To Build A Fire Man Vs Nature

It was December and the day was cold. The wind blew rapidly and incoherently as the village folk worked on the crops and attend to their many cattle. Then, something started falling from the sky...it was snowing. Normally this isn’t a big deal,

Tires squealed on black ice and the engine backfired as she swerved around a narrow edge of the cliff. Jennifer Lesniak is traveling from Wisconsin to Oregon in a six ton truck through treacherous mountains and endless plains. It was three days of almost non-stop driving, only being able to sleep when she gave the wheel to her husband. Just when she was about to give up she thought the extreme weather in Wisconsin and about why she was moving to Oregon in the first place. She carried on willed by the warmer weather that awaited her on the west coast. The snow fell like ash from a volcano, building up on the road to the point where they had to get out of their truck and shovel the road clear. “Clearing the roads were extremely difficult” She said. “We were so close to the edge of this mountain standing on slippery ice trying to shovel the snow out of the road with little to no safety guard between us and the drop.”

In “The Trouble with Wilderness,” William Cronon illustrates the paradox within the notion of wilderness, describing that if wilderness is that which lies beyond civilization -- beyond humankind, then so is the notion of nature outside the realm of the human... that humans are therefore, unnatural. Further, he explains that if our concept of nature (and ultimately our concept of God) is outside of humanity, then our existence is synonymous with the downfall of nature. That wilderness is purely a construct of civilization is central to this argument.  For example, Cronon asserts that “the removal of Indians to create an ‘uninhabited wilderness’---uninhabited as never before in human history of the place---reminds us just how invented, just how constructed, the American wilderness really is” (pg.79). Instead of in isolation from civilization, Cronon finds that his most spiritual experiences with nature have always been closer to home… a sense of wildness (versus wilderness) can be found in one’s backyard, gazing from a front porch, and in the melding of the human experience with mother nature. One of Into the Wild’s final scenes drives home this idea by altering the literal point of view that main character, Chris McCandless, has had of both himself and of the world since the beginning of his two year journey.  Into the Wild attempts to dramatizes Cronon’s argument to rethink wilderness; we will examine how the film succeeds, and where it fails, to support its premise.

In “To Build A Fire”, the main conflict throughout is man versus nature although it would be inaccurate to say that nature goes out of its way to assault the man. The

The narrator is detached from “To Build a Fire” focusing on only the chain of events, interpreted with amazing amount of description and imagery. The detachment of this story’s narrator is very important to the story because it enables the reader to mainly focus on only the dog and the man and what is happening to/around them. When reading “To Build a Fire”, the reader doesn’t focus on who the narrator is the author, Jack London, makes the reader put all his attention and focus on the narrator’s adventure for getting to the camp. Despite the detached, the story still grabs the reader's attention and makes them feel anxious of what is going to happen next.

The affection of nature on the main character. “The main character is a young man who believes that he knows the frozen wilderness, but he is still a tenderfoot who has not yet learned to respect the power of nature” (James M.

Though London illustrates how nature is a difficult external force, the man is responsible for his misfortune, as his circumstances are the consequences of his choices. The narrator explains that the man was traveling ?to take a look at the possibilities of getting out logs in the spring? (978); more than likely, he did not have to perform this task, which required taking ?the roundabout way? (978). Also, despite being a ?newcomer to the land? (977), the man fails to bring a human companion to the ?unprotected tip of the planet? (982): just as the Earth is exposed to space here, as the narrator describes, the man has little defense against the cold. The man is not ignorant of the extreme cold, but rather, arrogant; though warned about the conditions (982), the man does not bring anything except a small lunch (978). Another sign of his lack of preparation is his failure to sufficiently protect himself from frostbite: he ?experienced a pang of regret that he had not devised a nose-strap...[that] passed across the cheeks, as well, and saved them? (979). Granted, the man can not see the water he falls into (981), but the fundamental responsibility for the journey is his. Furthermore, he elects to build the fire to thaw himself under the spruce tree, which proves disastrous (983). The narrator notes, ?It was his own fault, rather, his mistake? (982); the man also recognizes this, and knows he

London and Krakauer argue that one must seek nature as an inspiration to reveal one’s self identity, and not destroy it;only when there is a combination of wiseness and being deprived of basic needs is one's self identity revealed. In the text, “To build a fire”, the main character seeks nature, however he does not find his self identity until it is too late due to his ignorance, resulting in an inevitable death. The main character, also known as “The man”, walks along a path in the middle of winter, accompanied by a dog. While the man is seeking nature and choosing not to destroy it, he is also challenging mother nature by testing his limits.

The Man was strong in his heart and did not give up. He was always trying to survive in the harsh cold weather of fifty below zero. He would get extra branches to maintain his fire when he could. “He worked methodically, even collecting an armful of the larger branches to be used later when the fire gathered strength” (London par. 25).The man was thinking ahead and decided he should just get as much as he can every trip to save time. The Man’s fingers got frozen when his fire got put out by the tree he had no mobility or sense of touch with his hands. He had to make a fire and he decided he would use his mouth. “He picked it up in his teeth and scratched it on his leg. Twenty times he scratched before succeeded in lighting it” (London par. 28). The man had no mobility of his hands so he thought outside the box and fought for his life using his survival instincts. He used his mouth to ignite the match and make the fire. Despite his best efforts, The Man succumbed to the cold weather due to his foolishness of not being

The man had no imagination and only understood facts. He knew it was very cold and his body was numb, but he failed to realize the danger. A newcomer with no experience, he thought he was invincible. Neither the "absence of sun from the

The protagonist meets his demise because of his lack in intuition and imagination. (Short Story Criticism) The miner heads out to the miners camp after being warned to not travel at such cold temperatures. The miner displays his lack of intuition many times throughout the story. The miner proves he lacks in instinct when he says “fifty below zero is just uncomfortable and cold.” (London 1) “The protagonist travels against the advice of experienced prospects, thinking that he will make it successfully.” (Short Story Criticism) He shows his inexperience further when he thinks it is “fifty below when it’s actually seventy-five below zero.”(London 2)The recurring motif of man versus nature supports the lack of intuition theory. The secondary main character displays the instinct traits the man does not have. It shows how the wolf-dog senses the severity of the climate while the miner just views it as uncomfortable and cold. The miner further proves his lack of

When the man was trying desperately to re-light the fire he removed his gloves and lost all feeling in his hands. If he had remained calm and thought about his situation he might have had a chance to survive. Nature showed no mercy when the man attempted to re-light the fire using only his palms, and he failed. "He was losing his battle with the frost. It was creeping into his body from all sides."(1754) The man's unfortunate mistakes cost him his life and nature felt no sympathy for him. He was just another man who failed to defeat nature for one more day. If the man had brought along a companion for the journey like the old man in the town had suggested he would still be alive. However, his stubbornness would not submit to that. "The old-timer on Sulfur Creek was right, he thought in the moment of controlled despair that ensued: after fifty below, a man should travel with a partner."(1752). Instead the man brought a wolf dog with him to keep him company. The only thing that the dog was good for was as an outlet for the man's jealously when he realized all the mistakes he had made. The man envied how the dog could just sit in the snow and his warm fur would protect him from the elements. The mistakes that the man made reflect everyday life by showing how just one accident or miscalculation can cost you your life. Naturalism utilized the environment to show how fierce and apathetic the world can be. In the opening scene of "To Build a Fire" London used a bleak

     During his fateful journey, the Man is given warnings first-hand of the extreme cold and of the consequences of his actions. The first is when he spits on the snow:

Stephen Crane’s “The Open Boat” and Jack London’s “To Build a Fire” include parallel ideas of Man’s hopelessness in the natural world. Through out both short stories the authors bring up questions of man’s fate and his relationship with nature as well as carry a theme of naturalism. When nature seems to repeatedly play against man, the reader wonders we whether nature is cruel and sinister, making it difficult for man to live. Evidence in the the two stories such as the animal’s presence, the environments, and the different human characters, in both stories leads one to believe that nature is not in fact out to get man, but it is a neutral, indifferent factor.