![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Title:White Fang
Author: Jack London
Genre: Classic adventure literature
Thingummies: 3
Synopsis: The story of a half-wolf sled dog during the Alaskan Gold Rush.
Thoughts: For such a simple story, this book gives me some pretty complex reactions.
On one level, this is an adventure story, and a rousing good one. It's the kind of thing that ten-year-olds adore, with an animal hero whose fierceness (and eventually, whose noble spirit) saves the day. It's lively and uncomplicated, with a wealth of detail but relatively straightforward language. It's just plain fun.
On another level, this a blatant bit of imperialism as jingoistic as anything Kipling ever wrote. (Another one for rousing adventure and dubious world views, Kipling.) London clearly sets up a continuum of being. There are prey animals, which are vital but somewhat silly. There are predator animals, which, while simple compared to people, still have their own motivations and internal life. There are non-white people, who are more powerful and cunning than predators, but lack some of their simple, savage nobility. There are trashy whites, who are more powerful and cunning than non-white people, but lack their simple, savage nobility. At the top are the Good White Men, who are gods. Brilliant, benevolent, merciless when necessary but otherwise magnanimously compassionate, and above all, Right. It's...shall we say, problematic.
But it's possibly even more complex than that, and that's where I start losing track of what the author intended and what is inadvertent. Spoiler alert, although the climax pretty much comes up out of nowhere and is resolved in a chapter.
White Fang had the potential to be noble, but was mistreated through most of his life and is only redeemed through the trust and love of the Good White Man. At the climax of the story, a convict escapes who was mistreated through his life. The description of his sorry story uses language almost identical to that of White Fang. He tries to kill White Fang's master, White Fang kills him. Here's my dilemma. The way the two are described begs for the reader to draw a comparison. White Fang is redeemed and enobled by loving, fair, trusting treatment. Is London calling into question all of society's institutions, from how we treat the poor to how we educate people to the entire criminal justice system? Because if love could redeem White Fang, surely it would be able to redeem with even greater results a White Man? But there's absolutely no move towards redeeming the convict in the text. He shows up, he's murderous, he's dead, without even really getting to say something. Everything about his background is superfluous--he exists in the plot only to allow White Fang to prove himself. So...what does that represent? Should we not bother to reclaim criminals? Is it a waste of time to try? Is this a tragedy that he was unable to be reclaimed? Or am I reading far too much in this, and the ending exists only to give White Fang a suitable final opponent?
Author: Jack London
Genre: Classic adventure literature
Thingummies: 3
Synopsis: The story of a half-wolf sled dog during the Alaskan Gold Rush.
Thoughts: For such a simple story, this book gives me some pretty complex reactions.
On one level, this is an adventure story, and a rousing good one. It's the kind of thing that ten-year-olds adore, with an animal hero whose fierceness (and eventually, whose noble spirit) saves the day. It's lively and uncomplicated, with a wealth of detail but relatively straightforward language. It's just plain fun.
On another level, this a blatant bit of imperialism as jingoistic as anything Kipling ever wrote. (Another one for rousing adventure and dubious world views, Kipling.) London clearly sets up a continuum of being. There are prey animals, which are vital but somewhat silly. There are predator animals, which, while simple compared to people, still have their own motivations and internal life. There are non-white people, who are more powerful and cunning than predators, but lack some of their simple, savage nobility. There are trashy whites, who are more powerful and cunning than non-white people, but lack their simple, savage nobility. At the top are the Good White Men, who are gods. Brilliant, benevolent, merciless when necessary but otherwise magnanimously compassionate, and above all, Right. It's...shall we say, problematic.
But it's possibly even more complex than that, and that's where I start losing track of what the author intended and what is inadvertent. Spoiler alert, although the climax pretty much comes up out of nowhere and is resolved in a chapter.
White Fang had the potential to be noble, but was mistreated through most of his life and is only redeemed through the trust and love of the Good White Man. At the climax of the story, a convict escapes who was mistreated through his life. The description of his sorry story uses language almost identical to that of White Fang. He tries to kill White Fang's master, White Fang kills him. Here's my dilemma. The way the two are described begs for the reader to draw a comparison. White Fang is redeemed and enobled by loving, fair, trusting treatment. Is London calling into question all of society's institutions, from how we treat the poor to how we educate people to the entire criminal justice system? Because if love could redeem White Fang, surely it would be able to redeem with even greater results a White Man? But there's absolutely no move towards redeeming the convict in the text. He shows up, he's murderous, he's dead, without even really getting to say something. Everything about his background is superfluous--he exists in the plot only to allow White Fang to prove himself. So...what does that represent? Should we not bother to reclaim criminals? Is it a waste of time to try? Is this a tragedy that he was unable to be reclaimed? Or am I reading far too much in this, and the ending exists only to give White Fang a suitable final opponent?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-08-23 12:10 pm (UTC)From: