To Build A Fire

This argument can vary depending on how one views the value of a dog. The man does not appear to have any emotional attachment to the dog, and does not view it as a companion. With that said, the man is using his resources (yes a dog) to try and survive, so to some, yes, the dog was used to aid the man's own safety. However, the dog was put in harm's way, so from some viewpoint, the man was selfish in letting a dog test the stability of the ice. Personally, I would not have my dog walk on ice to see if it was stable, because I value its safety.

Do you agree or disagree with the man when he send his dog ahead of himself to aid his own safety? What would you do?

Both the dog and the man are facing dangerous conditions, but how the man and the dog face it are different. As the author describes, the dog relies on its instincts, the natural ways it reacts to stimuli. However, the man, recognizing it is cold (-75), sees it as merely uncomfortable, and does not recognize how this is no time for traveling, like the dog thinks.

How are the dog and the man similar? How are they different?

The dogs know when to leave the man and head to camp because the man had not built a fire while stopped, which doesn't allow him or the dog to get warm. The animal's instincts rely on warmth in the cold, as well as food, so the dog began to move in the direction of the camp, where these things would be provided.

How does the dog know to leave and head to camp?

The difficulty the man endured was that although the matches were lit, his hands were in the way of their flame, which caused him pain. He had to jerk his hands apart, but the blazing matches fell into the snow, and went out.

What difficulty occurs when the man finally lights all of matches at once?

From this quote, London suggests that the man is not used to these extreme temperatures in Alaska, as "possibly all the generations of his ancestry had been ignorant of cold, or real cold, of cold one hundred and seven degrees below freezing-point."

What do you think London means when he says, "This man did not know cold?"

The man had built his fire under a spruce tree, which had a lot of snow on its boughs (main branches). Everytime the man pulled a twig, it agitated the tree to the point that the boughs of the trees gave way, and the snow blotted out his fire.

What happens to the man's fire and why?

The man's flaw is that he lacks the endurance to run such a long distance to camp.

What is the flaw in the man's plan when he begins to run to camp?

As the story begins, the weather at day break is cold and gray, with the absence of the sun. This gloom that begins the story foreshadows a somewhat a dark, in which the protagonist may face dangerous situations.

What is the weather like at day break when the story begins? What do you think this foreshadows for the rest of the story?

third person omniscient

What type of narration is used in this story?

After eating his lunch, the man's outlook of his situation changes briefly by him realizing his foolishness for not building a fire to thaw out before eating his lunch. He also realizes the old-timer was true about how cold it was. These realizations signify the decline of the man's arrogance.

After deciding not to eat his lunch, how does the man's outlook of his situation drastically, albeit (although) briefly, change?

A newcomer to a land

Chechaquo

After saving himself alone after falling into the river, the man prides on his abilities, and that the old-timers are "womanish." The man's mentality and beliefs showcase his arrogance and pride, which later will end in his demise.

In the paragraph, where the man reflects on "old-timers" and "men who are men," what do you think of his mentality and beliefs?

He is arrogant, vain, naïve, called the old- timer "womanish", and dismissed the advice of the accustomed natives. Therefore, the author's attitude towards the man is that he is not thinking about the dangers of traveling in the cold, setting him up for failure. The dog, in comparison, has smarter natural instincts, so the author's attitude is that the dog is smarter.

London writes, "He was quick and alert in the things of life, but only in the things, and not in the significances." What does this tell us about the man? What is his character like?

I disagree because it isn't bad luck that the man fell into the river, its due to the fact that despite the "old-timers" telling the man what to and what not to do when traveling, the man was arrogant and did not listen to them. Therefore, he has to cope with the repercussions, ultimately leading to his demise.

When he calls in the river, the man curses his bad luck. Do you agree with where he places his blame? Why or why not?

London emphasizes the qualities of naturalism through this action by exemplifying how environment around the protagonist (the man), affected his development as a character. With that said, the man eventually develops into a state of eagerness, and thinks of killing the dog, whom is a companion, in order to halt the frostbite in his hands.

When the man contemplates "using" the dog for survival, how does London emphasize the qualities of naturalism?

While eating, the man is strikes his leg with his numb fingers, most likely to try to restore blood flow disturbed by the cold. However, the stinging that usually comes with getting hit, ceases quickly, startling him. This is important because it shows how cold the environment is and how ill-prepared the man is for dealing with these conditions.

While eating, what startles the man? Why is this important?

London continues to emphasize the coldness because the cold, relating to the ideas of naturism, influence the man's actions and thoughts, which ultimately lead to his demise.

Why do you think London continues to emphasize the coldness, an how the man had never felt such cold before?

The protagonist is referred to as "the man" to represent the generally arrogance of humans in relation to nature, hence the conflict of naturism.

Why do you think the protagonist is referred to as "the man" as opposed to being given a name?

London points out that the dog acts on instinct to support how the dog is better adapted to the cold conditions than the man is.

Why does London point out that the dog acts from instinct?

The man shies away from certain parts of the road because part of the road are covered in ice, which posed danger to the man.

Why does the man "shy like a horse" from certain parts of the road?

The man begins to berate (or scold), at the dog because he is angry at the dog's warmth and security.

Why does the man begin to berate the dog?

The man doesn't worry about the cold because he doesn't recognize the frailty (weakness or delicateness) of himself. What is alarming and absurd about his reaction to frostbite is that if he merely just covers up with some of his clothing, he will be able to endure the harsh conditions outside. His reactions and poor planning only lead to his demise.

Why doesn't the man worry about the cold? What is alarming/ absurd about his reaction to the frostbite?