Crawford 1
“To Build A Fire: Why Jack London’s classic burned brighter in 1908 than 1902”
Ben Crawford
To Build a Fire: Why Jack London’s classic burned brighter in 1908 than 1902
In May of 1902, the young writer Jack London published a short story in the children’s
periodical, A Youth’s Companion. The story was titled To Build a Fire, and it centered on one
man’s journey thirty miles through the harsh Alaskan Klondike region where he intends to meet
up with his fellow prospecting partners who are certain to have struck gold. Against wisdom
and sound advice the main character, Tom Vincent, decides to go it alone. This decision proves
to be rather foolish as he encounters near fatal frostbite leaving him unable to properly make a
life-saving fire. In 1908, London publishes this story again with an extensive revision which
completely changes the fate of the main character and overall outcome of the story. These
changes in the 1908 story provide a more well-rounded and examined approached at this
particular story. The story in and of itself is good in both versions, but why does the later
version seem to shine and impact us more deeply?
When I was in the fifth grade our class was assigned a project that had us writing a short
story, which would then be printed as a small book and we could design a cover and write our
names on the front. I was pretty excited to finally become a “published” author, and I knew
exactly what I would write. My story would be about a boy who discovered a famous pirate’s
treasure map, and then his adventure in finding the hidden loot. So with the help of his friends,
he goes on a journey to find the treasure of One-Eyed Wally. Sound familiar? That’s because
it’s the same plot for the blockbuster movie, The Goonies, which had arrived in the local theater
less than a year before my story was penned. After being accused of blatant plagiarism by my
Crawford 2
older brother, I watched the movie again and found the story to be better than mine…MUCH
better. My point being: when you have a good plot and the hands of a capable writer, the story
can soar.
This is not to say that Jack London was an incapable writer when he wrote the first
version of his story. London grew as a writer and discovered ways to deepen his writing ability
between 1902 and 1908. When he finished the story in 1902 it still possessed room for growth,
and at that time, London was unable to foresee the amount of depth and direction the story
could take. The contrast in the two texts can immediately be found at the beginning of the
story where the narrator describes the setting and current weather for the snowy embarkation.
1902: “It was a bleak January day when the experience came that taught him respect for the
frost, and for the wisdom of the men who had battled it” (London 5). Alone it’s a well
composed and descriptive sentence, but it pales in comparison to the 1908 passage of the same
nature:
Day had broken cold and gray, exceedingly cold and gray, when the man turned
aside from the main Yukon trail and climbed the high earth-bank, where a dim
and little-travelled trail led eastward through the fat spruce timberland. It was a
steep bank, and he paused for breath at the top, excusing the act to himself by
looking at his watch. It was nine o'clock. There was no sun nor hint of sun,
though there was not a cloud in the sky. It was a clear day, and yet there seemed
an intangible pall over the face of things, a subtle gloom that made the day dark,
and that was due to the absence of sun. This fact did not worry the man. He was
Crawford 3
used to the lack of sun. It had been days since he had seen the sun, and he knew
that a few more days must pass before that cheerful orb, due south, would just
peep above the sky-line and dip immediately from view. (London 20)
The tone is meticulously set and we are provided a clear picture of the surrounding
white monster of a scene laid before the main character. London gives the reader a detailed
view of the story’s setting and in doing so, allows our imagination into the situation to
experience the harsh, cold journey for ourselves.
The main character described in both texts is similar in mind and purpose. But he differs
in 1902 when he is made out to be Tom Vincent, the hero, who lives to tell his story to fellow
outdoorsmen, “Nevertheless he was aware of a thrill of joy, of exultation. He was doing
something, achieving something, mastering the elements. Once he laughed aloud in sheer
strength of life, and with his clenched fist defied the frost. He was its master. What he did he
did in spite of it. It could not stop him” (London 8). In the1908 story, however, he becomes a
more abrasive, tobacco chewing fool who was destined for an icy grave:
But all this -- the mysterious, far-reaching hair-line trail, the absence of sun from
the sky, the tremendous cold, and the strangeness and weirdness of it all -- made
no impression on the man. It was not because he was long used to it. He was a
newcomer in the land, a chechaquo, and this was his first winter. The trouble
with him was that he was without imagination. He was quick and alert in the
things of life, but only of the things, and not in the significances. Fifty degrees
below zero meant eighty-odd degrees of frost. Such fact impressed him as being
Crawford 4
cold and uncomfortable, and that was all. It did not lead him to meditate upon
his frailty as a creature of temperature, and upon man's frailty in general, able
only to live within certain narrow limits of heat and cold; and from there on it did
not lead him to the conjectural field of immortality and man's place in the
universe. Fifty degrees below zero stood for a bite of frost that hurt and that
must be guarded against by the use of mittens, ear-flaps, warm moccasins, and
thick socks. Fifty degrees below zero was to him just precisely fifty degrees
below zero. That there should be anything more to it than that was a thought
that never entered his head. (London 21)
I believe the difference here is due in large part to London attempting to cater to his
audience; the first being someone for children and teenagers to emulate, the second being
someone with whom a wider adult audience could identify.
In the second version, a noteworthy addition to the story is a dog who accompanies the
man on the journey. At times it seems as though the dog has more common sense than the
man, “The animal was depressed by the tremendous cold. It knew that it was no time for
traveling. Its instinct told it a truer tale than was told to the man by the man's judgment”
(London 24), yet it remains the faithful companion to the man who can provide fire and food to
the animal. We also see London’s superb ability to capture an animal’s struggle with the
dichotomy of self-interest and restrictive instinct,
But the brute had its instinct. It experienced a vague but menacing apprehension
that subdued it and made it slink along at the man's heels, and that made it
Crawford 5
question eagerly every unwonted movement of the man as if expecting him to
go into camp or to seek shelter somewhere and build a fire. The dog had learned
fire, and it wanted fire, or else to burrow under the snow and cuddle its warmth
away from the air. (London 24-25)
London’s 1908 version of To Build a Fire is a complete and unfiltered telling of a
stubborn and slightly naïve traveler whose decisions resulted in his unnecessary suffering and
death. But like many other stories surrounding an arduous journey or voyage, the message is
pointless if we are unable to connect with the characters through a thorough description of
setting and tone. We can only truly experience the story when the perfect words are provided,
when the writer is able to stretch his wings and let the story take flight, to go where it needs to
go.
Crawford 6
Works Cited
London, Jack. To Build a Fire. Orange: ANC Press, 2008. 5. eBook.