Reviews for White Fang
Review - White Fang
In November, 1995, several members of Carp read White Fang, by Jack London, and wrote a review for the newsletter. Here, for your reading enjoyment, they are:
JEFF: I didn’t like it. The thoughts of the dog/wolf were funny at times, although it often got annoying because London would go on and on about it. The ending was stupid. I felt that London was just tired of writing the book. The dog should have died.
JIM: White Fang finds that it’s a dog-eat-dog world until he’s rescued by the ultra-liberal rich son of a San Francisco judge, Weedon Scott. Through a mystical empathy that they share, White Fang becomes domesticated. Ultimately, he proves his true worth by foiling the revenge of an armed and dangerous fugitive and taking the bullet intended for the judge (which would have been fatal to any run-of-the-mill wolf-dog). I found it troubling that Scott’s motivation was to “redeem mankind” in White Fang’s eyes. He somehow could tell that White Fang had the intelligence of a porpoise (far above that of an average human, anyway) and a soul that craved love and affection (not realizing that animals don’t have souls, apparently). It was an unrealistic story with a sappy ending, but at least it provided the prototype of the plot to every Lassie episode (“What is it boy, what’s the matter?” “I think he wants us to follow him!”) right up to where the dog sacrifices himself for his human family.
KELLI: This was a book I loved the whole time I hated it. On the positive side, London did a great job of describing the wolf’s first excursions outside the cave. (The part where he could not figure out how his dad could walk through the wall was excellent.) On the negative side, London was a bit inconsistent about the wolf’s ability to think/reason. In one sentence the animal was unable to think and in the next he was thinking about something. Also, I could not escape the overriding theme of evolution. And I could not help but think that London portrays the man-god with the qualities of God. The man-god is in control of justice. He doles out punishment left and right — and you’re never quite sure when that punishment will come upon you. If that is the way London saw God, on wonder he could not believe in His goodness. The wild also gains qualities of God in London’s eyes. In one paragraph he defines it in this way, “… it was the masterful and incommunicable wisdom of eternity laughing at the futility of life and the effort of life. It was the wild.” Through an evolutionist’s eyes, this is God.
KEN: I don’t like animal stories, and I didn’t like this one.
LINDA: I’m sure London is probably a good writer and from his descriptions you get a good picture of what was happening … However, evil triumphs over good in the end and I don’t like animal stories.
ROGER: This wasn't a bad book, but it was an annoying book. I was annoyed by the way the story line about the two trappers was dropped after Chapter 3, never to be mentioned again. I was annoyed by the Duke who was left in the tree. Who was he? Why was he there? I was annoyed by the way the criminal, Jim Hall, conveniently popped up in the last chapter without any preamble, just in time to make White Fang a hero and provide a happy ending. I was annoyed by the human thoughts that London kept giving to animals, and by the way he would follow up particularly blatant examples with a justification like, "He did not reason the question out in man-fashion," or something similar. And yet, in Chapter 14, when White Fang was returning to the Indian camp after the famine, "he heard the angry voice of a woman [and] knew it to be the anger that proceeds from a full stomach." It's a pretty smart dog that can figure that out. I was annoyed by the way men were always referred to as gods — and by London's view of God. I was annoyed by the repeated references to White Fang never having barked. So what? I used to have a Cocker Spaniel that never barked. (Instead, like a skunk, she used scent to keep away intruders.) But the most annoying part of the book is in Chapter 20, just before White Fang attacks Beauty Smith. "And now, with the love-master, his snuggling was the deliberate act of putting himself into a position of hopeless helplessness. It was an expression of perfect confidence, of absolute self-surrender, as though he said: 'I put myself into thy hands. work thou thy will with me.'" Woof.
SALLY: As a general rule, I don’t care for animal stories and this was no exception. However, there were several times while reading this book that I found myself actually enjoying it. I may have enjoyed it even more except for the fact that I disliked the author. I kept feeling that he was trying to prove some point though I’m not sure what it was. The author was anti-God and an evolutionist. The author’s feelings about God can be summed up on the partial paragraph that follows: “… unlike man, whose gods are of the unseen and the overguessed, vapors and mists of fancy eluding the garmenture of reality, wandering wraiths of desired goodness and power, intangible outcroppings of self into the realm of spirit …” As to his belief in evolution, it can be seen throughout the entire book. He constantly refers to White Fang’s development as coming “over centuries of struggle.” Also, the dogs “saw him with the eyes of their ancestors … by their inherited memory …” The author even goes a step further and excuses not only White Fang, but man too, from any responsibility for their actions because of heredity and environment. And not only that … I don’t think White Fang (or any wolf/dog) is capable of having as many thoughts as the author gave him. So there!
TIM: A wolf’s story, not the kind of thing I would expect to like, but I did. The book starts with a pack of wolves chasing two guys who would rather die than let some dead guy be eaten by them. For not having the sense to bring enough ammo and not dumping the body at the first sign of wolves, I nominate these guys as the stupidest I’ve ever read about. The books hits its stride when White Fang is born and starts to explore his world. Jack London seems to know more about animals than people. I was caught up in the life of this wolf and intrigued by London’s ideas of wolf thought and motivation. It was interesting watching White Fang learn about his world. As White Fang grows, we learn about life in the Canadian wilderness and then in California, but from a perspective that we are not accustomed to. It is this perspective that made this book interesting and enjoyable to read.
JEFF: I didn’t like it. The thoughts of the dog/wolf were funny at times, although it often got annoying because London would go on and on about it. The ending was stupid. I felt that London was just tired of writing the book. The dog should have died.
JIM: White Fang finds that it’s a dog-eat-dog world until he’s rescued by the ultra-liberal rich son of a San Francisco judge, Weedon Scott. Through a mystical empathy that they share, White Fang becomes domesticated. Ultimately, he proves his true worth by foiling the revenge of an armed and dangerous fugitive and taking the bullet intended for the judge (which would have been fatal to any run-of-the-mill wolf-dog). I found it troubling that Scott’s motivation was to “redeem mankind” in White Fang’s eyes. He somehow could tell that White Fang had the intelligence of a porpoise (far above that of an average human, anyway) and a soul that craved love and affection (not realizing that animals don’t have souls, apparently). It was an unrealistic story with a sappy ending, but at least it provided the prototype of the plot to every Lassie episode (“What is it boy, what’s the matter?” “I think he wants us to follow him!”) right up to where the dog sacrifices himself for his human family.
KELLI: This was a book I loved the whole time I hated it. On the positive side, London did a great job of describing the wolf’s first excursions outside the cave. (The part where he could not figure out how his dad could walk through the wall was excellent.) On the negative side, London was a bit inconsistent about the wolf’s ability to think/reason. In one sentence the animal was unable to think and in the next he was thinking about something. Also, I could not escape the overriding theme of evolution. And I could not help but think that London portrays the man-god with the qualities of God. The man-god is in control of justice. He doles out punishment left and right — and you’re never quite sure when that punishment will come upon you. If that is the way London saw God, on wonder he could not believe in His goodness. The wild also gains qualities of God in London’s eyes. In one paragraph he defines it in this way, “… it was the masterful and incommunicable wisdom of eternity laughing at the futility of life and the effort of life. It was the wild.” Through an evolutionist’s eyes, this is God.
KEN: I don’t like animal stories, and I didn’t like this one.
LINDA: I’m sure London is probably a good writer and from his descriptions you get a good picture of what was happening … However, evil triumphs over good in the end and I don’t like animal stories.
ROGER: This wasn't a bad book, but it was an annoying book. I was annoyed by the way the story line about the two trappers was dropped after Chapter 3, never to be mentioned again. I was annoyed by the Duke who was left in the tree. Who was he? Why was he there? I was annoyed by the way the criminal, Jim Hall, conveniently popped up in the last chapter without any preamble, just in time to make White Fang a hero and provide a happy ending. I was annoyed by the human thoughts that London kept giving to animals, and by the way he would follow up particularly blatant examples with a justification like, "He did not reason the question out in man-fashion," or something similar. And yet, in Chapter 14, when White Fang was returning to the Indian camp after the famine, "he heard the angry voice of a woman [and] knew it to be the anger that proceeds from a full stomach." It's a pretty smart dog that can figure that out. I was annoyed by the way men were always referred to as gods — and by London's view of God. I was annoyed by the repeated references to White Fang never having barked. So what? I used to have a Cocker Spaniel that never barked. (Instead, like a skunk, she used scent to keep away intruders.) But the most annoying part of the book is in Chapter 20, just before White Fang attacks Beauty Smith. "And now, with the love-master, his snuggling was the deliberate act of putting himself into a position of hopeless helplessness. It was an expression of perfect confidence, of absolute self-surrender, as though he said: 'I put myself into thy hands. work thou thy will with me.'" Woof.
SALLY: As a general rule, I don’t care for animal stories and this was no exception. However, there were several times while reading this book that I found myself actually enjoying it. I may have enjoyed it even more except for the fact that I disliked the author. I kept feeling that he was trying to prove some point though I’m not sure what it was. The author was anti-God and an evolutionist. The author’s feelings about God can be summed up on the partial paragraph that follows: “… unlike man, whose gods are of the unseen and the overguessed, vapors and mists of fancy eluding the garmenture of reality, wandering wraiths of desired goodness and power, intangible outcroppings of self into the realm of spirit …” As to his belief in evolution, it can be seen throughout the entire book. He constantly refers to White Fang’s development as coming “over centuries of struggle.” Also, the dogs “saw him with the eyes of their ancestors … by their inherited memory …” The author even goes a step further and excuses not only White Fang, but man too, from any responsibility for their actions because of heredity and environment. And not only that … I don’t think White Fang (or any wolf/dog) is capable of having as many thoughts as the author gave him. So there!
TIM: A wolf’s story, not the kind of thing I would expect to like, but I did. The book starts with a pack of wolves chasing two guys who would rather die than let some dead guy be eaten by them. For not having the sense to bring enough ammo and not dumping the body at the first sign of wolves, I nominate these guys as the stupidest I’ve ever read about. The books hits its stride when White Fang is born and starts to explore his world. Jack London seems to know more about animals than people. I was caught up in the life of this wolf and intrigued by London’s ideas of wolf thought and motivation. It was interesting watching White Fang learn about his world. As White Fang grows, we learn about life in the Canadian wilderness and then in California, but from a perspective that we are not accustomed to. It is this perspective that made this book interesting and enjoyable to read.
Reviewed by Roger on 2004-02-06 14:39:01