Essays

Jack London’s ‘To Build a Fire’

by John I. Johnson

NOVELIST JACK LONDON (pictured; 1876-1916), the author of The Call of the Wild (1903), was the subject of a very good Web site hosted by the University of California at Berkeley (now archived). The site’s administrators write, “Because he was an autodidact, London’s ideas lacked consistency and precision. For example, he clearly accepted the Social Darwinism and scientific racism prevalent during his time, yet he seemed troubled that the ‘inevitable white man,’ as he called him, would destroy the rich cultures of various native groups he had encountered over the years.

“Although he supported women’s suffrage and created some of the most independent and strong female characters in American fiction, he was patriarchal toward his two wives and two daughters. His socialism was fervent, but countered by his strong drive toward individualism and capitalist success. These contradictory themes in his life and writing make him a difficult figure to reduce to simple terms.”

It is probably also true to say that London’s ideas simply do not fit neatly into contemporary ideological boxes, rather than that they are inconsistent or imprecise because he was self-taught. For example, the “inevitable White man” is not necessarily incompatible with the maintenance of the “rich cultures of native groups.”

In light of contemporary intellectual discussions, London’s ideas concerning group altruism, expressed in an 1899 letter, are particularly striking. He was only 23 years old at the time. (He died at the age of 40.) London wrote (as quoted in “The Soul of Jack London,” National Vanguard No. 109, April-May 1988):

“Where am I to draw the line [on altruism]? At the White. From the family unit, through the tribal drawing, to the race aggregation, you may trace the rise of altruism, very similar for all its various manifestations. The line stops there. If a man would save an animal from pain, another kind of altruism is brought to bear; the same if he saves a nigger, or a red, a yellow, or a brown. But let Mr. White meet another white hemmed in by dangers from other colors—these whites will not need to know each other—but they will heed the call of blood and stand back to back. . . . [T]he race with the highest altruism will endure—the highest altruism considered from the standpoint of merciless natural law, which never concedes nor alters.”

Jack London’s short story “To Build a Fire,” originally published in The Century Magazine (August 1908), and subsequently in the story collection Lost Face (1910), stands out as one of his very best works. (An earlier, inferior, version of the story appeared in Youth’s Companion, May 29, 1902.)

“To Build a Fire” is not overtly racial or political. In the future, if White media expands, it is important to remember that content need not always consist of propaganda. It can also function simply to free us from the inconceivably narrow confines of Jewish-Leftist censorship, and permit the expression of cultural and aesthetic sentiments that the rabbis of “political correctness” in the universities and media will not countenance. Today, editors and publishers (and other multimedia content providers), acting as gatekeepers, monolithically screen out and suppress anything and everything expressive of our nature, no matter how innocuous or non-racial—as the campaign to censor Mel Gibson’s The Passion again vividly demonstrated.

The authors of the Berkeley site observe of London: “A committed socialist, he insisted against editorial pressures to write political essays and insert social criticism in his fiction.” One might fairly say London’s approach is innately Aryan, as opposed to Jewish-Bolshevik.

“To Build a Fire” presents the harrowing drama of man against “the unforgiving forces of nature,” as two Wayzata, Minnesota schoolteachers express it. The nameless protagonist, alone in the endless wilderness of the Yukon, miles from camp, is heedless of the mortal danger he faces:

“As he turned to go on, he spat speculatively. There was a sharp, explosive crackle that startled him. He spat again. And again, in the air, before it could fall to the snow, the spittle crackled. He knew that at fifty below spittle crackled on the snow, but this spittle had crackled in the air. Undoubtedly it was colder than fifty below—how much colder he did not know.”

Despite the absence of political or racial motive in the story, London vividly captures the essence of our population’s character in his portrait of the man:

“But all this—the mysterious, far-reaching hair-line trail, the absence of sun from the sky, the tremendous cold, and the strangeness and weirdness of it all—made no impression on the man. . . . The trouble with him was that he was without imagination. He was quick and alert in the things of life, but only in the things, and not in the significances. Fifty degrees below zero meant eighty-odd degrees of frost. Such fact impressed him as being cold and uncomfortable, and that was all. It 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; and from there on it did not lead him to the conjectural field of immortality and man’s place in the universe. Fifty degrees below zero stood for a bite of frost that hurt and that must be guarded against by the use of mittens, ear-flaps, warm moccasins, and thick socks. Fifty degrees below zero was to him just precisely fifty degrees below zero. That there should be anything more to it than that was a thought that never entered his head.”

By contrast, the dog in London’s story symbolizes the instinct for survival and alertness to lurking danger so notably lacking in the man: “At the man’s heels trotted a dog, a big native husky, the proper wolf-dog, gray-coated and without any visible or temperamental difference from its brother, the wild wolf. The animal was depressed by the tremendous cold. It knew that it was no time for travelling. Its instinct told it a truer tale than was told to the man by the man’s judgment. In reality, it was not merely colder than fifty below zero; it was colder than sixty below, than seventy below. It was seventy-five below zero. . . . The dog had learned fire, and it wanted fire, or else to burrow under the snow and cuddle its warmth away from the air.”

The story straightforwardly and with deceptive simplicity relates the progress of the man, on foot, as he journeys toward his destination, the seemingly minor accident that befalls him en route, and his subsequent, increasingly desperate attempts to build a fire.

It is a superlative work of art.

Further Reading

The Jack London Collection

Jack London’s Writings

Dietrich Wolf, “The Soul of Jack London,” National Vanguard No. 109 (April-May 1988) (Part I) and No. 110 (March-April 1989) (Part II).

* * *

Source: Author

For Further Reading

Previous post

How Hitler Tackled Unemployment and Revived Germany’s Economy

Next post

The Consequences of Corruption

12 Comments

  1. Me and no one else
    June 30, 2018 at 10:49 pm — Reply

    I read “To Build A Fire” and had only one thought at story’s end: that the fool deserved to die for attempting to traverse a landscape against such extreme cold. He deserved a Darwin Award, and death justifiably delivered it to him.

    • JimB
      July 1, 2018 at 9:37 am — Reply

      So, according to you, anyone who attempts to survive against the odds deserves to die? Glad you are a one-person show, “Me and No One Else”. To know that your summation of the entire book boils down to what you said in the above post leaves me kind of sad for you.

  2. cc
    July 1, 2018 at 10:33 am — Reply

    Much of Jack London’s ideology leaned toward a healthy White socialism. London’s high intelligence was careful not to invest fully in a specific category unless proven. The older encyclopedias stated he believed in the superiority of Teutonic and Celtic tribes.

    Had Mr. London lived a full life, his position on Hitler would have been most interesting. Probably in general agreement.

  3. Arvin N. Prebost
    July 1, 2018 at 10:55 am — Reply

    I thought, in high school after reading this story, “How dumb and arrogant!”

    But I see now that this is indeed a story “expressive of our nature” as White people.

    White people are stuck between the harsh demands of nature and their idealism. Far from being some kind of macho, alpha Viking male, I think this guy might have been philosophical and idealistic . . . about everything except the demands of nature.

    He reminds me of that guy who lived in a deserted school bus in the wilds of Alaska (“Into the Wild”). He was an idealist, into philosophy and nature-mysticism, a kind-hearted soul. He died from starvation, in the schoolbus. But the people around that part of Alaska have contempt for anyone who would even try to do what he did, because they know the demands of “the unforgiving forces of nature.”

    We White people have become divorced from the most elemental concepts of nature. Many of us are afraid to sweat, or do manual labor (which seems to me to be simply doing battle with nature—hoeing a garden to fight weeds, putting on a roof to keep out rain, etc. )

    Funny that this essay brought these things out, and my high-school English teacher did not say a word about it.

  4. Alex Wells
    July 1, 2018 at 11:54 pm — Reply

    This story was a subject of at least two of my high school English classes. I recall that in one of them the teacher pointed out that the author gives the man only one fault–that he lacked imagination. Jack London himself had lived in the frozen north. Undoubtedly he had seen for himself the survival value of imagination. For those who would like to get a broader view of London’s perspective on such matters, I recommend his other stories about the far north. The theme of survival is a common one in them.

    • Arvin N. Prebost
      July 2, 2018 at 10:16 am — Reply

      “But all this—the distant trail, no sun in the sky, the great cold,
      and the strangeness of it all—had no effect on the man. It was not
      because he was long familiar with it. He was a newcomer in the land, and this was his first winter.” (To Build A Fire)

      It sounds to me like he was divorced from nature, or at least was unfamiliar with the nature of the frozen north, and that is why he could not connect the dots with intuition and imagination.

      He is also arrogant. He was warned by an older man not to travel alone in the open when the weather is 50 below. London relates that it was 80 below. The dog in the story, by nature, is more aware of the imminent danger to them than is the man.

      So it is with Whites. We arrogantly assume that we can violate nature–by absorbing third-world migrants, by using sex as recreation, by degrading fatherhood, by not wanting to do our own manual labor.

      It is madness. Serious, suicidal madness.

      I had never seen this story presented as a parable of White pathology, but I think the author is right on target.

  5. James Clayton
    July 2, 2018 at 2:19 pm — Reply

    When I was in high school, an associate– not a friend– apparently White, who was a skilled judoka probably because his single father was one and some of us speculated as to the young man’s lack of confidence in his masculinity. One night he wanted for some reason to “roll a queer” at Dupont Circle, something I believe Dr. Pierce alluded-to in one of his broadcasts. My guess is that the young man wanted an audience as well. I recall that it did nothing to improve my regard for him nor did it seem to improve his self-respect though perhaps it satisfied his curiosity. There are some things in life to which I’d rather not have been exposed and one of them is an article nearby, last week, that included the line, “I’ll outline five things that draw me to gay art, and discuss their significance with reference to white racial concerns.”

    Like Pierce, by the way, I admire many Japanese (I studied aikido in Hawaii), and others. I hasten to reaffirm that being a race-realist does not mean one is a hater. That said, I believe there are certain pathologies one should avoid “like the plague,” so to speak, and one of them is homosexuality. And my opinion is that “art” ought not to be promoted to our people when it is the expression of the character of a non-White behaviorally. Period.

    Whether this right-brain/Left-brain orientation has been “proven” false or whatever, those to whom I’ve been exposed who had big problems generally fit into convenient categories. And prejudice is part of our evolutionary makeup that prevents the necessity of touching everything glowing red hot to see if it will actually burn. Woman’s physical education majors and art majors are a couple of come to mind.

    And, with a tip of the hat to James Harting’s piece on Who is White, I’d say that White behavior ought not to be considered, these days especially, what it is obvious that Dr. Pierce held in contempt and that is homosexuality and particularly male homosexuality. It is maladaptive.

  6. James Clayton
    July 2, 2018 at 2:26 pm — Reply

    Thinking of writers, as opposed to artists, I pulled of the shelf The Best of Robert Service, Copyright by Dodd, Mead & Company (New York), in better times in that city and industry. His is a good work for young men.

    • Arvin N. Prebost
      July 3, 2018 at 9:35 am — Reply

      I am a bit lost in reading your comments, Clayton. There seems to be a presupposition that is not stated outright.

      You think that artists are homosexuals? That London was gay?

  7. James Clayton
    July 4, 2018 at 11:02 am — Reply

    One of my best friends is a painter. His original of a cowboy in a yellow slicker in a rainstorm herding cattle is on my living room wall. He has high regard for Germans because he was in a German POW camp as a child because those in-charge said he could be any of their sons, his mother having been a camp follower to survive.

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/presuppose

    I read Jack London in public school and he was a product of the economy of his time– a socialist– and an adventurer. His is good writing but we much be careful not to be blinded to side-effects when prescribed such by anyone. I presume you read what I suggested before having difficulty following me: https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2018/06/26/the-white-racial-movement-and-gays/

    My father supplied me with Samuel Clemens books, a rifle and a dog with which to ramble in the woods, and other important things a boy needs. A small aluminum canoe is still in my yard. And I tend to recommend George Leonard Herter’s “How to Live with a Bitch” over Stefan Molyneux on relationships.

    However, my preference is Aphrodite of Milos (Greek: Αφροδίτη της Μήλου, Aphroditi tis Milou) as opposed to Michelangelo’s David. And I think that has as much to do with environment as heredity, especially given what I see in feminized if not homosexual White males almost everywhere.

    My thinking is that if one wants to comment on the Occidental Observer piece that it is better to go there than comment on it here.

  8. Me and no one else
    July 4, 2018 at 5:10 pm — Reply

    JIMB: “So, according to you, anyone who attempts to survive against the odds deserves to die? Glad you are a one-person show, “Me and No One Else”. To know that your summation of the entire book boils down to what you said in the above post leaves me kind of sad for you.”

    Unlike you, I actually READ the story and it was unnecessary for me to sum up “the entire book” since it was a SHORT STORY – not a novel! Clearly, you are commenting on something that you did not read, and yet you dare lecture me?

    Furthermore, if you had read the short story you would’ve known that the fool placed himself in his predicament because he failed to think his actions through. In other words, he died out in the wilderness not because he was trapped through no fault of his own but instead chose to ignore warnings from others that it was foolhardy to traverse that length of wilderness without taking proper precautions.

    Next time don’t comment on something you NEVER READ!

  9. James Clayton
    July 4, 2018 at 5:45 pm — Reply

    And like Hawaii which in the early 1970s was largely owned by Japanese, California and I’ll bet much of the rest of the United States is being bought with cash by newly arrived and not-even-here-yet Chinese.

    Those voting rights granted to everything including women, children, and racial aliens should be carefully considered. It will be interesting to see what nations like Mexico with laws that allow the expropriation of anyone’s property will do with those gringos who have moved in an ever increasing number of communities of their kind particularly if there is civil war in the U.S.

    https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2018/07/04/thinking-about-civil-war-ii/

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.