Catching up on Classics (and lots more!) discussion

The Call of the Wild by Jack London is our December 2021 New School Classic Group Read.

This is the Spoiler Thread

We actually see the cruelty we condemn upon animals only when it's displayed in the movies or books. This book is one of them. I had seen the movie based on this book. I enjoyed both.
Also the book conveys that one should step out of one's comfort zone to realize one's true potential and purpose of life.

I love this book so much. It is on my "books that made me cry shelf". I first read the book as a young teenager. Buck really caught my imagination. At the end he seems to embody, in his loyalty, an ideal of what a good dog should be.

I taught this book as a novel unit a few years back. I was disappointed that the students did not love it as much as I did. I think that happens a lot to teachers. They found the vocabulary a bit of a struggle. Personally, I really like Jack London's action-oriented style of writing. Also, his writing about outdoor adventure really sounds authentic to me. He lived it before he wrote about it.

This is a story about the triumph of nature, a hymn to its strength and greatness. Dogs, like people, are different. This book is about a great dog's loyalty and love and it is touching.

A good companion piece to this book is White Fang.

I often see this called children's lit, and yeah, I sort of see that. It's easy to read, and captivating, but I read it as a child and completely missed the point. I was just sad Buck did not live out his days with Thornton. I didn't understand the title and Buck's ancestral memory.

It was enjoyable, but sad, as a kid. Wildly thrilling as an adult.

I had a special experience reading this the second time. I read this in the Library of Congress. More about that experience here: https://100greatestnovelsofalltimeque...

I know I said that I wasn't going to read this book, but I saw it was on Audible Premium, and it wasn't very long so I decided to give it another try and see what I thought.

I was more surprised than anyone at how much I enjoyed it. I did not have found memories, and as I mentioned in the nonspoiler thread, I'm not a big fan of animal stories.

This time around I found myself completely caught up in Buck's journey. London has a beautifully simplistic way with words. I've been helping read all these new YA books lately and so many of them are ridiculously long, filled with nonsense and fluff.

It was a pure delight to experience this book, that is half the length of those silly YA books, and full of rich, moving, experiences. I wish some of these YA authors would learn that length does not always equal a better book.

I'm really glad the book chose this group. I would've never picked it up again otherwise. I'm going to have to reread White Fang now. :)

Natalie wrote: "I know I said that I wasn't going to read this book, but I saw it was on Audible Premium, and it wasn't very long so I decided to give it another try and see what I thought.

I was more surprised ..."

I am so glad you liked it Natalie. What a nice review. I agree! I think the quality of London's writing is superb.

Joseph wrote: "I often see this called children's lit, and yeah, I sort of see that. It's easy to read, and captivating, but I read it as a child and completely missed the point. I was just sad Buck did not live ..."

I loved reading your blog of your experience in the Library! What a lovely building.

Joseph wrote: "I often see this called children's lit, and yeah, I sort of see that. It's easy to read, and captivating, but I read it as a child and completely missed the point. I was just sad Buck did not live ..."

Truly enjoyed your blog of the experience. Makes me a bit sad...I have been to the LoC and just took the tour. :(

Joseph, that is such a cool experience! Thanks for sharing!

Natalie wrote: "I know I said that I wasn't going to read this book, but I saw it was on Audible Premium, and it wasn't very long so I decided to give it another try and see what I thought...."

I also listened to the free version on Audible Plus and I enjoyed it a lot. Sometimes the classics don't get the treatment they should as an audiobook, but this one was really well done.

Thank you Lynn!

RJ - It really was. The Audible Plus catalog is one of my favorite things! I use it all the time. :D

Hadn't intended to read this but it is short and easy and I had not read it since I was just an early teen. London does quite a job of transporting you to the cold and dangerous climes. I know it is set in Alaska, but I kept picturing Yellowstone in winter, so beautiful and so dangerous.

Buck is the perfect hero. He is beaten but never conquered. He is loyal and true. And, in the end, he gets what he so justly deserves...his freedom.

Sara wrote: "Hadn't intended to read this but it is short and easy and I had not read it since I was just an early teen. London does quite a job of transporting you to the cold and dangerous climes. I know it i..."

Oh I agree. I just love Buck.

It sounds like many of us have read this one as a young person, and for me I was in the 5th grade and remember just hating this. I vaguely remember the boys enjoying this more than the girls did. Seems very likely after reading it now that a young 10 year old girl wouldn't love reading all of the violent parts. The cruelty of the humans toward the dogs was insensitive and just plain hard to read as an adult. I can certainly appreciate it now and can equate Buck's journey as one that was unexpected for him but one that made him the loyal and loving dog he ended up being. I'm glad to have revisited this.

I agree, Lori, that this is one of those books that reads very differently as an adult than it did as a child.

Lori wrote: "It sounds like many of us have read this one as a young person, and for me I was in the 5th grade and remember just hating this. I vaguely remember the boys enjoying this more than the girls did. S..."


You're right Lori. Age 10 is too young for this book. As a teacher, I wish other teachers would stop using (and ruining) books at too young an age. I read this myself when I was either 12 or 13 years old. I taught it to 13-14 year olds. I am glad you had a chance to reread.

Joseph wrote: "I often see this called children's lit, and yeah, I sort of see that. It's easy to read, and captivating, but I read it as a child and completely missed the point. I was just sad Buck did not live ..."

Are *you* the Joseph of the Once Lost Wanderer blog?! If so, I’m so thrilled to see you in this group. I’ve been following your blog for months as your likes and dislikes are almost identical to mine. As a matter of fact, I visited your blog for ideas for my 2022 Bingo Challenge, trusting that I would be picking books I would love. Your blog is fantastic for classics readers.

I read this story a couple of years ago and was really moved by it. As the “mom” to two very loyal German Shepherds, it made me so angry how Buck and the other dogs were treated - or mistreated. I don’t think I could have read this book as a child. The cruelty would have been too much to absorb. But London was writing of a different time and place. I did love this book and need to read White Fang.

Shirley (stampartiste) wrote: "Are *you* the Joseph of the Once Lost Wanderer blog?"

Yep...that's me. I'm glad you enjoy my blog :)

I have almost finished - will finish it next month. The story is engaging, and exactly as you say Sara, Buck is the perfect hero to root for. London's writing as well is quite beautiful. It's evocative and active at the same time.

There is one aspect to the book that makes me uncomfortable on a philosophical level though. I remember thinking the same thing when I read The Sea Wolf.

London suggests several times in the book that civilization and morality are mere veneers pasted on top of a more primitive existence, the "law of club and fang." It is more than just an acknowledgement of the need for self defence, which is of course a fact.

I listened to the audio unfortunately; so I can't quote the exact words, but there are multiple places where London states directly that the consideration of morality itself would be a hindrance to survival. I do get that in this harsh world, the softness of civilization would be a hindrance, as are the ridiculous loads of tents and spare clothing that Hal, Mercedes, and Charles try to lug about. But I don't believe he's right that morality itself is a hindrance. Considering solely one's own survival seems like a detriment rather than a benefit, both for the group at large and for oneself too, because it affects how the whole group works.

Especially in a harsh environment like this, it's only as a group that survival is possible. Looking out only for one's own survival would be the kiss of death for everyone. Away from remote areas, I think it's even more true. We depend on each other for so much. And I also think that morality is not a trivial thing that can be wiped away. I think it more is like a yeast that when mixed in, permeates the whole bread and changes its character; it cannot just be wiped off or easily forgotten.

Of course, this book is about dogs. Underneath the civilization trained into them, there are natural instincts; that's merely the truth. But this idea of man's primitive instincts is a common theme for London in other books as well, and I recognize it. I don't agree with it, even though it's so well expressed, even if I love the weird atavistic part where Buck transports back in his mind into the company of an actual caveman.

The book overall is wonderful though. It's just as engaging for me as an adult as it was for me as a child. It's paced perfectly, written beautifully, and very well done.

Very interesting take, Greg, and food for thought. I have never taken it that London was promoting a lack of morals or group interdependence, I have always viewed it more as the detriment of forgetting that we are driven also by instinct. That ignoring instincts could be dangerous. I know, from experience, that there are little bells that go off when you are about to do something that your instincts tell you you should not do. If you ignore those bells, you always end up in trouble.

So many of the men London portrays are not men who are working for the good of a group, but men driven by their own self interests. That is why they are willing to drive the dogs to the point of death, because they have no regard for the survival of anyone but themselves. And, to some extent it explains what men are doing in such a harsh environment in the first place.

I love your thoughtful analysis of the book, Greg, and you have given me something to ponder. Thanks.

Sara wrote: "Very interesting take, Greg, and food for thought. I have never taken it that London was promoting a lack of morals or group interdependence, I have always viewed it more as the detriment of forget..."

Hi Sara, oh, sorry, I think I wasn't expressing myself well there!

I don't think that London is promoting immorality or that he is writing a book from an amoral or immoral perspective at all. It certainly is not nihilistic! There is clearly an authorial judgment on the treatment of the dogs, and there is a moral center in the book. The characters who are truly amoral (like those who kidnapped Buck) are portrayed in a way where it would be impossible to approve of them.

I just meant that London seems to believe that animal instincts and the human instincts in their most primitive form are themselves amoral. They are about survival. And in situations where all of the social niceties are stripped away, those primitive instincts lie underneath. At places, I feel almost a yearning for the purity of those primitive instincts in his work. Purity in terms of purity of intention (of singularity of intention) rather than innocence of course.

My physical copy of the book is boxed up at the moment, but I will look for some quotes in the book to better support what I mean later.

But a few examples:

"It marked, further, the decay or going to pieces of his moral nature, a vain thing and a handicap in the ruthless struggle for existence.

Here, Buck's "moral nature" is seen not only a "handicap" but utterly "vain" in this environment. They have to be discarded for him to survive. And for a dog, that is perhaps true. But in other works, I've seen similar things expressed in regard to human affairs and human instincts, with a similar yearning.

Another place in the book:

"He must master or be mastered; while to show mercy was a weakness. mercy did not exist in the primordial life."

It seems to me that the "primordial life" here is the primitive instincts. And mercy is no part of that. But Buck must give in to those instincts to survive.

I would need to find it in the book (once I dig it up), but in another passage, Buck has an almost ecstatic vision of a caveman, I felt a deep longing there. It is as though he yearns for a return to the simplicity of those original instincts.

I don't think that means London approves of immorality at all. But it does seem he sees immorality as an advantage survival-wise. For dogs, maybe it is, but I'm not sure that's true with people because people who live that way, focused only on survival, usually lose out in the end.

Yes, I see your point, Greg. I think you and I see it much the same.

When you say, "But it does seem he sees immorality as an advantage survival-wise.", I think it is not immorality that he sees that way, but amorality. He thinks morality is not involved in instincts, which are given to us for the purpose of survival.

I like the quote you used about mercy. In Buck's case, to show mercy would be sure death for himself, but we do see mercy shown to Buck by John Thornton, so it doesn't seem to me London believes man should discard mercy or operate on just primordial instincts.

It seems to me that Buck is still close enough to his ancestral precursors that he resorts instinctively to a behavior that enables him to survive. Men are missing that connection, and we see that they do not survive well in this environment. They really don't have that power of the wildness to call upon. Buck is not far from the wolves he belongs to, but Thornton is too far from his caveman ancestor to survive the attack by the natives, who are closer to nature and instinct than he is.

You are making me want to read this again with only this question in mind. I'm not sure I have a definitive hold on what London is really saying.

One thing you are absolutely right about: " people who live that way, focused only on survival, usually lose out in the end.">

Sara wrote: "When you say, "But it does seem he sees immorality as an advantage survival-wise.", I think it is not immorality that he sees that way, but amorality. "

Yes, you are absolutely right. I did mean amorality.

Sara wrote: "It seems to me that Buck is still close enough to his ancestral precursors that he resorts instinctively to a behavior that enables him to survive. Men are missing that connection, and we see that they do not survive well in this environment. They really don't have that power of the wildness to call upon. Buck is not far from the wolves he belongs to, but Thornton is too far from his caveman ancestor to survive the attack by the natives, who are closer to nature and instinct than he is."

I love this Sara! It is beautifully expressed, and I do think it expresses London's view exactly.

As I discuss this with you though, I'm gaining more clarity on what my discomfort is. I absolutely think that in Buck's case, mercy would mean death for himself because it is a fight to the death between animals. But I think that often, with people in the civilized world, those primitive instincts run counter to what is good for us rather than toward our benefit.

I think of the mercy Bilbo showed Golem in The Lord of the Rings. Primitive instincts would surely have told him to slay Golem, as Buck did Spitz, when he had the chance. Golem had tried to kill him and would surely do so again. Paradoxically though, this mercy saves them all, as Golem accidentally brings about the ring's destruction when Frodo is on the verge of failing.

As Gandalf says, "Pity? It's a pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends. My heart tells me that Gollum has some part to play in it, for good or evil, before this is over. The pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many."

And I think of Martin Luther King whose primitive instincts of survival and self preservation would surely have told him to get off the streets and out of harm's way, or at the very least to fight back! But instead, he did a thing that runs precisely counter to what his instincts would have led him to do, a thing that put him precisely in the most possible danger, which was perhaps the only way that the most astonishing things could have happened. By not seeking his own survival, he changed the course of history and the course of all of our lives for the better.

This isn't a criticism of London because as you say, his views are definitely more nuanced. This is not a story where the characters happily lapse into atavistic slaughter, thank goodness.

But his yearning for those primeval instincts makes me feel a touch uncomfortable regardless. The way I see it, those instincts can be positive or negative; they can help us to survive, or they can paradoxically destroy us.

I understand the pull because there's a great beauty in their simplicity of purpose. I love when he waxes poetic about them:

"There is an ecstasy that marks the summit of life, and beyond which life cannot rise. And such is the paradox of living, this ecstasy comes when one is most alive, and it comes as a complete forgetfulness that one is alive. This ecstasy, this forgetfulness of living, comes to the artist, caught up and out of himself in a sheet of flame; it comes to the soldier, war-mad in a stricken field and refusing quarter; and it came to Buck, leading the pack, sounding the old wolf-cry, straining after the food that was alive and that fled swiftly before him through the moonlight."

But I am not altogether sure that ecstasy is a good thing. Sometimes it might be, and sometimes it might not.

Have you read The Sea Wolf? I read it a long time ago so my memory is fuzzy. That one was much more philosophical and as it deals with human beings, the distinctions are less muddied. I would need to read it again to comment more intelligently. But I do see that motif repeated in London's work, the idea of the primitive instincts and an ambivalence toward civilization. Then again, given the atrocities commited by "civilized" peoples throughout time, how can I really blame him?

I truly love and agree with all your thoughts regarding men and mercy. It is the reason revenge is the worst goal a person can have. I have not read The Sea Wolf, but now, of course, I must. I might get a better sense, as you say, of what London truly wishes to express when reading a book dealing with humans. It is hard to know what he wants us to extrapolate from the dogs to the men...after all, I would consider a reversion to the wild quite acceptable in animals, who are originally meant to be intricately a part of nature, and a bit reprehensible in men if carried to an extreme that discounts civilization and the rest of mankind.

Again, you have selected the perfect quote to illustrate your point This ecstasy, this forgetfulness of living, comes to the artist, caught up and out of himself in a sheet of flame; it comes to the soldier, war-mad in a stricken field and refusing quarter; That is not an image that makes you feel anything but sadness for humanity...war-mad in a stricken field...man at his worst, even though the individual's desire to survive is wholly understandable.

I think putting aside the self-interest of survival is a rare trait in men. That is why there are so few Dr. Kings to celebrate. The Bible enjoins us Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. · John 15:13 but the sad truth is men who do this are still rare and heroic, not common.

Thank you so much, Greg, for sharing your thoughts with me on this book. I had enjoyed it and felt I had taken away a lot from it, but this discussion has doubled that and set me to thinking about it in a completely different way. I am now anxious to explore London's philosophy in more depth and will put The Sea Wolf on my list of books I must read this year.

Sara wrote: "I truly love and agree with all your thoughts regarding men and mercy. It is the reason revenge is the worst goal a person can have. I have not read The Sea Wolf, but now, of course, I..."

My pleasure Sara, I feel the same! Discussing it really expanded things for me as well. :)

If you do read The Sea Wolf at some point, or something else by London, do let me know. I'd love to do a buddy read!

I read it so long ago, and I'd love to read it again. I'm not sure if I am remembering correctly. Sometimes my memory is poor, and I often find that my older self understands things quite differently than I did in my 20s! :D

I can barely remember my 20s, Greg. lol. I would love to read it with you. We already have the basis of a great discussion going on to carry forward. Do March or April work for you? Let me know, or name a date that does, and I will post it in the buddy read section and see if anyone else wants to join us.

Sara wrote: "I can barely remember my 20s, Greg. lol. I would love to read it with you. We already have the basis of a great discussion going on to carry forward. Do March or April work for you? Let me know, or..."

That would be great!

Either March or April works for me. Whichever one works best for you or others who want to join would be fine with me. :)

I'm penciling it in for April and will post in the BR thread. Looking forward to it, Greg.

I’ll join you in a buddy read. :) I’d like to try more Jack London.

Natalie wrote: "I’ll join you in a buddy read. :) I’d like to try more Jack London."

Great Natalie! The more the merrier! :)

Fantastic. I put it on the schedule for April. :)

Great! Thanks Sara!