I've never met a Russian classic I enjoyed. I can appreciate some of them but I find them a disheartening slog. This one infuriated me. I know I'm briI've never met a Russian classic I enjoyed. I can appreciate some of them but I find them a disheartening slog. This one infuriated me. I know I'm bringing a modern perspective to a book written in a different culture and time but I couldn't help hating the whole experience. ...more
For a children's novella this book sure packs in a huge number of ideas.
The story centres around Buck, an enormous St Bernard cross Scotch Shepherd, wFor a children's novella this book sure packs in a huge number of ideas.
The story centres around Buck, an enormous St Bernard cross Scotch Shepherd, who is stolen from his comfortable home in Santa Clara Valley and forced to become a working dog in the Alaskan wild. The book can be enjoyed as a tale of self- discovery, endurance and survival. Certainly the first time I read the novel as a child I read it this way. However, it also has significant philosophical underpinnings, which strengthen the book and undermine some of it's weaknesses.
Dominance of the Strong over the Weak
“He had learned well the law of club and fang, and he never forewent an advantage or drew back from a foe he had started on the way to Death. He must master or be mastered… mercy did not exist in the primordial life. Kill or be killed, eat or be eaten, was the law; and this mandate, down out of the depths of Time, he obeyed.”
It is a curious sort of choice to make- writing a children's novel that is not a morality tale but rather a Darwinian polemic. Again and again in this novel the point is driven home- survival of the fittest is the law of the natural world and mastery of others the only spiritual aim worth aspiring towards. It makes the novel rather unique. I'm not entirely sure I buy the idea behind it. Taken to its natural, philosophical end we would all end up raging liberal conservatives without a shred of compassion. But it is an interesting idea to grapple with nonetheless.
There is considerable power in the way this perspective is born out. The causal violence which explodes on the pages is couched in such dispassionate language that the shock is actually worsened rather then alleviated. Death is constant throughout the story and touches characters Buck admires and those he grows to hate without any sort of distinction. (view spoiler)[In fact, Spitz death- a character Buck hates- is treated with more nobility and described in greater detail, then Thornton's- the only character for which Buck feels "a genuine, passionate love". (hide spoiler)]
Civilisation vs Naturalism
“In this manner had fought forgotten ancestors. They quickened the old life within him, the old tricks which they had stamped into the heredity of the breed were his tricks... And when, on the still cold nights, he pointed his nose at a star and howled long and wolflike, it was his ancestors, dead and dust, pointing nose at star and howling down through the centuries and through him.”
London repeatedly contrasts the thin veneer of civilisation with the authentic majesty and awe of naturalism. Because the central character is a dog, we explore this point of view with a sympathetic eye. And it is certainly a popular one in literature. The obsession with demonising progress and idealising nature has a long tradition in the literary world, even before Romanticism imbued an almost unconscious preference for the philosophy in the Eurocentric tradition. However, on my most recent re-read I had to ask myself whether this was a legitimate perspective and if I agreed with it. I don't.
London presents a vicious world and then asks the reader to admire it as "the natural state". But I have never seen a society that wasn't improved by civilising forces. When we learn the history of our species we do not celebrate the social inequality that characterises a society built around the manifesto of the survival of the fittest. If civilisation is such an ineffective and immoral force- why do we strive for it? Even in countries such as India, where the effects of colonialism were originally so catastrophic to the country, the benefits of technology and the western philosophy of social advancement have so completely commingled with cultural identity it is impossible to disentangle the two. Likewise, African American people did not fight for the right to return to their ancestral, tribal roots in the post- slave era, but rather for the right to active participation in the social fabric of a modern country.
Furthermore, while entire bodies of literature are dedicated to the supremacy of the natural and instinctual, in the real world the destabilisation of society is seen as a tragedy. Consider our instinctual responses to the collapse of civilisation during war, flood and famine. And the way we collect stories of humanity in the face of monstrosity at such times. It then becomes clear that the whole argument put forward in Call of the Wild is a bit of philosophical bunk.
Despite my feelings on the message of the book I persist in thinking it's bloody wonderful. It is an example of superbly written literature. Characters, objects and even the landscape are layered with meaning and lend themselves to multiple interpretations. That such a small book can inspire such enduring interest and allow for numerous re-reads where the meaning becomes richer each time, is a credit to London's consummate skills.
I read this as part of the Frontier Western Classics discussion group. Join us and explore the roots of a fascinating genre which is experiencing a resurgence in popular culture. :)
What is not to love in this horrifying portrayal of boy scouts gone wild?
Apparently a lot based on the wildly divergent opinions expressed in my GRs What is not to love in this horrifying portrayal of boy scouts gone wild?
Apparently a lot based on the wildly divergent opinions expressed in my GRs friend's reviews.
[image]
Ive decided I'm going to obnoxiously explain why I think all the haters are wrong by addressing some of the major gripes people have with this novel.
Criticism One:I had to study this in HS so I hate it
[image]
Nothing destroys my affection for a book like having to do in-depth analysis on it. This is a universal law of nature. There is no helping it. Move to Australia, build a time machine, and get your High School Education before 2008 when they added Lord of the Flies (LotF) to the standard English curriculum.
Criticism Two:I find the message of this novel offensive
Well, really! I find the underlying messages in Gone with the Wind offensive but it didn't stop me appreciating it. LotF is a dark novel. It asks interesting questions like "what happens when society's rules break down?", "Does our choice in leader change in times of uncertainty or fear? Should it?", "What is basic human nature?". Good literature poses questions and endeavours to answer them through dramatic conflict. Great literature creates enough space within the text to allow readers to draw their own conclusions on the questions raised. One of the timeless aspects of LotF is the continued relevancy of these questions to contemporary society.
Don't believe me?
[image]
Criticism Three: LotF is racist
Here I will direct you to Emily May's excellent review which demonstrates that not only is the book not racist- a strong argument can be made that it is refuting the racist ideals of it's time.
Criticism Four: No Plot/ Boring/ Bad Prose/ Unlikable Characters
Bad Prose- The prose is curious. It has a sharp and choppy style, is prone to run on sentences and is laden with image- heavy metaphors;
The tears began to flow and sobs shook him. He gave himself up to them now for the first time on the island; great, shuddering spasms of grief that seemed to wrench his whole body. His voice rose under the black smoke before the burning wreckage of the island; and infected by that emotion, the other little boys began to shake and sob too. And in the middle of them, with filthy body, matted hair, and unwiped nose, Ralph wept for the end of innocence, the darkness of man’s heart, and the fall through the air of the true, wise friend.
But style should not be judged in a vacuum. LotF is a fable. It is also a morality tale. It is also a children's book. And a book narrated from the perspective of scared and inept children. The prose reflects the purpose of the novel and it embodies the tone of the boys' experiences. This is exactly what prose should do.
No Plot- I think we read different novels. I blame the recent avalanche of YA dystopian action film franchises books for this unjust accusation.
Bad/ unlikable Characters- The characters aren't particularly sophisticated, most are unlikable and they do have a tendency to fall into tropes. However, I strenuously disagree with the assertion that the main characters aren't well drawn. Who could forget the charismatic Jack who "ought to be chief because I’m chorister and head boy and I can sing C sharp", or poor Piggy whose "auntie told me not to run on account of my asthma"?
Criticism Five: The pig's head freaked me out
[image]
No argument here. Who decided this was suitable fodder for innocent hearts? That shit is terrifying.
[image]
So did I miss anything? What other reasons do people have for disliking this classic?
I'm going to re-read this. I always had complicated feelings about this book and I think I will do an extended deconstruction of it. There is a lot ofI'm going to re-read this. I always had complicated feelings about this book and I think I will do an extended deconstruction of it. There is a lot of stuff going on under the surface of this fairytale. ...more
Need some time to think about this. It was a strange book, very well written. At times it was hard to feel sympathetic towards the MC and once I finalNeed some time to think about this. It was a strange book, very well written. At times it was hard to feel sympathetic towards the MC and once I finally did she then did some things that made it uncomfortable for me to root for her. However, it was brilliantly written and the characters and scenes were pretty much perfect. Its one of those books that is hard to explain. How can you feel so strongly for a character while also having trouble sympathising with her? ...more
I often seen to be in the minority with my friends when it comes to the horror genre. I love deep psychological horror novels that can be read in a feI often seen to be in the minority with my friends when it comes to the horror genre. I love deep psychological horror novels that can be read in a few different ways. I want to be horrified not terrified. What I mean is I want to see characters having liminal experience over the course of the novel where their understanding of reality and their place in the world dissolves. I want to feel the horror and fear they experience in that state and see how they come out the other side. That's part of why I love this novel. It is ambiguous, the governess' understanding of the world and her place in it has disintergrated and neither she nor the reader can understand or contextualise what is occurring. It is powerful. Whether the characters overcome the experience and are transformed or fail and (usually) die doesn't really matter. It is their actions and choices during the novel that I love exploring. That process/ experience is present in The Turning of the Screw and that is why I love this novel and similar novels in the genre....more
Lauren (Shakespeare & Whisky)
>
Books:
classics
(35)
Loading...
