Jack Londons Naturalism free essay sample

For sometime later, in defending himself against charges of President Theodore Roosevelt and John Burroughs, who had accused him of being a â€Å"nature-faker,† London states his artistic purpose in The Call of the Wild and White Fang:I have been guilty of writing two animal stories—two books about dogs. The writing of these two stories, on my part, was in truth a protest against the â€Å"humanizing† of animals, of which it seemed to me several â€Å"animal writers† had been profoundly guilty. Time and again, and many times, in my narratives, I wrote, speaking of my dog heroes: â€Å"He did not think these things; he merely did them,† etc. And I did this repeatedly to the clogging of my narrative and in violation of my artistic canons; and I did it in order to hammer into the average human understanding that these dog-heroes of mine were not directed by abstract reasoning. We will write a custom essay sample on Jack Londons Naturalism or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Also, I endeavored to make my stories in line with the facts of evolution; I hewed them to the mark set by scientific research, and awoke, one day, to find myself bundled neck and crop into the camp of the nature-faker. 3Throughout the essay, London relies on his rather thorough knowledge of Darwinian thought to defend his assertions. If London were not drawing inferences about man in his â€Å"dog-heroes,† his entire literary career, particularly in relationship to the naturalistic movement, is called into question. For to leave the implications of his struggle-for-survival thesis in the realm of â€Å"lower† animals is to relegate the stories to mere animal adventures. Indeed, there would seem to be no London achievement worth quibbling about. But, in fact, in both the first stories and the first novel—in which human beings are clearly the protagonists—these precise themes and motifs are basic philosophy. The extent to which London makes the Darwinian or Spencerian allegory directly applicable to human existence is surely left for the reader to decide. For while there is confusion in Londons articulation between the explicit relationships of the evolutionary and atavistic concepts developed by Darwin and the views advanced by Spencer, London seems little concerned about delineating either with a nice distinction. Nevertheless, precise qualification which focuses on naturalistic implications of the novel accounts for the meaning of the work. The plot of The Call of the Wild is so familiar, because of its widespread popularity, that to review it would appear unnecessary, particularly in view of the haste with which London wrote it. Since he is ostensibly concerned with dogs in the naturalism here, however, a brief statement of the plot may be helpful. In simplest terms, Buck, a magnificent dog, lives on Judge Millers ranch in California. He is kidnapped and taken to Alaska where through numerous hardships and encounters with the â€Å"wild† he recognizes his affinity to it and reverts to his primordial state. It is clear that Buck is not precisely one of the pure breed for whom London held greatest respect, because Buck is a cross between a St. Bernard and a Scotch sheperd. 4 Still, Bucks pre-eminence, as London later explains, results from the lucky combination of his parents, a familiar philosophical idea emanating from Londons views on natural selection. While the Judge is away at a meeting of the Raisin Growers Association, Buck is stolen by Manuel, a ranch laborer, and sold for fifty dollars to a man who wants to use Buck in the Northern country. In the suggestive initial chapter, â€Å"Into the Primitive,† Buck first learns the difference between the â€Å"cold† world to which he is being taken and the â€Å"warm† world from which he comes. He has not been accustomed to harsh treatment, but being an exceptionally wise dog, he quickly adjusts. In fact, his adjustment and his adaptability become his salvation. Bucks first reaction to rough treatment is in a spirit of rebelliousness. But, London tells his reader before he has gone a dozen pages into the narrative, Buck recognizes a new â€Å"law† when he sees it:He saw, once for all, that he stood no chance against a man with a club. He had learned the lesson, and in all his after life he never forgot it. That club was a revelation. It was his introduction to the reign of primitive law, and he met the introduction halfway. The facts of life took on a fiercer aspect; and while he faced that aspect uncowed, he faced it with all the latent cunning of his nature aroused (21). And each dog who is brought receives the same treatment:As the days went by, other dogs came, in crates and at the end of ropes, some docilely, and some raging and roaring as he had come; and, one and all, he watched them pass under the dominion of the man in the red sweater. Again and again, as he looked at each brutal performance, the lesson was driven home to Buck: a man with a club was a law-giver, a master to be obeyed, though not necessarily conciliated. Of this last Buck was never guilty, though he did see beaten dogs that fawned upon the man, and wagged their tails, and licked his hand. Also he saw one dog, that would neither conciliate nor obey, finally killed in the struggle for mastery (22).