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.                                  
        

Thoughts on "To Build a Fire"

     I found "To Build a Fire"a unique and interesting piece, certainly applicable to a real-world setting of natural survival. The man in the story is a toughened character, seemingly at ease in -50 Fahrenheit weather, essentially accepting such frigid temperatures. From his hints about the Yukon and Bering Sea he is definitely far north on the North American continent, a chill environment indeed. This work provides a striking insight as to what life one might live in such an area.
     Obviously, the unnamed man is very knowledgeable about the trail he traverses referencing numerous survival tips in his trek throughout the wilderness. Besides building a fire for heat, I found it ingenious his method for quick warmth, the beating of his extremities (hands, feet, etc.) on himself or another object to release the cold, numbing sensation. Although this approach seems obvious to any reader sitting at home near a kindling fireplace I know I would completely forget this simple method if caught in such a frosted land. Of course, I suffer from Renaud's Phenomenon; poor blood circulation within one's hands and feet so beating my hands in below zero temperatures might just make them snap off! Other than that, the man also demonstrates his knowledge of "where to spot thin ice" even though it really doesn't help his journey by the stories' end. I was surprised when he actually did fall in the unmarked stream, despite his self-warnings that hidden "traps" did exist. Personally, I think he should have kept a walking stick, even a crude branch, to prod all areas in front of him, such could have saved him time, let alone, his life.
     Jack London (the author) does an excellent job with regards to story progression and transitions. He keeps the pages moving by describing each sequential event as it unfolds. The man begins walking easily through the frigid North as the temperature becomes colder and is forced to eventually make a "roaring fire." However, when he later falls into the cold water his luck takes a turn for the worse and the stories' end begins to unfold as his second fire fails to light and his body succumbs to the frigid tundra. The special twist here is how the man, who was previously labeled as a rough survivor, gradually progresses to his demise, which is unexpected by the reader. Additionally, London uses two unusual concepts in his work, adding to the flavor of the story. My attention immediately peaked when the man's chewing tobacco starts to crystallize on his beard, leaving him a gruesome, if not, unorthodox souvenir. Coupled with the fact that he is in an icy wasteland, he actually accepts the filthy residue, probably because his temperature problems are greater. Also, the scene in which he attempts to kill his dog for warmth seems like an early parallel to the famous Star Wars moment when Han Solo cuts open his Ton-ton for Luke Sky-walker's warmth. Yes, I know this story preceded Star Wars but the similarity must be recognized.
     One should get from this story an appreciation for where they live, most people do not traverse such cold pathways as often. In Ohio we are (not) used to a random change in temperature and weather condition any time during the day. Still, in my opinion, this is better than the nasty weather present in "To Build a Fire." I remember right after I read this story I had to walk ALL FOUR of my outdoor dogs: with plenty of snow on the ground. Certainly not my favorite experience!                                      
     

Class Discussion (1/22/13) On African American Economics

     I just had some leftover statements from our discussion in class today some might find interesting. Before writing I'd just like to point out that both W.E.B Du Bois and Booker T. Washington are both worthy of praise and my opinion of their beliefs changes NOTHING in regards to what they represent.
     In class I believe we were too specific, not approaching the "debate" from a broader context which could yield greater results. First, we have to classify Du Bois and Washington into two categories, active and passive, respectively. Now lets present an analogy of how they compare to modern day figures, Du Bois is similar to Malcolm X whereas Washington relates to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.; Remember, this is a generalization. For those who are unfamiliar with Malcolm X, he was a black nationalist who, for lack of a better term, believed African Americans should use force to gain civil rights. Of course, most of us already know who Dr. King was, the peaceful demonstrator and brilliant orator comparable to Henry David Thoreau or Mahatma Gandhi. Now looking at the individual philosophies of Du Bois and Washington, it is evident both have similar traits to their modern counterparts.
     No, Du Bois was not a violent revolutionary nor was Washington an organizer of sit-ins but the attributes of comparison between the men are hard to ignore. I offer this thought because it is important to look at the success of the more modern figures. Malcolm X eventually dropped his campaign of "black power" and if I am correct, became a devout Muslim. Dr. King, however, was successful in organizing a famous civil rights movement and it arguably the most famous African American in American history. Therefore, Dr. King's words of peace and nonviolent resistance proved superior over the more hostile actions of X. The lesson here is people will listen to logical argumentation and peaceful resistance, not active violence. If you agree with my analogy then it can be inferred that Washington's approach towards civil rights was more enlightened, more likely to succeed. Du Bois' ideas were not violent yet they were too forceful, such would not be appealing to the white populace.
     Even though Washington's surge for civil rights is more effective, I personally would argue in a more DU Bois style if faced with a related issue in today's society (Yes I know I was in the "Du Bois group" for the class discussion). Du Bois' stance had more in common with how I argue and or get things done. I still do admire King, Thoreau, and Gandhi for their determination it is simply the way they promote their beliefs where I differ. Of course, it is the individual's opinion concerning who pinpoints their views best and Du Bois and Washington are only two of many people.                 

Thoughts on "Up from Slavery"

     While reading Booker T. Washington's "Up From Slavery," I found several of his ideas and approaches to African American equality very interesting, incorporating unique concepts worth mentioning. In my past I have studied the activities of various other notable African American figures including Dr. King, Malcolm X, Frederick Douglass, Althea Gibson, the "Little Rock Nine," George Washington Carver, Thurgood Marshall, and others. Never before have I come across the similar ideology expressed by Washington regarding the advancement of his race.

     His staunch belief that African Americans could achieve equal civil rights and domestic tranquility through a rise in economic status has both confounded and perplexed me. His logic makes sense, people who have a stable economic foundation are more likely to be respected, even feared by political individuals. Some may even argue that having wealth can provide more happiness and civil liberties than political rights alone. Just being a capable businessman illicits several diverse skills and therefore one whith such abilities might be recognized by his or her superiors. However, it is no secret that political rights and economic freedom go hand in hand. How can one maintain a successful career if certain career options are not even available? Washington did indeed speak of granting blacks greater opportunity in the job market though I cannot say he campaigned for such rights. For Washington's plan at overall African American liberty to succeed it would have been necessary to assure blacks a foothold in the American economy before stressing them the importance of "casting their bucket" a phrase Washington uses frequently.

     Besides Washington's own ideology I found it rather astonishing (but definitely reassuring) that several Caucasian people at the time were able to recognize his brilliance. In his work, he recalls the masses of people who wanted to shake hands with him after his speech at the Exposition including many influential men such as Governor Bullock himself. What's more, his address became published in many well known U.S. papers and even sent a copy to President Grover Cleveland, a notable achievement indeed. But I found most surprising his appointment to the Department of Education in Atlanta. This shows how a white man with considerable authority sought the skill and wisdom of an articulate black man. It shows how Washington rose to an extremely important career which would give him the opportunity to prove black men were neither superior nor inferior to white men. Most importantly, it shows the beginning of the end of racism.

     I would highly recommend that anyone who has read this work or has not read it go,(re)read, and focus on Washington's logic, he provides several other excellent statements that I did not list above. Yes, some of his words are boring, but those which relate directly to the end of black strife are very important; most pertaining to all races.               

   

       

What is Literature? (and what it ISN'T)

   The topic is much too obvious so I'll jump right to the point. Literature is ANY text that exists.  Academic journals, fiction and non-fiction books, newspapers, advertisements, poems, short stories, music, textbooks, even homework can be classified as literature. Not to mention class notes, grocery lists, graffiti, and greeting cards. Literature in its most basic form is ANYTHING written. Yes, this even applies to those little love letters you send to your high-school sweetheart (not that I would know....ohhhh!). The common rabble in today's society would probably disagree with this, something like graffiti is not literature. But let's examine the main focus of literature itself. It seeks to inform, record, analyze, describe, and depict. It is artistic, pessimistic, opinionated, and conveys emotional and logical appeal. Surely every form of text falls under one of these categories. No, a grocery list may not be a well thought-out amalgam of knowledge but it is "informative literature." Also, a literary work is not necessarily a published work nor must it be known to more than one person: it just exists. Therefore, regardless of the form of text it can still be written well or poorly, though such is purely personal belief. Overall, the quality of literature itself is analogous with what one believes constitutes a literary dissertation. While I believe anything and everything written can be good or bad literature a fellow peer may be more of less limited in their views. Such is the power of opinion.