Christopher McCandless had always admired the works of Jack London. He even went as far as naming Jack London “king”. McCandless relished the naturalisitc elements of London’s writings, elements that he chose to ignore in his own life. Jack London often depicted men as being controlled by their environment and being unable to withstand any heavy circumstances. He depicted themes about the frailty of man and man’s inability to overcome nature. But McCandless clearly did not take away any of the valuable lessons from these stories. He hailed London as “king” but never truly learned from London’s stories, dying in a tragically ironic way when he came to meet the same fate as the protagonist in Jack London’s “To Build a Fire”. Christopher McCandless …show more content…
came to die just like the protagonist in “To Build a Fire” because they both ignored the obvious dangers of their treks, ignored the advice of others and came to realize too late that their biggest mistake was in being alone. Both McCandless and the protagonist in “To Build a Fire “ were gleefully ignorant of the circumstances that they were embracing and this ignorance lead to their dreadful deaths. In the very beginning of “To Build a Fire”, Jack London emphasizes the fact that the protagonist was ignorant of his conditions and of the trouble this may cause. London first mentions that the protagonist is a “newcomer in the land” and that “this was his first winter” (3). The protagonist is new to the land and it was only his first winter, yet he decides to go off alone without anyone else. This clearly shows how ignorant he must be- traveling alone in a land he does not know. Jack London then further illustrates the ignorance of the protagonist which led to such foolish decision making. London illustrates this ignorance that led to his downfall early on when he describes the protagonist as being “without imagination” (3) and “not much given to thinking” (9). The protagonist does not have the imagination and does not think about what could possibly go wrong when traveling alone in negative seventy-five degrees weather. He is exceptionally ignorant of his conditions and this ignorance arguably causes his death. Christopher McCandless is comparable to the protagonist in “To Build a Fire” because his ignorance and ill-preparedness also guided his adventure and became. a major cause of his death. Jon Krakauer describes McCandless’s ill-preparedness and ignorance as not only a flaw, but a fatal sin. Krakauer asserts that McCandless went on his trek into the Alaskan wilderness unprepared and ignorant: “By design McCandless came into the country with insufficient provisions […] This has been regarded as evidence not just of stupidity but of the even greater sin of arrogance” (180). Krakauer describes McCandless as surpassing ignorance and transcending into a realm of arrogance and stupidity regarding his trek into the Alaskan Wilderness. This severe ignorance of McCandless led to his lonely death of suffering in the Alaskan Wilderness. Ignorance played a major role in both the death of the protagonist in “To Build a Fire” and Christopher McCandless. Had neither McCandless nor the protagonist been so ignorant of their conditions, they both may have survived. McCandless and the protagonist in “To Build a Fire” both also ignored warnings given ahead of time that could have saved them from such harsh deaths.
Before going on his trek alone into the Yukon wilderness, an “old-timer” had given the protagonist in “To Build a Fire” advice. He told the protagonist not to travel alone in the frigid Yukon territory because it can get dangerously cold.. The protagonist chooses not to follow this advice and comes to regret it as he freezes to death. Towards the beginning, the protagonist even looks down upon the old-timer, believing the old-timer to not be as manly as him. The protagonist initially thinks, “Those old-timers were rather womanist, he thought […] Any man who was a man could travel alone” (21). Not only does the protagonist ignore the advice of the old-timer, but he even thinks of the old-timer as being inferior and weak. The protagonist completely overlooks the fact that the old-timer is a veteran to the unforgiving land and he is merely a newcomer with little knowledge of the land. The protagonist soon realizes that the old-timer was right. The narrator acknowledges the wisdom in the advice of the old-timer once the cold has set in on the protagonist: “That man [the old-timer] from Sulphur Creek had spoken the truth […] and he [the protagonist] had laughed at him at the time!” (15) The protagonist had once laughed at the old-timer, thinking the old-timer was just weak, but he now sees the wisdom in the old-timer’s advice. The protagonist comes to realize that the old-timer was right but by this point it is far too late. Christopher McCandless also ignored the advice of others throughout his adventure, the most distinguished advice given to him from an “old-timer” of Alaska directly preceding McCandless’s final journey into the Alaskan wilderness. Jim Gallien picked up McCandless outside of Fairbanks, Alaska and immediately noticed McCandless’s unpreparedness. After McCandless told Gallien of his plans to survive in
the Alaskan wilderness, Gallien scrutinized McCandless’s plan, finding numerous dangerous flaws in it. Gallien then made a great attempt to prevent McCandless from going through, alerting McCandless of the major flaws in his “plan”. Gallien explained how he “tried repeatedly to dissuade him [McCandless] [...] But he wouldn’t give an inch. He had an answer for everything I threw at him” (5). McCandless was too wrapped up in his romantic idea of the wilderness to take the advice of an Alaskan old-timer. His “answers” for everything Gallien threw at him were elementary at best, making claims like he would “climb a tree” (6) if a grizzly bear would attack him. McCandless ignored the advice that could have saved him from his miserable death in the Alaskan Wilderness. Both McCandless and the protagonist in “To Build a Fire” ignored the wise advice of old-timers and this proved fatal for both of them. Towards the ends of their experiences both McCandless and the protagonist in ¨To Build a Fire” came to realize that they had made a mistake in being alone. Towards the end of “To Build a Fire” the protagonist begins to drift away as he slowly freezes to death in the Yukon wilderness. As he freezes to death he has a vivid vision of a conversation with the old-timer. The old-timer is described as being “warm and comfortable” (39) and the protagonist admits to the old-timer that he was right, saying, “You were right old hoss; you were right” (40). During the last minutes of his life, the protagonist’s subconscious tells him that the old-timer was right. The protagonist realizes that he could be “warm and comfortable” just like the old-timer if he had only taken the old-timer’s advice and had gone with another person. The protagonist realizes this far too late and pays for it with his life. McCandless also made the realization of his mistake in being alone during his final hours. McCandless realized that he needed others not only in a practical, survival sense but also in an emotional sense. McCandless was far too weak to go out and find help, and instead stayed in the bus in the middle of the Alaskan wilderness. He wrote a note, begging for help, writing, “ S.O.S. I need your help. […] I am all alone. In the name of God please remain to save me” (12). McCandless begged for help from whomever found the note. It is obvious that he realized going alone was beyond foolish and was a major factor of his death. McCandless then illustrated his desire for another person in an emotional sense, with some of his final notes being on the topic of happiness. McCandless wrote, “Happiness is only real when shared”(189). McCandless’s entire trip revolved around his isolation and escaping from society. Yet, in his last hours, his opinion on solidarity and happiness experienced a great reversal. He finally died after having made the realization that happiness is not even real unless it is shared. McCandless realized the perils of being alone in two different ways, and finally came to accept that he made a mistake in being alone. Both McCandless and the protagonist in “To Build a Fire” came to realize far too late that they had made a grave mistake in traveling alone. Christopher McCandless drew inspiration from the writings of Jack London and these writings may have even molded McCandless into the man he was. McCandless hailed London as “king” and clearly adored both London and his writings. However, McCandless evidently did not learn from the writings of Jack London because his journey into the alaskan wilderness took on several key elements identical to the journey of the protagonist in “To Build a Fire”. His journey seemed like a story written by London himself. Both McCandless and the protagonist in “To Build a Fire” ignored the obvious dangers of their treks, ignored the advice of others and came to realize far too late that their biggest mistake was being alone. It is tragic that Christopher McCandless could not learn a lesson from the author he hailed as “king” and instead died identically to one of London’s characters.
Jack London whose birth name is John Griffin was known for his fiction adventurous novels. Although he was a sailor, gold prospector, rancher and served his country in the Army he still have yet served the time in the wilderness of Alaska. Jack London wrote ‘’The Call of the Wild’’ as if he lived it before. His words jump at you so viciously you had no choice to swallow, savor, and meditate on your life just like Chris McCandless. In the book ways of reading page 429 the dark knight of the soul by Richard E. Miller said that Jon Krakauer wrote about how Jack London actually persuade Chris McCandless that he could possibly escape the bonds of the corporatized world and reach a space of greater calm.
To start with, McCandless was not someone who gave up. Despite others trying to scare him out of continuing with his journey into the Alaskan wilderness, nothing deterred McCandless. He anxiously awaited to experience life off the land. The people McCandless encountered on his way to Alaska often commented on his determination. Jim Gallien, a man who drove McCandless into the Alaska interior, described McCandless as “real gung-ho”. McCandless's attempt to undertake such a risky endeavour is something to admire in itself. To travel two years, mostly on foot, is certainly not an easy task. However, McCandless still persevered through the hardships he faced throughout his journey. McCandles...
Both Chris and Jack London were looking for a simplified easier life, to try to make themselves happy. Chris McCandless favorite author was
Living in the wilderness is difficult, but understanding the meaning of such lifestyle is even more difficult. One of the Christopher’s admirable qualities was that he was well aware of what he was doing. He knew about the difficulties and dangers that he would face into the wilderness, and was mentally prepared for that. Author Jon Krakauer says that “McCandless was green, and he overestimated his resilience, but he was sufficiently skilled to last for sixteen weeks on little more than his wits and ten pounds of rice. And he was fully aware when he entered the bush that he had given himself a perilously slim margin for error. He knew precisely what was at stake” (182). McCandless was an educated youth, who loved nature and dreamed of living in the Alaskan wilderness. Although he ignored to take many necessary things with him on this
During the March 1986 edition of the Journal of Modern Literature, Lee Clark Mitchell of Princeton University opens his article “‘Keeping His Head’: Repetition and Responsibility in London’s ‘To Build a Fire’” by critiquing naturalism’s style of storytelling. Mitchell claims naturalism as a slow, dull, and plain way of capturing an audience; and Jack London is the epitome of this description. Mitchell states, “[London’s] very methods of composition prompt a certain skepticism; the speed with which he wrote, his suspiciously childish plots…have all convinced readers to ignore the technical aspects of h...
His goals are well summarized by Henry David Thoreau, “... to live the life which he has imagined,” and to “meet with a success unexpected in common hours.” These dreams hindered reality for McCandless, as he found himself vulnerable to the conditions of the Alaskan Bush. McCandless had only brought with him: a ten-pound bag of rice, exceedingly minimal gear, cheap leather hiking boots, and a .22 caliber rifle, a strikingly inefficient amount of gear according to almost every accomplished hunter and resident Alaskan. While some could argue that McCandless’ previous two-year long road trip on minimal resources prepared him for the circumstances of the Alaskan Bush, they oversee the fact that the conditions were considerably different than those of the places McCandless previously inhabited. So one could say that McCandless’ under preparedness for the Alaskan Bush could be attributed to his overzealous dreams obstructing reality.
McCandless put little to no thought into his actions and his venture to Alaska. After McCandless graduated he decided he was going to drive around on an adventure to find himself. In the middle of this journey “his car broke down and he abandoned it in the Arizona desert. McCandless was exhilarated, so much that he decided to bury most of his worldly possessions the parched earth of Detrital Wash and then--in a gesture that would have done Tolstoy proud--burned his last remaining cash, about $160 in small bills” (Krakauer 4). McCandless thrived off of the feeling of being lost and hopeless.
Stephen Crane and Jack London are two contrasting authors who use their own unique writing styles to create two unique genres that capture the reader’s interest. In two of Crane’s more prolific short stories “The Bride Comes to Yellow Sky” and “The Open Boat,” the vocabulary and use of dialogue add a sense of sophistication to his short stories while also making the stories smooth to read and eye-catching; whereas in Jack London’s short story “To Build a Fire,” the protagonist in the story is used as a catalyst for character development, and as an example to the audience of the naïveté of youth. London and Crane varied immensely in their literary techniques of vocabulary, dialogue, and character development demonstrated by the use of the protagonist
Chris McCandless took a long journey into the Alaskan interior unprepared, and cautionless. He only carried a few items in his backpack as he ventured out into the unknown. For example, Krakauer writes, “He [Chris] had no axe, no bug dope,no snowshoes, no compass. The only navigational aid in his possession was a tattered state road map he’d scrounged at a gas station” (5). This proves that Chris was very unprepared for his trip and he carried very few possessions with him. The fact that Chris died in the wilderness shows that it was very irresponsible to go into the wilderness unprepared and vulnerable. At the end of Chris’s journey, when he decided to venture out of the Alaskan interior, he found himself in quite the
London, Jack. "To Build a Fire, by Jack London." The World of Jack London 2012®. Web. 02
Jack London has written a classic short story in the 1908 version of "To Build a Fire." This is the classic story of man fighting nature. In most genres (e.g. movies, novels, short stories) the main character comes out on top, however unlikely that is. Jack London takes literary naturalism and shows the reader how unmerciful nature is. Much like Stephen Crane in "The Open Boat," in which the one of the characters dies, London doesn't buy into that "has to have a good ending" contrivance. Through analysis of two London's letters (to R.W. Gilder and Cloudesly Johns) these two versions of "To Build a Fire" come alive with new meaning. Although there are many differences on the surface, both stories use his philosophy as expressed to Johns and both teach a moral lesson, one which will not soon be forgotten: "Never travel alone."
When the narrator introduced the main character of the story, the man, he made it clear that the man was in a perilous situation involving the elements. The man was faced with weather that was 75 degrees below zero and he was not physically or mentally prepared for survival. London wrote that the cold "did not lead him to meditate upon his frailty as a creature of temperature, and upon man's frailty in general, able only to live within certain narrow limits of heat and cold."(p.1745) At first when the man started his journey to the camp, he felt certain that he could make it back to camp before dinner. As the trip progressed, the man made mistake after mistake that sealed his fate. The man's first mistake was to step into a pool of water and soak his legs to the knees. This blunder forced the man to build a fire to dry his wet socks and shoes so his feet would not freeze and become frostbitten. When the man began to build a fire he failed to notice that he was doing so under a large, snow laden spruce tree where he was getting his firewood. When the man had a small fire that was beginning to smolder the disturbance to the tree caused the snow to tumble to the ground and extinguish the fire. "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."(1750).
Survival. That is the main theme in the two stories “To Build a Fire” and “The Interlopers”. “To Build a Fire” by Jack London is a short story about a man who is traveling through the freezing temperatures of the Yukon. He is unable to build and keep a fire going, so he eventually freezes to death. “The Interlopers” by Saki is a short story about two men who have been feuding over a piece of forest land all of their lives. One night they are trying to hunt each other down in the forest, and a tree falls on both of them. They think that their men are coming to save them, but the wolves come first and kill them. Both stories have a setting that sets the conflict and a similar mood, but have different symbols.
Jack London brings man versus nature discussion into his story. The environment, however doesn't play against him for say, but does warn him from the very beginning. The audience can conclude that just like “the man” everyone is alone in the world - fighting for ourselves and the things we wish to acquire. The character created by London is isolated from the universe and fooli...
Karen Rhodes analyzed to build a fire in a cultural context. He believed "London's works were written so that he could survive in a world he increasingly came to see as "red in tooth and claw""(1). It is obviously the story of a man fighting the stresses of Nature. According to Rhodes, to build a fire was drawn from the year London spent in Canada's Yukon Territory. London depicted arctic and very cold conditions throughout the story. Rhodes believed to build a fire represented London's Naturalistic Flavor. "It pits one man alone against the overwhelming forces of nature"(Karen Rhodes, 1). He also believed to build a fire can either be interpreted as the Pioneer American experience or can be read as an allegory for the journey of human existence (Karen Rhodes, 1). According to Rhodes, there are two versions of to build a fire; the first one was written in 1902 while the second one was written in 1908. We are studying the 1908 version." It has come to be known as everyman trekking through the Naturalistic Universe"(Karen Rhodes, 1). To build a fire is indeed the story of a man trekking through the universe alone except for his dog. The man's death at the end was the culmination of the story. " His death came through no lapse of observation, no lack of diligence, no real folly but the nature of himself and his environment" (Karen Rhodes, 2). I think his is a fine criticism of London's to build a fire. London had made use of his life experiences in writing the story.