Tuesday 5 July 2016

Auteur's library



Jack London

White Fang

1906

That one was a beautiful book, lavished with imageries of nature to ravish our heart and take it away. Strange to think this is all about a wolf, but while other books take great pains to tell you of humans, London managed in a single, supple, easy stroke to make us feel at all points and in all ways exactly as a wolf would, in his mind, in his body, in his feelings. From the moment White Fang is introduced, we go from observers of nature unravelling before us, eyes strained at the immensity of it, to a conscious part of it. Nature is judged, characterised, and, in true Naturalist fashion, given all the power. We’re a wolf and we never go out of it, just like White Fang can only be what he is and what he is shaped to be by his environment. I rarely met with a book that could get me as close to an unnegotiated animal character and as far from the humans dealing with him as this one (except for the Farseer and Tawny Man trilogies and I wonder whether there isn’t some influence there. Would be interesting to look that up). And as attached. It’s not an emotional attachment as much as survival instinct instructing us poor human readers to cling to White Fang’s coat as fleece might, never dare to let go. Of course, this is all about us. It’s always about us. But while the metaphor was explicitly laid out, it never ceased being about the wolf either.
And the novel is so well written, in a straightforward, Spartan sentence style, but with a digging of the one true word not unlike the style of haiku. London says it exactly as it is, yet he only speaks poetry. Albeit a sorrowful and heartbreaking poetry. It is a very wise book and one that aims to be so; not telling you a story as much as using the background of a story to explore living beings’ heart and soul. I was enthralled with the first page and if my enthusiasm sometimes wavered when the tale turned too cruel or too repetitive (London has the tendency to hammer the point in when he explains something. But his style is so clear, so knowing, that these further elaborations only encumber the book), it found me again only a few pages later. Clearly, Jack London knew how to write, so that I’m suspecting what he wrote about was not as important as his gift of writing to us. His style is like an adventurer: the persona takes over the nature of the adventure. And all that matters is that writing here is an adventure you just have to hop on.

P.S. As I understand it, London was a partially racially-prejudiced man conscious of his prejudices and striving to rise above it; hence, it’s difficult, when he qualifies the white men at the fort as “superior” to the Native Canadians, to understand whether he truly sees them as their superiors or is simply representing in White Fang’s terms the relationship of hierarchy existing between the two at the time. His depictions of the Native Canadians camp were also picked upon by people for its featured cruelty, but the white men were portrayed just as badly so I did not find any offense in it. It was rather as humans that readers could take offense.

No comments:

Post a Comment