Man-Animal Conflict: “To Build a Fire” by Jack London

Jack London’s “To Build a Fire” is one of the most well-known pieces of the author. In this short story, London manages to narrate the events in such a dramatic way that the reader cannot but feel sympathy and empathy towards the main hero. Out of a variety of the elements depicted in the story, the greatest impression is made by the conflict between the man and his wolf dog. The author contrasts the man’s rational thinking with the dog’s primitive instinct, and this opposition creates the major topic of the piece. Therefore, the paper argues that through the use of a conflict between the man and his dog, London depicts the pivotal theme of the story. He indicates how the inability of people to consider animals smarter than themselves may lead to disastrous outcomes.

The first indication of the conflict is mentioned when the author describes the two characters. The man is referred to as “a newcomer” (1) whereas the dog is characterized as a “proper wolf dog” (2). By using these indications, London makes it clear to the audience that the dog is more experienced than the man, even though the latter is considered the chief of their small group. The author makes the hint at the very beginning that animal instincts are more subtle than rational thinking, but the man refuses to pay attention to the dog’s intuition.

The second implication of the conflict is the description of characters’ reaction to the cold. The dog is “depressed by the tremendous cold” and knows that it is “no time for travelling” (2). Meanwhile, the man is described as having “no imagination” (1). He is “impressed,” but the idea of refusing to go does occur to him (1). For the man, “fifty degrees below zero” is “just precisely fifty degrees below zero” (1). The use of the disparity in this case is aimed at demonstrating how inconsiderate the man’s behavior is and how wise the dog’s instincts are.

The next time the author brings about the conflict is when the two travelers reach Henderson Creek. The follows the man with “a tail drooping discouragement” as if it knows that nothing good is awaiting them (3). At the same time, the man holds “steadily on” since he is not “given to thinking” (3). Again, the man decides to trust his own opinions instead of the dog’s animal instinct, which will inevitably lead to the sad ending.

There are several more instances when the author describes the conflict between the rationality and wisdom. Probably the most impressive one is when London mentions that “all the generations” of the man’s ancestry “had been ignorant of cold” whereas “the dog knew” and “all its ancestry knew” that it was not good “to walk abroad in such fearful cold” (4). In this case, the author emphasizes the whole idea of the story: the cold will surrender those who do not treat it with the appropriate fear and awe.

There are several crucial themes in the story, but the conflict between the man’s stubbornness and the dog’s natural grasp of the situation is the most striking one. London explains how people’s selfishness and regarding themselves as the wisest creatures can play a bad trick on them. Frequently, it is better to listen to nature and learn from it instead of persevering one’s wrong ideas and causing harm to oneself.

Man’s Doom: “To Build a Fire” by Jack London

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 man’s 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 man’s 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 doesn’t 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 man’s 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 man’s 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 man’s 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 man’s 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 man’s 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 dog’s 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.

‘The Open Boat’ and ‘To Build a Fire’

Introduction

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 men’s 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 author’s 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 one’s 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 man’s 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.

Crane, Stephen. 2011. . Web.

London, Jack. 2012. To build a fire. Web.

Sorrentino, Paul. Stephen Crane Remembered. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2006. Print.

“To Build a Fire” by Jack London: Man and Nature

A relationship between humans and the forces of nature is often the central theme of many literary works. The short story “To Build a Fire” by Jack London is another example of how this conflict is depicted through the description of a man’s struggles at the mercy of nature. In this story, the protagonist travels in extremely cold weather despite warnings and tries to build a fire to survive (London 462-478). London’s message is clear: nature always wins, and disrespecting its rules may lead to fatal consequences.

By describing the protagonist’s challenges and his death at the end of the story, the writer emphasizes the power of nature and its indifference towards an individual’s life. According to Liu, London’s stories prove the dependence of humans on nature and that their ignorant intrusion into it can be punished (17). It is possible to see how frightened and desperate the protagonist becomes when he understands his helplessness (London 475). In this story, nature can be seen as a dangerous and intimidating power having control over people.

Besides the forces of nature, the protagonist of the story is opposed to the fauna, reflected through the dog following him on his way. Liu emphasizes that the mistreatment of animals and its consequences are an important motive of London’s works (17). Indeed, the protagonist treats the dog as his slave and is ready to sacrifice its life to survive, which symbolizes the arrogance of humans towards living things (London 474). On the contrary, the dog is depicted as a clever animal, which follows its instincts to survive. Therefore, through the struggles of the protagonist, London conveys an idea about the vulnerability of humans before nature, which demands respect and cautiousness.

Works Cited

Liu, Yifeng. “Jack London’s Writing Motivation for The Call of the Wild.” Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, vol. 196, 2018, pp. 17-19.

London, Jack. “To Build a Fire.” Jack London: Novels and Stories, edited by Donald Pizer, The Library of America, 1982, pp. 462-478.

“A Blizzard Under Blue Sky” by P. Houston and “To Build a Fire” by J. London

The nature is one of the greatest mysteries of the world; the value assumptions about the place of individuals in nature and their relationship to their canine companions is the issue discussed in two nice stories written by different authors. Thus the stories are A Blizzard under Blue Sky written by Pam Houston and To Build A Fire by Jack London.

The narrator of the story written by Pam Houston A Blizzard under Blue Sky seems to be a good person who loves her canine companions and winter camping. The story tells about the main character’s experience of the winter camping and the changes that happened due to this camping. In the very beginning of the story the reader comes to know about the reasons of the main character to experience winter camping, it was clinical depression: “What I saw was work that wasn’t getting done, bills that weren’t getting paid, and a man I’d given my heart to weekending in the desert with his ex” (Houston, 278). As the narrator said: “In truth, my life was on the verge of more spectacular and satisfying discoveries than I had ever imagined, but of course I couldn’t see that far ahead” (Houston, 278). Actually, the things were not so bad and the nature gave the protagonist a chance which did not seem pleasant at that moment, but became important taking into consideration the time past. The main character of the story written by Houston likes dogs and has two ones, which are represented as “yin and yang of dogs” (Houston, 278). The pets are described with specific tenderness and admiration. The narrator admires the beauty of the winter nature: “It’s fabulous here” (Houston, 280), addressing his statement to his dogs, his perpetual companions. The nature was aimed to help the narrator with the clinical depression “crystal-coated trees, all that diamond-studded sunshine” (Houston, 280). The end of the story shows the reader a wonderful influence of the nature on the narrator: “For the first time in many months I was happy to see a day beginning” (Houston, 281).

The second story is To Build A Fire by Jack London; it tells about a man who had a clear plan to meet with his friend, but he happened to underestimate the power of nature and the dangers that can be caused by experiencing the cold weather: “He reflected awhile, rubbing his nose and cheeks, then skirted to the left, stepping gingerly and testing the footing for each step” (London, 298). The nature is not depicted as a wonderful sight and magnificent expression of the world, but as dangerous aspect of our life that is enormous. The main character of the story does not realize the danger, though he knew that “after fifty below, a man should travel with a partner” (London, 303). He travels with a dog which seems to be his partner, but in the end of the story it appears to see only “food provider and fire provider” (London, 306) in his owner. The man experienced the coldness of the winter weather in a full sense, because he happened to get wet and “[t]he dead fingers could neither touch nor clutch” (London, 302). He tried to build a fire, but all his attempts were not successful at all. Then he remembered a certain story and made up his mind to kill the dog in order to renew blood circulation in his fingers. The end of the story showed the readers a “comfortable sleep” (London, 306) of the man.

The two stories provide descriptions of the winter nature and its magnificence as well as the relations of people with their canine companions. The first story shows how the nature and dogs help the main character revalued her life. And the second character neglected the influence of the nature and was punished for this.

Works Cited

Houston, Pam. “A Blizzard under Blue Sky.” Reading Literature and Writing Argument. Missy, James, and Alan Merickel. London: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004. 278-281.

London, Jack. “To Build a Fire.” Reading Literature and Writing Argument. Missy, James, and Alan Merickel. London: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004. 295-306.

Nature and Man in “To Build a Fire” by Jack London

Introduction

Environmentalists have long theorized and contemplated many different methods to determine the effects of humanity’s 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-year’s 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.

Courting Futility in “To Build a Fire,” “The League of the Old Men,” and “The Chrysanthemums”

Jack London and John Steinbeck are both notable figures in the annals of 20th-century American literature, but this fact alone is not the only thing they have in common. Their affinity toward literary realism is also a similarity between the two, as are the common themes they sometimes explore in their works. One of such themes is the idea of the inexorable futility of one’s efforts when faced with overwhelming external power. This power can come in the shape of nature or history, as in London’s “To Build a Fire” and “The League of the Old Men,” or social mores, as in Steinbeck’s “The Chrysanthemums.” Yet despite this difference, all three stories have one thing in common in how their protagonists bring this futility upon themselves. By paying insufficient attention to their surroundings, the main characters of all the stories discussed participate in ultimately making their struggles futile.

London’s “To Build a Fire” – quite likely the most famous of the author’s short stories – tracks the trail of a lone wanderer in the Yukon Territory at the turn of the 20th century. The man is traveling to the camp where his associates, only identified as “the boys,” are waiting for him (London, “Build a Fire” 65-66). However, he is not an experienced traveler and survivalist but “a newcomer in the land” and, as such, not prepared all too well to treat the dangers of the frozen land seriously enough. When he loses his footing and gets his feet wet – a certain death sentence with the temperatures that cold – he attempts to build a fire and warm himself up. However, the lack of experience when surviving in the Yukon frustrates all his attempts. First, the fire is extinguished by a massive fall of snow from the tree branches, and then the man’s fingers are too numb to operate matches. In the end, all attempts to warm up prove to be futile, and the protagonist, one sure of his capabilities, falls prey to the Yukon cold.

The futility with which the main character tries to build a titular fire is no accident – rather, it is the direct consequence of his own carelessness and insufficient preparation. The harsh nature and the extreme cold of his environment are stressed even further by London’s “infernal rendering of the unforgiving Yukon wasteland” (Hillier 173). The man, however, is unable to appreciate the full seriousness of his situation. His downfall is sure and inevitable because he ignores both “instinct… and racial wisdom” represented by the story’s other characters (Pizer 222). Having more experience surviving in the Yukon would have prevented him from making a fire under the tree branches heavy with snow – or traveling alone at all, come to that matter. Yet the man ignores the others’ warnings, be that the advice of the “man from Sulphur Creek” or the troubled behavior of his dog, and brings his own death upon him (London, “Build a Fire” 70). As a result, he participates in his death, and the futility of his repeated attempts to build a fire is merely an extension of his own foolishness.

Belonging to the same author, “The League of the Old Men” explores the concept of futility in a different way, even though the protagonist’s efforts bear no more fruit than in “To Build a Fire.” An elderly Native American named Imber comes to the town of Dawson to give himself up for trial voluntarily. His crimes are the killings of whites over the last few decades, and the list of his victims is so extensive they do not “permit of precise enumeration” (London, “League”). In a courtroom, Imber tells a grim tale of how contact with the whites has corrupted the indigenous population and made them weaker and unable to resist Anglo-Saxon expansion. His solution to the problem is “to cleanse the land of the evil breed” of invading whites by killing them one by one (London, “League”). Since the indigenous youngsters are too soft and corrupted by the influence of alcohol, tobacco, and the whites’ way of life, it is up to old men to proceed with this idea. Yet, despite all the killings, the whites never stop coming, making Imber realize the futility of his efforts and give up.

Much like “To Build a Fire,” this story also demonstrates how the futility of Imber’s actions comes from his own lack of understanding of what he tries to fight against. While he cannot be blind to the reality of whites influencing and threatening the indigenous people, he cannot decipher the reasons behind this historical process. As he puts it when speaking about Anglo-Saxons, “theirs the whiskey, and tobacco, and short-haired dogs; theirs the many sicknesses, … theirs the white skin, and softness to the frost and storm (London, “League”). Yet despite epitomizing all these weaknesses to his eye, the whites multiply and become ever stronger, and Imber remains unable to understand the reasons behind this process. Even in the courtroom, faced with the “machinery of the trial,” he still cannot grasp the concept of writing and its potential advantages (Reesman 65-66). Thus, Imber embarks on his crusade against the whites without understanding the technology and organization that make them so powerful and thinking that killing them off would solve the problem. By engaging what he cannot comprehend, the protagonist makes his efforts futile even before he starts.

Steinbeck’s “The Chrysanthemums” provides yet another glimpse at the theme of futility, this time coming in the shape of patriarchal social norms of the early 20th century. The protagonist, Elisa, lives the life of a housewife with her husband on a ranch. With the “limited social freedom” of the time, Elisa still becomes exceptionally good at one of the few vocations available to her – growing chrysanthemums (Hashemipour et al. 36). When a traveling artisan asks for work and Elisa has none, he mentions knowing a lady down the road who would be glad to have some chrysanthemums like Elisa’s. Ecstatic with somebody appreciating her for something she does herself – and, thus, validating her independent agency – Elisa provides him with a couple of pots with saplings. They even have a conversation where she expresses her wish that “women could do such things” – that is, have more independence and employment opportunity (Steinbeck 7). Later this day, Elisa learns that the man threw the plants away to keep the pots, making her realize the utter futility of her attempts to gain men’s respect and recognition under existing conditions.

While it might seem too far-fetched to say that Elisa participates in ensuring this futility, it is true as far as the story’s specific plot is concerned. Elisa did not create the patriarchal norms that limit her opportunities and does not endorse them either. However, when deciding to trust the traveling artisan, she deliberately chooses to ignore the signals pointing to his untrustworthiness. When first speaking of chrysanthemums, the man says they “smell kind of nasty” but changes his tune immediately after learning Elisa likes it (Steinbeck 5). Moreover, his claim to know a flower-planting lady down the road comes soon after he admits he is “off [his] regular road,” meaning he would not be familiar with people around these parts (Steinbeck 5). The man’s deceit becomes the last straw that makes Elisa succumb “to the social modes” but is no surprise to the reader, as she could have seen this deceit coming (Maiti 12). Much like the protagonists of “To Build a Fire” and “The League of the Old Men,” she fails to read and interprets the signs – and, in this sense, courts and ultimate futility of her efforts.

To summarize, “To Build a Fire,” “The League of the Old Men,” and “The Chrysanthemums” all discuss the topic of futility that the protagonists ultimately bring among themselves. A young traveler from “To Build a Fire” is ignorant of the many danger of the cold Yukon wasteland and fall prey to the unforgiving cold because of ignoring the collective wisdom of survival. Similarly, Imber from “The League of the Old Men” attempts to eradicate whites, whom he views as a pestilence upon the land, without understanding what makes them strong – and unsurprisingly fails as well. Finally, Elisa from “The Chrysanthemums” is eager to help the man who demonstrates a superficial and insincere interest in her achievements despite the warning signs of his untrustworthiness. The thing all three characters have in common is this inability to properly understand the situation they are involved in – and futility is not a coincidence but a natural and expected result in this regard.

Works Cited

Hashemipour, Saman et al. “A Twentieth-Century Countrywoman in Steinbeck’s ‘The Chrysanthemums’: A Socio-Cultural Study of Oppression.” International Journal of Linguistics, Literature, and Translation (IJLLT), vol. 2., no. 3., 2019, pp. 36-41.

Hillier, Russell. M. “Crystal Beards and Dantean Influence in Jack London’s “To Build a Fire (II).” ANQ: A Quarterly Journal of Short Articles, Notes, and Reviews, vol. 23, no. 3, 2010, pp. 172–178.

London, Jack. American Literature.

London, Jack. U.S. Department of State.

Maiti, Abhik. “A Story of Repressed Feminism: Exploring Steinbeck’s Women Characters with Special Reference to ‘The Chrysanthemums’.” International Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research, vol. 5, no. 1, 2017, pp. 1-14.

Pizer, Donald. “Jack London’s ‘To Build a Fire:’ How Not to Read Naturalist Fiction.” Philosophy and Literature, vol. 34, no. 1, 2010, pp. 218-227.

Reesman, Jeanne C. Jack London’s Racial Lives: A Critical Biography. University of Georgia Press, 2009.

Steinbeck. John. Weebly.