This post was originally written as a discussion post in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a graduate environmental literature course. 

Reading: Call of the Wild

Reading Call of the Wild with determinism in mind was an interesting experience. CW is not necessarily on my GOAT (as my kids would say) book list, but it is one of those books that I have read several times and always enjoyed. It was hard to step away from my enjoyment of the story for the story’s sake and think about it. 😉 It did give me a chance to learn something about the ending of the story, which has always bothered me—I hate that Thornton dies so senselessly. If I consider that London is thinking from and attempting to advance a deterministic perspective, it at least makes sense in a twisted sort of way. By killing off Thornton, Buck can finally give into those primal instincts and meld with all of his wild ancestors. Otherwise, he would have had to abandon his human friend or live happily ever after in the wild together like Bunyan and Babe. (I never connected this book to a tall tale before, but it sort of fits! Lol)

Throughout the book, the references both to Buck’s ancestral memories and the lessons that he learns are constantly referenced. First, London emphasizes the ancestral memories that Buck supposedly carries. While the first explicit reference to those memories comes in the description of Buck’s fear for the trap as he “was harkening back through his own life to the lives of his forbears,” I wonder if the first hint of those memories comes even earlier. There’s a reference to the “latent cunning of his nature,” when he faces the man in the red sweater and his club. As the book progresses, these ancestral memories become more and more pronounced  as “the domesticated generations fell from him.” London carefully explains how “he remembered back to the youth of his breed, to the time the wild dogs ranged in packs through the primeval forest,” which, of course, explains how Buck was so quickly able to survive in the wild. He just had to remember how. It’s interesting how London images Buck actually walking in the same body as his ancestors—feeling their muscle memory through his DNA somehow.

Given the focus on those primitive instincts, it makes sense that London also places importance on the lessons Buck is learning. He’s always learning in this story. If Buck is re-living his ancestors memories, then it is logical that Buck’s children will be able to also inherit these lessons and continue to become better and better. At the end of the book, it’s difficult to tell how much time has gone by, but I have to wonder if the wolf who goes into the valley and sits is actually Buck, or if this is meant to be a tradition carried on by his children through the ages. It seems like his lifetime would not be long enough to create the “ghost dog” tales of the Yeehats.

Buck’s ability to learn and adapt is the key to his survival, which aligns with Darwinian ideas. Darwin said, ““It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent; it is the one most adaptable to change.”

Throughout the novel, we meet characters of both the animal and human variety who either have what it takes to survive, or they don’t. Thornton, who could walk into the wilderness with nothing and survive indefinitely, has the ability to learn and adapt. Of course, his skills ultimately didn’t save him from the Yeehat attack that killed him. One of the differences between those who survive and those who don’t is their willingness to learn. Hal, Charles, and Mercedes refused to learn–from people and from nature, and they end up dead, swallowed up by the ice. Buck was constantly learning…and he survived. Another difference between these two kinds of people is their willingness or lack thereof to become a part of the wild. Mercedes is trying to bring material comforts into the wilderness and transform the wilderness into her previous home; Thornton simply exists in it and accepts it for what it is. Buck makes friends with the wolf who comes to see him, instead of fighting him. They walk side by side.

I think that these two keys are important as we think about the environment. We have to be willing to learn from our mistakes in the past and be willing to be more a part of the wild. It’s difficult to save the wilderness when we refuse to co-exist with it and when we refuse to give up our own comfort for the sake of perserving something wild. I was looking for the name of Ed Begley (which I obviously found) when I ran across an article about Julia Dreyfus and her husband. (I’m not picking on celebrities…but most of us don’t have articles written about our environmental habits! lol) The article says, “And it amazed them to discover that living responsibly does not require a change in lifestyle.”

I think this is the prevalent attitude today. We are willing to do the things that don’t require a change in our lifestyle. But we have to be willing to change ourselves, as Buck did, in order to make a difference.