townesvanfaulkner

Writing Style-7.4
Originality-8.0
Plot-7.2
Literary Merit(whatever that means)-7.2
Overall-7.2

I guess you would really call this a novella, coming in at about 75 pages. My edition came with White Fang, which I planned to read in succession and review together, but Call of the Wild was so emotionally draining that I had to put it down to revisit White Fang later.

It was a lot like American Psycho, A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius, and A Portrait of the Artist where I had to take breaks during certain scenes to detach myself emotionally from the story to stop from being morbidly depressed or sickened. In the case of Call of the Wild it was the almost constant cruelty towards dogs, which I just can’t stomach.

But, it turns out to be well worth fighting through the rough parts because Buck, the central character, part St. Bernard and Scottish Shepard, kicks so much ass.

The story follows Buck’s travels and travails from domesticated life (in California, I think) northward into the wild of Alaska. During this journey he has several masters, most of which are not too nice.

Accordingly, Buck’s nature and personality digresses from one of being civilized and domesticated back to that of the wolf. This change is connected to the progressing roughness of his environment and mistreatment of his masters.

I think this plot derives from an interesting mix in London of an appreciation for the toughness that comes from a primitive, frontier life and a disdain for capitalism. As an aside, I think there’s an interesting paradox here that lovers of southern literature can understand. Capitalism favors survival of the fittest in the same way that frontier life does. We may admire a Faulknerian horse trader even as we criticize his dishonesty and cutt-throat business acumen.

So, I think Buck’s tale is clearly allegorical. It’s important to point out that Buck’s services are required as part of the Klondike gold rush. The following passage stands out:

“...the club of the man in the red sweater had beaten into him a more fundamental and primitive code. Civilized, he could have died for a moral consideration… …but the completeness of his decivilization was now evidenced by his ability to flee from the defence of a moral consideration and so save his hide. He did not steal for joy of it, but because of the clamor of his stomach. He did not rob openly, but stole secretly and cunningly, out of respect for club and fang. In short, the things he did were done because it was easier to do them than not to do them.”

This is definitely worthwhile for anyone to read. I mean it’s practically a short story. Its action packed and moves swiftly with very memorable scenes. It’s sad, especially in the beginning, but it kind of kicks butt in the end. Buck certainly doesn’t triumph over the forces that cause his digression into the wild, but he does adapt.

So, if the journey into the wild in search of gold is analogous to capitalism, is Buck’s adaptation analogous to the myth of the self-made man (which gets us back to the paradox)? Or am I being too optimistic about the end of Buck’s story because I love him so much? Or did London start with the intention of creating a socialist, cautionary tale but then fell into the horse trader admiration trap? I’m at a loss. At any rate, it’s a great story.