Many readers and critics have dismissed literary naturalism as “pessimistic determinism” – an approach that denies the potential for individual freedom and that see human beings as helpless to control their own destiny. At the same time, others read works such as the stories we have read by Crane and London as affirming the values of humanism that arise out of the rational philosophies of the Nineteenth Century. What is your response to these stories of successful and unsuccessful survival? What, if anything, is “instructive” (to use Crane’s term) or compelling about these stories?
February 15, 2008 at 10:10 am
The first step is pledging to yourself never to have another reader or critic ever sway your personal opinion on anything – even mine for that matter. The one concept I’ve learned is that there are an astonishing number of individuals that will refuse to credit to the movement of Naturalism (or even Modernism for that matter). It’s frequently discarded due to its dark, depressing and hopeless themes; if even recognized at all. I’ve since given up on the will to understand the obvious hypocrisies of the over-opinionated, ignorant populace – but not the will to use those notions in order to develop my character: a well-groomed philosophy I have these two literary movements to thank. I owe a lot to Naturalism. ‘Maggie: a girl of the streets’ showcases the harrowing inevitability of cosmic chaos; which leaves the protagonist ‘walking’ towards doom. Did she ever have a chance? Always a question I had every time I finished the book. And no matter how many times I read it, I couldn’t save her. I came to understand the question I had kept trying to answer was incorrect: there’s not a question or solution. In a way, Crane’s story is essential to gain an understanding of coping with time and place. The major idea that ties Crane, London, Dreiser, etc. is the protagonist’s focus. To truly learn from our Naturalism readings, find out what really made Martin Eden content; then picture Maggie making her decent towards the beckoning, rolling darkness only to find Martin calling her on board to sail forever, together. It is hard to judge the success of each Naturalism character; how do you define success? I would go so far as to say every character is successful because they’ve each decide to take hold of their destiny: have you ever pondered the concept behind the bourgeoisie’s elegant masquerades? That doesn’t seem represent life as is: the ill-content, ashamed, ever-depressed, hollow-shells; afraid of their own shadows. Compelling is the idea that each character partakes in the natural cycle of life – true to form. The saddest part of Naturalism is that the underprivileged always went seeking the holy grail because it was supposed to be the key to unlock their individual disasters. So, I pose a question; it’s the ultimate irony: if this theme was so consistent in two movements of the early 19th century, why are the over-privileged children of the late nineteenth century to present following the same paths to destructiveness? – the media of course being our true-to-form, Naturalistic novel. Compelling is the template these authors have laid out for us on how we gage success within our selves. If the reader is intrigued and willing to embrace their right to control their own destiny (obvious I am not completely convinced on the concept of fate), Naturalism is the formula to understanding and achieving everlasting harmony.
February 15, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I thought that all three of these stories were very blah and boring. There was no excitement in wondering whether or not the character would live or survive. To me it seemed that the tone of each story let the reader know exactly whether or not the character was going to live. I didn’t find them compelling, I just thought of them as normal stories about survival with the character’s fate already determined for them no matter how hard they tired to conquer it. Another reason I didn’t find them compelling was because I didn’t connect with the characters. I did not feel passion towards any of them.
February 15, 2008 at 3:26 pm
The issue I find most compelling in these naturalist stories is that it ultimately, man can and will be defeated. We can build massive ships to carry us across oceans, but storms are uncontrollable. We can try to walk across the Yukon by ourselves, but our frostbitten hands won’t start a fire. Up until this point, all the stories have either been feel good page turners that explore man’s external struggles or the inability to meet social expectations. These naturalist stories focus on man’s struggle with himself; The will to carry on, the fight for survival, and accepting a harsh reality.
February 15, 2008 at 4:39 pm
I thought that these stories were, in a way, depressing to read. It reminded me of those movies where everyone dies, even the protagonist. I guess that was the point, and as we discussed in class, some of these types of stories were, at first, written as boys adventure books. One thing I absolutely LOVE about these stories, however, are the descriptions and vivid language that is used throughout the entirety of all of them. The reader is able to see every single little detail of the nature that is surrounding the characters. I actually felt very cold while reading ” To Build a Fire.” It was kind of cool. I guess I just have a love/hate relationship with the naturalistic genre!
February 15, 2008 at 4:42 pm
whoops. my apologies. i feel like a blog crasher. i was doing web searches on Literature blogs and stumbled upon this one – only to realize the administrator would probably rather have this available exclusively to his/her students. I’ll assume Mr. Dudley is the instructor (ENGL242). If I am, in fact, a blog-crasher (by accident, i swear), I might suggest changing the settings so that this specific blog will ‘not show’ when search engines are initiated (through Google, Yahoo. etc.) so that people like me won’t randomly stray too far off topic – or divert ‘classroom’ discussions. i do dig the lit. and I think it’s a great idea to have this available for your students. And even if Mr. Dudley is a student, i still think you did a great thing by opening up the floor for discussion among your peers. thank you for your time and stay interested…
February 16, 2008 at 12:01 am
I would agree that “pessimistic determinism” seems rather acidic to describe the short stories of Crane and London. Taken to the extreme, determinism would attest that humans have no free will; this is pessimistic indeed. However, in my opinion, Crane uses stylistic techniques in “The Open Boat” which reflect a more Romantic style. Hence, on the continuum between Romanticism and Naturalism, “The Open Boat” falls somewhere in the middle. Essentially, it is a depressing story portraying the detailed demise of four men (despite any action on their behalf). The distinction of Crane’s craft, however, is his use of language. In other words, if “The Open Boat” were to have been written without application of aesthetically pleasing literary devices (i.e. alliteration and onomatopoeia) it would be a much more Deterministic text. Thus, perhaps the latter characterization of “The Open Boat”— a story revealing the value of humanism—is more appropriate.
February 16, 2008 at 10:27 am
While the stories were quite dismal, I enjoyed coming to understand the different philosophies of life and death that the authors held. As Naturalists, the Crane and London attempt to make sense of the power of nature in regard to human life. Ultimately, they learn that they will never learn Nature’s motives. Nature is unselective as it brings good or bad fortune. The stories seem to have a sense of ‘negative’ action. It is not something that happens that influences the characters or the readers, but, instead, it is what does not happen. In Crane’s “The Open Boat,” those words that are unsaid are the most powerful and meaningful to the characters. In London’s “The Law of Life,” Koskoosh does nothing but wait for death to come for him. It seems as though the stories encourage surrendering to nature’s unpredicatable and unchangeable will.
February 17, 2008 at 3:13 am
As a child I enjoyed London’s stories. But then, that comes with the knowledge that naturalism doesn’t necessarily result in unhappy endings. With shorter stories, however, its’ that negative ending that provides the most impact. Bad ending or no, I’ve found naturalism to often exemplify the nature of life, not in its futility, but in its determination to not simply lay down and die. This is shown in part in to build a fire, in the man’s attempt to run through the snow with frostbitten limbs flailing, in hope of reaching some settlement. London revealed the harsh reality of careless decisions in his story(the man’s lack of preparation), which was why the bad ending was so key to it. Crane’s story, on the other hand, shows a man giving until he has nothing left, and dying. That man may die as a result, but whether as many of the others would have survived as had, had that one man not given everything, is another story. Naturalism is not merely about the harshness of life and death, but the power held in the struggle against that harshness. The only truly futile action is to do nothing.
February 17, 2008 at 10:41 pm
In my opinion, literary naturalism is compelling by its very nature because it “gets it”, more than any other literary style. Life is not always beautiful. Life is hard, and such is the case for all of the characters in the stories by London and Crane. The notion that literary naturalism is “pessimistic determinism” is absolutely false within the stories we have read. The men who are involved in Jack London’s stories have control over their lives, be their control somewhat limited by the situations THEY have essentially gotten themselves into. And the men in Crane’s story who are at sea also have control over their lives, and consequently most of them survive. Naturalism tells the absolute truth (if you wander into the Yukon on your own during bone chilling temperatures you may very well die), be it humbling, and the absolute truth is always compelling.
February 18, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Personally, I was more partial to the writings of London because as I was reading Crane, I found that I often became absent minded and lacked full absorption of the material, whereas throughout London I was able to maintain a steady focus throughout the material and even be able to predict some of the shortcomings. Basically, I believe the point of all three stories was to stay on your toes and never find full comfort in any given situation because reality can swipe you from underneath your feet at any given point.
February 20, 2008 at 3:35 am
After reading the stories, I felt the main message that was broadcasted is that nature can and will destroy all. It enforces the idea of how nature is very random and unpredictable, which can be very fascinating or perhaps horrifying. However, my views on “pessimistic determinism” are completely polar from the term itself. I believe individuals choose to place themselves into certain positions in which their fate can eventually be left in the hands of nature but overall, I strongly believe that most individuals have moderate control over what happens to them.
To stray off topic momentarily, this question reminded me of a program I watched on the history channel about several people that have claimed to have found “Noah’s Ark” in Mt. Ararat. Although I personally question nearly everything Biblical, this reminded me of how some people choose to have somewhat to moderate control over their own destiny; being it is thought that man built the ark to survive a flood that would have killed everyone else without question. I just thought I’d share this.
February 20, 2008 at 10:09 am
Literary naturalism is does present life in a pessimistic way. It also how life can really be. It does not sugar coat struggles but provides an accurate portrayal of hardships people encounter. What I do not think naturalism is, is an end all in how life has to be. It provides only one aspect of how life can be. For instance, take Crane’s piece. He shows how one family can work hard for a living; how people’s nature is to help their neighbors–in the general human sense. But in the end, the scrupulous land owner usurps the improved land without compensation to those who put so much sweat and passion into making it successful. This situation is possible, but it does not have to represent all American experiences. What makes these stories compelling is that they show the understanding of hardships.
February 21, 2008 at 9:57 am
To me literary naturalism is sort of brutal. It proves to one that life is not easy, and people will endure hardships. Even though a group of people are generally “good” that does not mean that bad things will not happen to them. There were a few similarities that I noted between the two authors: 1. sort of survival of the fittest and 2. there really was not a heartening message in the story. For example, the landowner, from Crane’s story, took all the credit for the land that the farmer’s had been working. For pessimistic determinism I would have to agree with the post made by Ashley Dolly: one can make the best out of the situation that they have. I believe that if the characters in the stories would have turned the hardships that they faced around, they still could have prospered. Yeah, America was hard in these times (in the midwest, too), but people survived, and the characters should have recognized that life is not easy.
February 21, 2008 at 10:44 am
I enjoyed reading London’s stories better than Crane’s story. I got more out of London’s stories. Surviving out in the wilderness is hard and especially when it is -70 degrees below O. I felt like I knew more about the characters and felt like I was actually there in the story. I thought it was interesting that London revised his story. The detail in the To Build a Fire was capturing and made the story even more enjoyable. The fact that the man was not alone and had a companion with him addd a twist. At times he wanted to stop and just give up and die, but he kept running. Finally in the end, he couldn’t go any further. Overall, the stories were good!
February 21, 2008 at 11:39 am
The only one of these three stories I enjoyed was “To Build a Fire.” While the man knew he was going to die the entire time, he still tried his best to live. There was so much more he could have done–he realized he was stupid for not listening to the person who told him that he should travel with a partner.
I did not find these stories to be pessimistic–more just matter of fact. We are all going to die..some of us before others. These stories presented three different situations in which the characters lived or died…I thought it was almost refreshing to read about life and death from this perspective.
February 25, 2008 at 10:09 pm
I agree that I got more out of “To Build a Fire” than “The Open Boat”. The struggle portrayed by the main character seemed much more intense and personal. I connected with the character, whereas in Crane’s story I felt more like a mere bystander. I did not have the same experience at all between the two stories.
I also felt like the character had much more of a resolution. He figured out that he should have listened, that he should never have gone out into the bitter cold without a companion. In “The Open Boat,” I felt like the oiler’s death was just thrown upon me at the last moment. It was more shocking, I suppose, that way, but it did not have the same effect on me. As a reader, I could not connect with Crane like I did with Jack London.
February 27, 2008 at 8:30 pm
To be honest I’m not a big fan of literary naturalism. Ya you can look at it as nature defeating man and so on….but really it’s just man putting himself in that position, not preparing himself for the worst, and then in the end giving up. Maybe it’s just me, but defeat is a hard concept for me to grasp….so I don’t really see it as nature defeating man, but just man giving up.
March 4, 2008 at 6:24 pm
While all three of the stories we read were examples of literary naturalism, I reacted differently to each one.
In “The Law of Life,” it seemed like Koskoosh took a very defeatist attitude to his situation, exemplified here: “Nature did not care. To life she set one task, gave one law. To perpetuate was the task of life, its law was death.” To be fair, he was blind and probably couldn’t have done much to save himself after his tribe left him behind, but the ease with which he seemed to accept his impending death kind of bothered me.
In “To Build a Fire,” the man’s arrogance led to his defeat. In addition to being arrogant and taking no heed of advice given to him by “the old-timer on Sulphur Creek,” the main character was “a newcomer in the land, a chechaquo.” He was ignorant and unaware of the dangers the Klondike posed to him. He was foolish in thinking he could outsmart and overcome the harsh Klondike climate, especially after he’d been warned by an “old-timer,” who (without a doubt) had some significant experience to back up his words. I found it hard to relate or sympathize with the main character simply because he was so ignorant about everything.
In “The Open Boat,” the key thing was the “subtle brotherhood” that existed between the four shipwrecked men. These four men were looking out for each other, and they all wanted so badly to survive. There was also something deeper, for example, “It was more than a mere recognition of what was best for the common safety. There was surely in it a quality that was personal and heartfelt.” As a reader, knowing that such a brotherhood existed among the men, it was easier to sympathize with them and share the hope that they would all make it safely ashore. I also liked the way that none of them just gave up and accepted a watery death sentence, like Koskoosh did, and that they weren’t ignorant like the man in “To Build a Fire.”
March 19, 2008 at 1:49 pm
I can recall the first time that I read “To Build a Fire”. After reading this story a second time, I have similar feelings to the work. London, I believe, is offering a lesson of sorts in survival. Nature has a way of destroying buildings, land and lives. Man can only do nothing to prevent nature from taking a certain course. Man does have the ability, however, to create protection from inclement weather by way of shelter, clothing, etc. There is something to be said for a man who would choose to take on as great of a task as the Yukon Territory or a similar climate. I believe that man has a strong desire to test his limits. Often, this testing of limits involves natural surroundings and/or weather. The world is inundated with people who surf giant waves, climb mountains and swim the entire lengths of rivers. While most of these individuals are prepared, Mother Nature often throws a metaphorical curve ball into the action. Individuals test nature constantly. London does a good job of showing the risks and danger involved in tempting nature and the environment.
April 8, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Naturatism is based on Darwins theory of survival of the fitist. I think that to a certain extent we are all products of our enviroment and therefore our destiny’s are predetermeined. Granted people in poverty do rise above it and realize the American dream of prosperity but these cases are few and far between and becoming more and more unattainable as our society is progressivly turning into one where there are two classes the exxessivly rich and those that make the money for them.
April 15, 2008 at 1:22 pm
I believe that Naturalism is the most real form of literature. Man cannot live forever and death is certain, so telling the way you lived your life before you die is the most legitimate story you can tell. In London’s story “The Law Of Life,” Koskoosh sits down and reflects on his life because he knows there is nothing more he can do. He is free and unafraid and ready to face his fate. In “The Open Boat,” Cahan’s character, who’s slightly less calm than Koskoosh, faces his fate too and knows there is nothing he can do. Although the topic can be depressing to a point, it is very humbling and lets you sit back and appreciate what you have now.
April 24, 2008 at 12:03 am
I tend to like Naturalism in literature. It brings about questions in the readers mind pertaining to his or her own mortality, which to many is a scary thought. In Crane’s story, the character faces the reality of his certain demise, though not in a calm manner which slightly horrifies the occurrence which we all know is inevitable yet also points out the importance of addressing it now.
April 29, 2008 at 9:59 pm
I as well found London more interesting to read than the writings of Crane. I like detail and excitement, and I felt Crane was kind of lacking in that department. It was nice to have a naturalism section, where everything isn’t just perfect in the character’s life. Not that previous characters have all had easy lives either, but I felt this was more real for some reason. I felt more for the man in “To Build a Fire” than in “The Open Boat.”
April 30, 2008 at 2:10 pm
I really am not a big fan of naturalism. I didn’t really find Crane’s story that interesting. Yeah it is pretty cool that he was from around this area but i think this story confirms peoples opinions that are not from the midwest that agriculture is really all the midwest has to offer. I do like the fact that naturalism deals with more real life situations in that bad things do happen and sometimes people just need to learn how to deal with it. I can think of a million things that would fit the naturalism category that Crane could have wrote about instead of someone “stealing” his farmland. He could have found a topic that more people could have related too and that would have made the story alot more interesting.
April 30, 2008 at 3:39 pm
I think the Naturalism section might have been my favorite because these stories were really about man vs. nature. They really dealt with survivial in not so favorable conditions. The detail in “To build a Fire” was really in depth, and London made a story about a man freezing to death actually interesting while making us sympathize with the man. Unlike many of the stories, it takes little dialogue to sustain a good story. These stories also revolve around respect for nature because it can be the reason for our rise or demise.
April 30, 2008 at 4:31 pm
I don’t know about the rest of the class, but I found naturalism oddly moralizing and a sadistic treat to read. Perhaps it’s because my strong earth-friendly attitude about the natural recycling that earth performs on all organisms, that I didn’t find the stories horrible sad. The question of successfulness to survive or die really isn’t a question, all things die. Much like Koskoosh’s statement in the beginning of “the Law of Life.” “All men must die. He did not complain. It was the way of life, and it was just.” Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not telling people to go lie down all over the world, put paper bags over their heads, and wait for the end. It’s a point that all thing must bend to the rules of nature, even the young (To Build a Fire) and the strong (The Open Boat), but not to give up on the battle until the very end. All things are bound in the fate that they must die, but nature really has no say in exactly when.
April 30, 2008 at 7:08 pm
I enjoyed London’s, “The Law of Life” and Crane’s “The Open Boat” compared to other stories and styles of writing that we have read in this class. I can somewhat relate to naturalism because of the fact that I enjoy being outside in the nature and I appreciate the enviornment. I enjoy fishing and hunting, so I respect the environment and nature. I appreciate the writings of Crane and London. In these stories, different aspects that I respect and admire can be found, such as courage, grace, generosity, and integrity. Stories like these are intriguing to read because of the successful or unsuccessful survival. If all of the stories ended up with a successful survival, they would not be as interesting. These stories are interesting to me from the beginning to the end, just waiting to find out the outcome of the situation that they were in. Many questions come to mind when reading stories like this, such as what would I do in situations like this? In some situations a person does not have control over the situation, so that they cannot control their own destiny. But this must be accepted because in not everyone can prevent certain things from happening to them.
May 1, 2008 at 10:36 am
Naturalism… well, it’s very natural…
What I mean, is that naturalism, in the hands of a great writer like Jack London, can be an incredible story to read. In “The Law of Life” and “To Build a Fire” you actually feel like you are there, freezing to death with the characters. It is hard to not feel sorry for them because both you and they know that they are going to die, but then you can’t feel sympathy for them because the old man knows that dying is a part of life and is resigned to that face. And the miner was kind of an idiot who had it coming (I think the dog felt that way too).
May 1, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Man vs. Nature is an age old battle. In film and television, traditionally man conquers, yet in this particular form of literature, man more often fails. This is most likely indicative of real life. For every amazing survival story, there are many more tragedies. This is unfortunate, but nature is unforgiving, powerful, and knows no compassion. When matched up against man, it is a wonder that man ever wins.
May 2, 2008 at 12:51 pm
I think what is compelling about these stories is the fact that it breaks down humans to the most basic facts of nature. No one can truely control anything and that everyone dies at some point. Eventually everyman must face their mortality. These stories view life in a different prespective then previous stories we have read. Man is not a being that is above everything else. Man is equal with all life and nature. We all eat, sleep, and eventually die. These are the laws of nature that cannot be denied by anyone and it scares some people that what material things they feel are important are not that important in the end.
May 2, 2008 at 12:57 pm
I loved reading these stories, not because I’m morbid but because I thought it really showed nature at its fullest. As discussed in class, nature doesn’t care who you are or where you come from, it is something that is continual and everlasting. It is also something that if you don’t respect, it will come back and bite you. Kind of off the subject but it reminded me of reading the book “Into The Wild”, if you haven’t read or saw the movie, I would definitely recommend it. I think it shows these ideas very well.
May 2, 2008 at 3:05 pm
The key elements to all of these stories was the lack of control man had over nature. Most stories seem to give so much power to the characters of the story but in Naturalism, the characters didn’t have that power. Mother Nature, the Earth, the Fates, they all had the power over the characters. Utimately, these stories showed that death was inevitable and we are unable to fight it. The lack of control that the characters had over their own fate was very real and true to actual life.