Nature is usually seen more as the setting, rather than the antagonist in a story. In Jack London’s “To Build a Fire,” there is a never ending battle between nature and the four different living entities, whether they be current or past experiences. This portrays nature as more of an opposing character, rather than it being a part of the setting. By using the four characters, the man, the dog, the old-timer from Sulpher Creek and the boys, London is able to portray how nature impacts them all and how they react based on their experience and knowledge. When first being introduced to the man in “To Build a Fire,” it is evident that he might not be up to par when it comes to dealing with the fierce chill in the Yukon mountains. “It was a steep
…show more content…
This tells the reader that through inherited characteristics, the dog should able to with stand the cold. London uses the dog in the story to show how the man is lacking in basic knowledge. “The animal was depressed by the tremendous cold” (519). If a dog who has the ability to survive extreme cold temperatures is effected by the coldness, then that should have told the man that its way too cold to be hiking through the woods, especially by himself. Throughout the story, it becomes apparent that the dog is a representation of instinct. “It had wet its forefeet and legs, and almost immediately the water that clung to it turned to ice. It made quick efforts to lick the ice off its legs, then dropped down in the snow and began to bite out the ice that had formed between the toes” (521). Dogs do not think the same way humans do, so when the dogs legs got wet, it recognized that if the ice were to be left on its legs walking would be unbearable, but it was pure instinct that told him, not acquired knowledge. At the end of the story, the dog doesn’t realize right away that the man is dead. “There were no signs of a fire to be made, and, besides, never in the dog’s experience had it known a man to sit like that in the snow and make no fire” (528). The dog knew something wasn’t right, but it did not have to knowledge to know that the man was dead. “And still later it crept close to the man and caught the scent of death” (528). Just from that scent, the dog knew it was time to find a new food and fire provider. Yet again, it used its instincts “and trotted up the trail in the direction of the camp it knew”
This tells the reader that through inherited characteristics, the dog should able to with stand the cold. London uses the dog in the story to show how the man is lacking in basic knowledge. “The animal was depressed by the tremendous cold” (519). If a dog who has the ability to survive extreme cold temperatures is effected by the coldness, then that should have told the man that its way too cold to be hiking through the woods, especially by himself. Throughout the story, it becomes apparent that the dog is a representation of instinct. “It had wet its forefeet and legs, and almost immediately the water that clung to it turned to ice. It made quick efforts to lick the ice off its legs, then dropped down in the snow and began to bite out the ice that had formed between the toes” (521). Dogs do not think the same way humans do, so when the dogs legs got wet, it recognized that if the ice were to be left on its legs walking would be unbearable, but it was pure instinct that told him, not acquired knowledge. At the end of the story, the dog doesn’t realize right away that the man is dead. “There were no signs of a fire to be made, and, besides, never in the dog’s experience had it known a man to sit like that in the snow and make no fire” (528). The dog knew something wasn’t right, but it did not have to knowledge to know that the man was dead. “And still later it crept close to the man and caught the scent of death” (528). Just from that scent, the dog knew it was time to find a new food and fire provider. Yet again, it used its instincts “and trotted up the trail in the direction of the camp it knew”