour, and he had calculated that he would arrive at the forks at half-past twelve. He decided to celebrate that event by eating his lunch there” (8). The man is excited about how well he is doing and expects to keep at the same pace because of this, he eats his lunch as a preemptive celebration. Towards the end of the man’s adventure, after he gets his feet wet, he needs to make a fire to dry them off and believes he does so successfully: “he had had the accident; he was alone; and he had saved himself” (21). The man is convinced that time and time again if the same situation arises so will the same solution. In fact, the man is so confident that immediately after this he cannot look past his ego and his fire is extinguished, but the man is still optimistic and expects him to save himself alone.
The man displays certain qualities of independence because he is constantly thinking that he can find a solution to any problem alone. This is emphasized when he states that “He remembered the advice of the old-timer on Sulphur Creek, and smiled. The old-timer had been very serious in laying down the law that no man must travel alone in the Klondike after fifty below” (21). This quote suggests that the man found it almost comical that someone must travel with a partner in order to survive, as shown by him smiling after recalling the old-timer’s advice. Immediately after this, the man says, “Those old-timers were rather womanish, some of them, he thought. All a man had to do was keep his head, and he was all right. Any man who was a man could travel alone” (21). The man mocks the old-timers and completely distrusts their advice. The man is so recklessly independent that his belief in himself causes him harm. This portrays the man as a complete fool for his independence, as later in the story he even recalls their advice and wishes he had listened.
Regarding the protagonist, I would definitely say that rather than portraying free will, he is completely under nature’s thumb, meaning that his every move is predetermined, destined if you will.
Throughout the story, as mentioned earlier, determinism of the man’s fate is portrayed through nature’s indifference, which she shows mercilessly in different ways.
For example, in the end, he desperately tries to start a fire and warm himself up, but no matter what he does or how hard he tries, a hidden innuendo states that one cannot avoid fate, and that man is completely submissive to the greater power – nature. And from a naturalistic point of view, we can see that the story follows several of ‘the naturalistic ideas’. For example, determinism over free will, the indifference of nature, instinct over intellect, characters in the lower class. However, there is one thing about this story that I think kind of clashes with naturalism, and that is his stubborn will of surviving. Wouldn’t a naturalist say that fighting is useless since fate is inevitable anyway?
As I mentioned earlier, throughout the story, the man struggles with nature’s ruthless destruction of the man’s poor attempts of survival. At the end of the story when the dog understands that the man is dead, he runs to ‘…where were the other food-providers and fire-providers.’ When the man died, we can see that he had no control of his life whatsoever. He tried so many things to stay alive, but in reality he had no chance, he was only delaying his impending the inevitable, as mentioned earlier.
In this story, it is quite clear that instinct is the superiority. The man uses his flawed intellect, which makes him an underdog. The dog, however, uses his instincts, and that may be one of the major reasons as to how he managed to survive the bone-shattering weather.
Young Goodman Brown by Nathaniel Hawthorne and Jack London’s To Build a Fire are two stories that are similar in the way that both men embark on a journey into the unknown and face a threat to themselves within it. The two narratives have like features and similarities in their plots, settings, and themes. These can however be also used to show the two tales differences. Young Goodman Brown is less effective at showing the flawed and self-destructive nature of humans compared to To Build a Fire because it has more imagination elements while To build a Fire uses more realistic attributes to strengthen its message.
Both of the stories incorporate the same idea for the plot, which being the main character ventures out to a remote place and experiences a danger or threat to themselves. In, Young Goodman Brown, Brown takes a walk into the forest and comes across the devil in the body of a man with the people of the town around him. “They did so; and, by the blaze of the hell-kindled torches, the wretched man beheld his Faith, and the wife her husband, trembling before that unhallowed altar.”, this shows that anyone is able to be corrupted into doing evil and bad sins. This is proven by the fact that even the main character’s own wife joins the devil himself, which means that even the most trusted of people can be holding deep dark secret. Goodman Brown also sees every single person that had any relation to the church were corrupted and had turned from the light side to the dark side. We automatically trust someone that we think we know; however, people could be using your trust as an excuse to not be someone who they say they are or making you perceive them as something they aren’t. The key factors that make the plot effective in showing that people are flawed are the time period and story line. Both of those factors fits with the mentality that people of the time were in. In colonial times around the 1700s when the story took place people saw the devil as an icon that used people’s temptations and desires against them.
However, in Build a Fire, the plot is even more effective at displaying the flawed nature of humans since the main character in this story makes very impulsive and unintelligent choices. The plot revolves around the man making the choice to travel into the artic even though “He remembers the old-timer telling him that it’s a really bad idea to travel alone in temperatures below minus fifty” and “Undoubtedly it was colder than fifty below”. To Build a Fire brings up a set of more realistic situations and consequences. The inpatient man being stubborn to the advice he was given and his naivety is his flaw. He went on his journey even thought it was the exact conditions the old man had warned him against, putting both himself and his dog’s life in danger. This mistake of his, revealed the man’s crude natural survival instinct was to “…kill the dog and bury his hands in the warmth of the body until the numbness went out.”, an incident that could’ve been avoided if he had been more aware and thoughtful about what the “Old timer” had advised him on. The lesson that can be taught to the reader from this situation is that humans do not take things that would lead themselves to harm into consideration, but instead do whatever is most beneficial to themselves.
Both stories have a similar plot to the movie Bird Box. It’s similar to Young Goodman Brown because in both plots the protagonist take a trot into the woods and find themselves dealing with a supernatural entity. It’s similar to To Build a Fire by the fact that both characters are made aware of the dangers of the actions they decide to take but take them anyways leading to the demise of both of them. The author also sets up her plot where the characters don’t take the clues and marks shown to them and their ignorance causes their death like the man in To Build A Fire, while on the other hand Goodman Brown takes advantage of the things he’s see and that lets his keep his life and go back to his life.
The main difference between the characters in Young Goodman Brown and To Build a Fire is the fact that the supporting characters in Goodman Brown were the ones that were self-destructive while in the other story the protagonist was the one that brought his downfall upon himself. The man’s selfish and ignorant actions, even after getting a warning from the old lead him to be willing to hurt his own dog and ultimately the taking of his life. The people in Young Goodman Brown gained their temptations from the Devil the man in To build a fire was brought to his demise by his own hard-headedness. This makes the role of the character more realistic compared to the other story because it a more plausible to happen in everyone’s day to day lives. The main factor that made the man self-destructive was his arrogance and self-confidence. “Undoubtedly it was colder than fifty below- But the temperature did not matter. He was bound for the old claim on the left fork of Henderson Creek.” this was the man’s mentality when he was first making his major mistake and “You were right, old hoss, you were right.” this was his final thought. Even though he knew it was below freezing outside he still decided to go out onto his eight hour walk across the artic plain. He figured out his mistake right as he was about to die and confessed that he was wrong, but then it was too late.
Both stories of Young Goodman Brown and To Build a Fire use the similar literary elements such as theme, plot, characters, and setting to portray the same message. The message being that human being have a tendency to be self-destructive and most of the time have multiple flaws. To Build a Fire does a better job at explaining the consequences of those actions because the plot is more realistic, relatable, and more likely to happen