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.
Thank you for your insight, Luke. What I like best about Jack London’s writing is that they are about his own exploratory experiences. Remember, this is one of the writer’s that Chris McCandless looked up to. Do you see the transcendentalism influences?