Class Discussion (2/7/13) On the Conflict of Nature

     I have a few statements to make about the discussion on "To Build a Fire" we held on Thursday. This revolves specifically around how I view the story and interpret the theme which is fairly different in comparison with the general class alignment. Like some past class discussions this one was over-thought, we strayed too far from a basic understanding of the text, though of course, this is still my personal opinion. I hold a different view not just concerning the theme but the character of the man and the main conflict as well.
     Rather than a theme referencing naturalism or the arrogance of the man I believe it pinpoints the fact of how one accident can often "snowball" into other calamities, pardon the pun (snowball---freezing weather? Never mind). The first "accident" that befell the man was his fall into knee-depth water, disabling his feet for travel. A rush to build a fire to warm his extremities only ushers in yet another misfortune, the fire is extinguished due to his careless plucking of the limbs of a snow-filled tree. These actions are neither done out of arrogance nor egotism, the man is simply panicked or in the case of his fall, careless. I covered in my previous post the precautions the man could have taken to avoid his first dilemma, besides simply being more careful. Therefore, the man is still intelligent and quick-witted he simply lacks the skill to react rationally in a demanding situation. The theme is accidental recklessness NOT personal arrogance.
     Putting aside the man's behavior I now focus on the stories' central conflict. It is easy to view "To Build a Fire" as a "Man v. Nature" scenario, however, this is also untrue. Never does nature actually lash out at the man to make him feel miserable, let alone die. Nature is just there, it exists, it is omnipresent, everywhere. Sure it was blistering cold and dark as ever but that wasn't anything unexpected in the Yukon terrain. Rather, the discordance within the text is created by the man himself. HE is the one who just happens to go strolling about alone in the cold. HE is the one who falls into cold water. And HE irritates a tree until it dumps snow on him and extinguishes his fire. This makes the conflict "Man v. himself. Now most of us relate this form of conflict with internal, possibly emotional trouble facing the protagonist. Let me remind the masses that Man v. himself can include physical problems such as a character's struggle to overcome Parkinson's Disease (something innate to himself) or the attempt to stop abusing their spouse (reaction triggered by outside events). In this particular story, the nameless man must act rationally in the face of a hazardous mistake, something he does not accomplish, which costs him dearly.
     I like to compare this story to "The Open Boat" writing by Stephen Crane. That story DOES embody the "Man v. Nature" conflict where nature is antagonistic. The four men in the story do nothing wrong to cause their main boat to swamp, it is nature which strikes out at them. As the story progresses it is evident that nature will not let the hard-working survivors rest; the sea continues to rock their small craft. Little food remains with the men and they cannot drink the surrounding salt water, plus, the captain is already injured. At the end of the story, their craft does indeed become swamped and an ensuing rescue by a group of people ashore are unable to rescue the oiler (occupation of one of the men) who dies within the waves. This story is a true example of Man v. Nature unlike the plot found in "To Build a Fire."
     I don't have much else to say, to any reader, don't jump to conclusions simply because a conflict takes place amongst nature, a fellow human, technology, etc. The protagonist must interact negatively several times with a concept or thing for there to be a true story conflict. I can definitely see the other viewpoint (Man v. Nature for "To Build a Fire") being arguable in an essay along with my proposed idea, both contain reasoning for debate.