Jack London

After reading “To Build a Fire” and “The Mexican” by Jack London I could recognize a difference between London’s writings and the writings of the American romantics. Writings from the realist authors, such as London, focus more on common people-people with flaws and imperfections. In the works of realists, there’s more of a concern with social problems and the thought of being materialistic. For example, in “To Build a Fire,” the character was alone, out in the wild but that didn’t he mean he knew everything. He wasn’t perfect. He built the fire, and because he wasn’t perfect and all knowing, he didn’t realize that he was building a fire under a snow-coated tree. It was a mistake. As for the American Romantics, their philosophy was individualism and nature. The romantics felt that their intuition, feelings and emotions were more significant than logistical reasoning. Whatever happens, happens. They embraced nature as their model for a superior society.

In London’s writings, I noticed the individualism of both characters. The characters in both stories were alone. In “To Build a Fire” literally alone, and in “The Mexican,” the character was emotionally alone. None of the soldiers of the Junta were fond of him. Some of them were frightened of him, but others, like Vera, were appreciative of him. The soldiers of The Junta said things such as “He is not human,” and “I feel like a child before him.” Given that his parents were killed when he was a young boy and that he could hardly survive on berries he had to rummage for, the soldiers were shocked at the fact he was even alive. Some were also uneasy about how youthful he was. Also, survival was a theme I noticed in both stories. In “To Build a Fire,” he had to survive through the sub-zero, unbearable chill. Also, in “The Mexican,” Riviera had to survive through the revolution and the boxing fight. I think that London’s outlook on life was to be able to survive. Mans survival against nature. In “To Build a Fire,” the man had to merely build a fire so he could survive. It was as simple, and as complicated as that.

I feel that Jack London’s audience were people struggling in the world, trying to survive and get through the day. He may have also been writing to them to reach out and help. Furthermore, he could have been writing for the courageous and independent people, comparable to how he made his characters. But also, I feel that probably would have wanted anyone and everyone to read and understand him and all of his writings.

What drew me to London was his choice of strong, bold, and courageous characters that really make both of the stories. Also, the settings of the stories added emphasis on his works. If his stories weren’t set in places like the bitter cold Klondike, or the harsh war zones of the Mexican Revolution, they wouldn’t have that wow factor. They just would have been boring, simple stories.

“But before he could cut the strings, it happened. It was his own fault or, rather, his mistake. He should not have built the fire under the spruce tree. He should have built it in the open. But it had been easier to pull the twigs from the brush and drop them directly on the fire.”

In this passage above, from “To Build a Fire,” I felt that this was the main part of this story. It was the turning point where you knew everything was going downhill. To me the passage compares to the take the easy way out mentality, and not thinking before you act. I feel that he is trying to get across that not everything will always go your way, but you have to think about what you do, before you take action, and really feel it. Don’t just do something because its going to be easy. Take the challenge and live your life to the fullest, but even more, how you choose to.