So far, in reading, Call of the Wild, by Jack London, I have really enjoyed the vivid imagery of action of the savage life of the brutal north, and the life Buck must lead. I think I will analyze how the symbol of a relatively basic choice, living wild, or with humanity, through Buck, is part of the larger choice between what feels natural and what is familiar. This is a common theme throughout literature, and is often the same sort of idea, of a life in the wilderness versus society. Beyond this, though, the theme of a choice of what feels natural versus what feels familiar is a very common conflict. “Thus, as token of what a puppet thing life is the ancient song surged through him and he came into his own again…” (London 14). This seems that it should be a topic of analysis that has many more specific ways to analyze and other works of similar context.
I think Jack London does an excellent job in analysis of point of view from a rather unconventional source. He personifies a dog wonderfully, yet not over doing it to the point where he is no longer a dog. This perspective helps to provide a more brutal view of the surroundings the events are taking place in. Characters are analyzed in a different way than if from a human perspective, and humans are depicted in a different way than human to human comparison. The imagery provided is so strong and vivid, and is easy to picture a seemingly foreign life in the frigid north during the Klondike gold rush.
