Dalton Smith
English 101
Research Essay
21 March 2016
Survival in the Yukon
Many would say survival is a key component in life’s journey. Survival can be a mental battle within in or a literal battle with the outside world. In London’s short story, “To Build a Fire,” a newcomer to the Yukon survival skills are put to the test and he rarely translates the hard facts, such as extreme cold, and a man’s frailty and mortality. The questions begin to suffocate the symbolism of the story, why couldn’t he really survive? What did the animal symbolize? Most would say the man’s ego to accept the harsh reality of the nature of things killed him while others would argue his human intelligence was conflicted by animal intuition.
It is common for an author to leave the reader questioned by lack of detail, when one first reads the short story, “To Build A Fire,” there are a lot of questions to the real meaning London is trying to imply. London was heavily criticized for this particular writing and was questioned for “the moment of illumination London seems to prepare for us never comes” (Peterson 6). In the critical response, Clell Peterson is very adamant about digging deeper into the meaning and can be perceived as frustrated with the lack of detail London uses. The protagonist is “..ignorant of life, is in that sense already dead, his actual death forces him to face the inadequacy of his conception of the nature of things” (Peterson 4). Peterson believes the man cannot accept the fact that the Yukon may be too much too handle “Yet London’s character achieves no full
illumination and is not transformed by his experience” (Peterson 4-5). London states the man’s lack of imagination causes him to struggle to stay alive.
Peterson also compares the original “To Build a Fire” to the present version, which was later written by London. Peterson describes the first story as a celebration of “human strength and endurance in opposition to nature” (Peterson 7). The will to live outweighs the will of nature. The original story was much shorter and to the point, there is not a bunch of confusion thrown in by the author. In the modern version, it seems to imply “that the instinct to cling to life at any cost, like an institutive awareness of cold or other danger, has decayed civilization” (Peterson 7). Peterson believes the modern version possibly creates a different perspective other than his perceived belief of mind over matter. After reading the critical response, it was apparent Peterson disagreed with a lot of London’s writing however he states it does have a “tragic vision that both ennobles and conceals his fall from nature” (Peterson 8). Peterson criticizes London’s mixed themes in the different versions he writes but can agree that London’s writing shows the man’s ignorance to nature’s power.
I do agree with Clell Petersons’ analysis regarding “To Build a Fire.” He makes valid points and backs his arguments up with textual evidence. Peterson states he told his experience more clearly and credibly than anywhere else in his fiction, this shows me that London went out on a limb, doing something different then his traditional works. I like how Peterson’s response is very aggressive, challenging, and personal. He wants more, he’s questioning to dig deeper into the story or even into London’s writing techniques. One of many times London’s expresses the man’s mind over matter attitude is when the scene is described as “....the absence of sun from the sky, the tremendous cold, and the strangeness and weirdness of it all-made no impression on the man” (London 725). Growing up in a modern generation compared to London, I perceive he is the ‘old school’ type of man and he expresses his opinion in his works. The man was driven by ego, lack of knowledge and lack of imagination were obvious self-inflicted obstacles. I believe London left the story to be an open book for the reader to have an imagination and read between the lines because the man in the story does not have any type of imagination.
The man’s ego is in conflict with his common sense, he doesn’t understand humankind frailty and cannot admit it. He does not understand the danger posed on him by the hostile environment in which he can only survive by the full exercise of his native skills. It seems as there is an inner battle between intelligence of man vs animal. London’s original version of the story shows the faith in the ability of human beings with the following quote, “An earlier version of the story, written for a boys’ magazine, had featured a named protagonist (Tom Vincent) who discovered the hard way that man cannot travel alone by whose survival implied London’s initial confidence in the human ability to overcome great odds” (Labor, Earle, and Hendricks 10). Later in the article, he states the “...a puny, insignificant mortal, confronting the cold mockery of Nature vs. Antagonist” (Labor, Earle, and Hendricks 12). The two quotes show a compassion of the two different stories told by London and the criticism of the old version. Hendricks brings attention that the new protagonist is a “naturalistic version of Everyman:” (Labor, Earle, and Hendricks 12). He criticizes there is a confrontation of Nature vs. Antagonist.