Repetition And Responsibility In London's To Build A Fire

In his report, “Keeping His Head”: Repetition and Responsibility in London’s “To Build a Fire,” Lee Clark Mitchell shares that most naturalist aficionado quiver at the style. This is in part because the enthusiasts thought London’s plot was “childish” and speed was sluggish (76). Mitchell suggests that these readers are ignoring the style and viewing it as irrelevant but he believes the style should be paid attention to because London does not write in the standard naturalist way. He finds London's style rather “compelling” and “curious” and believes other will too if repetition and tenses are accounted for (80, 78). One of Mitchell's immense points is the multiple repetitions in London's story. Although there are strict intentions for

Senses of danger are seen as being typical because they can be predicted. The repetition and tense prevent any changing of the plot or outcome. Repetition also suggests that it reduces the “will” and “desires” which leads to death (80). Mitchell brings up the idea of the “tyranny of things” and connects it to how when the temperature gets colder it also lowers the temperature of the text which basically means the physical resources are draining due to the cold which kills the man (80). The “tyranny of things” also suggests “to break down characteristic connections between both objects and events” (80). Repetition also sets up the idea of the future is already decided and the character has no control over the outcome. Throughout the story there is “ephemeral hope” and it is seen throughout word choice. “To Build a Fire” ultimate story is to outrun the cold temperature in order to survive and there is knowledge to derail death. Mitchell suggests that the under usage of the word “know” shows that there is no way for character choice or possibility because knowledge helps shape the future based on past experiences and the Man’s knowledge is useless (81). To enjoy London’s “simple, disconnected sentences”,