The change that Jack London attempts to incite in the world, in his short story To Build a Fire, is the same approach that humankind takes to nature. It is very obvious that London has a certain respect for the power of nature and he wants his readers to understand it as a healthy fear. However, the literary work does injustice to his point and is, in many ways, outdated. His points are correct and his intentions are clearly respectable, but structure of the short story leads readers to the false conclusions and alienates them from the framework he purposes. Although he maintains a reasonable portrayal of the reverence toward nature that human beings lack, To Build a Fire does not adequately support his point and, in fact, works against it by creating an contemptible character and being too narrow in juxtaposing him.
The blatant idiocy of the main character leads readers to a false impression about the point that London is tries to make. Everything from traveling into the wilderness alone, going off trail, consistent over-confidence and disregard for very real danger, and even the simple placement for his fire pit could have also happened to Wiley Coyote in an episode of Looney Toons. While the main character’s foolishness, to a degree, helps support the point of the story, his over the top mistakes and his reluctance to admit the seriousness of his situation far overshadows the message London tries to convey.
The story almost encourages a cognitive dissonance within the readers; it means to achieve a look at how we ought to approach nature by demonstrating the antithesis, yet the incompetence of the main character completely distances the readers. The recognition of the main character’s severe stupidity inhibits relatability to the main character, because it forces the reader to approach the main character as if above the misconduct that the character commits. It is because of the unbelievable arrogance and senselessness of the main character that the interpretation of the main character as all of humanity is inconceivable. London displays the ignorance of the main character when he wrote
“This man did not know cold… But the dog knew” (London). This perfect distinction between the man and the dog displays the reoccurring theme of nature’s superiority to humanity, despite the cognitive ability of human beings as sentient beings.
The contrast between the perspective of the main character and the characterization of the dog chases people away from London’s point of view via the rejection of the utilitarian ideology. To Build a Fire is ahead of its time particularly in its approach to a naturalistic perspective. Before scientific evidence on climate change and controversy over global warming, London was warning people about how they should approach nature with care and respect just as a current naturalistic worldview would. However, it appears that London’s suggestion for an alternative view on the world is to convert to a utilitarian calculus, at least in a greater degree than we might already. Unfortunately for London, the world in which the naturalistic worldview has developed is also the postmodern world where schools of thought are almost entirely subjective.
There are plenty of contemporary thinkers who readily accept utilitarianism without remorse, despite its consistency with concepts like eugenics of every kind, unrestricted and unethical scientific experimentation, and situational decisions for survival that would otherwise be considered immoral. There are plenty of other thinkers that understand utility as a disgusting form of thinking that is lacking any truly deontological thought. In the final thoughts of the short story the reader gets a look at the mindset of the dog as “it turned and trotted up the trail in the direction of the camp it knew, where were the other food-providers and fire-providers.” (London). In these final thoughts the story reveals that the mindset of the dog was merely using the main character for resources and survival quality. Throughout the narrative the dog is perceived as the superior being that is overall more equipped than the main character. If
London’s entire goal was simply to demonstrate indifference between human beings and nature, it would be all too easy to say his lowly ambitions were accomplished to the absolute fullest. However, if he intended to encourage a more utility based mindset in his juxtaposition between the surviving animal and the dead main character, then the rejection of his idea is sure to be expected. London suggests humanity be more like the dog in this scenario, or choose death. Especially in the more morally based worldviews that value humanity and the individual, the idea of approaching the world with pure functionality to maintain survival is likely to be disregarded. Essentially, London doesn’t provide readers with a solution to human beings approach to nature, other than the differing utilitarian view that is conveyed through the dog.
Jack London has an apparent appreciation for nature as both beautiful and powerful. He maintains a healthy fear toward nature throughout the story, but his overly negative portrayal of the character and the narrow alternative perspective that is available to the reader does injustice to his point. London wants readers to recognize that humanity has a far too often flawed approach to nature in the lack of reverence for it. His work is highly impressive in his transcending of time to emulate the naturalistic ideas of today, but he makes vital mistakes when he over-amplifies the main character’s folly and suggests we emulate an animal. Although Jack London is impressive, bold, and well-intended in this work, he fails to support his thesis by disconnecting the reader from the situation and providing no good open example to imitate.
