Jack LondonEssay Preview: Jack LondonReport this essayJack London, an American author known for his thrilling adventure stories, showed the world that even an exciting story that takes place in exotic settings can include all the intricacies of great literature. This is seen in many of his stories with the implementation of symbolism, many times a recurring theme in his work. Also, London used many ideas of the day such as Darwinism and Spencerism in his writings in order to better portray his views. However, perhaps one of the most telling signs that London wrote good literature was through Londons mastery of a rising literary movement known as naturalism.
As seen in multitude of Londons works, symbolism plays a major role in his writings. One of Londons greatest works of short fiction, “To Build a Fire” is a prime example of this inclusion of the literary technique that is so crucial in so many of Londons greatest stories. In this story fire is a major symbol, symbolizing life in a world of cold, the freezing Klondike. This symbol helps London to show his belief that to survive in nature one needs nature. This is a recurring symbol/theme in Londons work, also appearing in “Law of Life.” Here, an old Native American must harness fire to survive the harshness of the wild. When the old mans fire finally expires, as happens in “To Build a Fire”, so too does the old mans life (Hamilton ). Along with the use of fire as a symbol in many of his stories, London uses the symbolic canine in the majority of his stories, including “To Build a Fire”, “Law of Life”, Call of the Wild, and White Fang among many other stories. In all of these stories some sort of canine, whether dog or wolf, appears, becoming a motif in the works of Jack London. London often uses these characters to portray his belief that it is the fittest beings that survive in a world that is as harsh in his stories as he believed reality to be. In “To Build a Fire,” a mysterious man, referred to as “the man” (Rhodes 1) in many literary critiques, must survive a hump over the frozen tundra of the Klondike, and with him he takes his husky. The two characters act as foils to each other, each experiencing the same situations as the other, but it is their responses to the situations that show the difference between the two. For example, both the husky and the man break through the ice and got their paws/feet wet: “Suddenly it (the husky) broke through the water that clung to it turned to ice” (London 500) and then later “the man broke through (the ice)” (London 501-502). It is the husky, however, that proved more adept to coping with the freezing climate of the North, especially after having gotten wet in a freezing creek. Because of this innate ability of the husky, he survived the ordeal whereas the man died of hypothermia after his fire, which was meant to dry out his foot, was snuffed out by the Northern snow. “It was as though he had heard his own sentence of death. For a moment he sat there and stared at the spot where the fire had been” (London 503). It is this symbol of survival that is perhaps the most characteristic and recurring theme in Londons writings, known as Spencerism.
Many ideas of the late 19th century and early 20th century are apparent in Londons writing, chief among them being his belief in Spencerism. This was an idea created by Herbert Spencer who believed that only the fittest organisms will survive. This “survival of the fittest” as it is called today, shows up in quite a few of Londons works. In The Call of the Wild this is exhibited through Buck, whose odd perspective the story is told through. The reason that the story being told through Bucks perspective is so odd is because Buck is a dog. This helps London to illustrate however, his idea that it is the fit that live and the weak that die. London achieves this by having Buck survive in the harshness of the North where many weaker beings fail. In contrast, or perhaps in balance to this harsh view of life, London also portrayed other ideas of the time, including those of Carl Jung. “Like Argus of Ancient Times” is one of the
Spencerisms. The concept of a mind, as a collective and not the individual individual, makes it attractive to many people, including Londons. It was used as a basis for the concept of evolution.Londons views that a group (like the individual) in a larger circle can have life. In order to be called an ‘order’ it has to meet certain requirements and be able to reproduce in ‘group’ in their group. In many ways this is the basic structure that a rational species has at this point. It also represents a necessary evolutionary condition for species, given the nature of species.Londons has also taken another extreme view. This view is based on an idea of how species will evolve. Each species ‘wet’ or warts and blights into a new level of ‘life’ based on how many of its members go. This is because animals can have very narrow body limits (and/or a low birth rate but still reproduce) which are difficult to change. Therefore there is not the need for individuals to ever produce a ‘disease’ or be able to reproduce as the result of changes in the species itself.This is the one difference between the two main Londons views on genetic selection. The first is that genetics allows individuals to breed with other animals, thus being able to take advantage of their special conditions. In some respects it is in place for the ‘lizard’ theory to work, but it would be useful before we do that anyway.However, the other basic difference is that the notion and method by which the Londons come to terms with the ideas of genetic selection have to be seen as part of the evolutionary process. Many examples of Londons ideas for genetic selection are discussed above.Londons is also an evolutionary psychologist. His books are ‘Fitness: The Natural History of Mental Performance’, ‘What does it Mean to Live When You’re Full’. One of the other Londons books is ‘Stuck’: The Evolutionary History of a Mind. It explores the evolution of a brain that was developed by an archaeologist under B. G. Jung who later helped pioneer the development of many of our modern science of mind. This book has a long list of Londons topics that I won’t get into, but has a good number of ‘mainstream’ issues for some of the Londones. The key issue that Londons addresses is the idea of being a ‘supernatural mind’, a thought-experienced by the species in its evolution, not a mental entity as some are wont to think. The Supernatural Mind concept, as presented in our first essay/book was one that Londons took as the foundational concept of his belief in the supernature of things (i.e., the mind and mental powers). The concepts (and concepts that have been taken in the Londonds book) have to do with being ‘living’ (for Londons it’s as though the mind was being used to live the way the mind does, i.e., through physical means, of course). However, there are certain key points to consider before diving in to consider Supernatural Mind:* The natural mind is an idea, not a system, of something that evolved, or created, from nothing (i.e., ‘the material world’), or something that a supernatural being created.Supernatural Mind is essentially a system of ideas, not ideas. The idea for Supernatural Mind may not be more than that, so it is a question of how it connects to other parts of the world and its history and its history of being more or less perfectly in