Is Jack London the most influential American author of the twentiest century?

That's more Noel Gallagher

I like to see him as the bridge between Melville and Hemmingway.

No, of course not. Not even remotely. Why do you ask?

I'd like to see him lick my bum

Because controversial opening statements seem to be the most efficient at creating active threads.

No, but he is my favorite American author of all times. I don't care about most of them, especially not the Wallaces and that sort.

He looks pretty handsome in most of his photos. This one is my favorite.

I think reading The Sea-Wolf as a teen coined me a lot. It was a bit irritating for me to later find out that London was mostly just seen as either a socialist or an adventure novelist, when to me he seemed to mostly be an existentialist.

John Barleycorn is my second favourite work of him.

His face was more of a brawler than that of a writer. However his eyes are extremely expressive. I can't even begin to explain my admiration for this man even though I dismiss his socialist beliefs. His appearance, his beliefs, the way he lived his life, his character... everything about him I find admirable. He was missing two teeth from a street fight, so even his smile would have been curious thing to look at.
Have you read Martin Eden? I kind of hate his writing at times since it can be extremely rough and he rarely touches upon all high and airy intellectual matters, but the raw energy and an overwhelming sense of will that shines through most of it makes him my favorite. I find something about him tragic in a sense that I feel that he never achieved his full potential. He spent most of his life working like a slave to achieve literary fame and freedom, but once he got around to getting both he had destroyed his health for the most part from overwork and his own vices. Had he died older, I have a feeling he might have produced something more "mature" rather than all that adventure stuff he wrote. Even at that, I find it brilliant.

I wish I could find a .pdf of his autobiography online, but so far I've found nothing. I've already scrounged through everything written about him online, but the information is limited.

I wish I knew the man in person.

Rare London.

>Have you read Martin Eden?
No. I guess I should, though, shouldn't I?

And yeah, his life was definately tragic, both in a romantic and romanticism-shattering way. His great voyage across the pacific with his wife must have been very desiullusionizing for him, seeing as the places just weren't as wonderous as Melville and R. L. Stevenson described them, and he could never really finish the dreams he had: the dream house he built burnt down before he could move in, his second wife had two miscarriages and he couldn't be a father to his daughters he had with his previous wife, he never found gold in Clondike, he had to cancel his dream journey due to his health, the public never really "got" his novels on more than a superficial level (atleast he thought so), his movie career never got off the ground, etc etc. Despite him being rich and experiencing a lot of stuff, life wasn't all that kind to him, I feel. He would fit nicely into the modern stereotype of the depressed superstar.

>even though I dismiss his socialist beliefs
To be fair, he was a socialist in a time when workers basically had no rights at all, so it is very much understandable that he supported an ideology that allowed factory workers to earn more than 10 cents an hour without working themselves to death.

>I wish I knew the man in person.
Same, but I've got the feeling he wouldn't like me very much.

No, but he is a respectable author and I admire him. No shame in him being one of your favorites.

bump

It's fucked up how, apparently, The Unparalleled Invasion has been seen as somehow advocating what it describes.

This sort of thing happened a lot with London.

I remember reading the Sea Wolf and rather than a rebuttal against Nietzsche and his ideas I thought Wolf Larsen (god, what a character) was deeply admirable and rather an excellent endorsement.

The exact same thing happens in his other works, like Martin Eden.
>"London wrote, "One of my motifs, in this book, was an attack on individualism (in the person of the hero). I must have bungled, for not a single reviewer has discovered it."

He had an ability to produce some very evocative characters and stories, but his constant political elements he felt the need to incorporate were quite awful and even alien.

>gets famous writing young adult literature about dogs and wolves and shit
>thinks this a license to participate in and comment on the intellectual circles of his day by churning out sentimentalist garbage
>most influential

>I remember reading the Sea Wolf and rather than a rebuttal against Nietzsche and his ideas I thought Wolf Larsen (god, what a character) was deeply admirable and rather an excellent endorsement.
Remember how he failed at the end?

I mean, yeah, it feels somewhat forced and shoed in. But in the end of the Sea-Wolf, Larsen does not win.

I'd rather be Larsen than Hump.

The entire end seem shoehorned in, bringing in the 'omnia vincit amor' garbage to resolve the plot was extremely weird and intrusive on the established story.

It was basically an ex machina, Hump's success that followed doesn't feel remotely organic, it's far too massive and too convenient and all of it too quick. I ceased to see any of myself in Hump once he instantly shifts his purpose in life to white knight some women he never met before outside of print.

His purpose shits from being Wolf's punching back towards being a man standing on his own legs. Sure, the love thingy was a bit out of nowhere, but Hump's character progression in general made sense to me. That being said, I dislike the ending, even though Wolf's last few moments as a sick husk really hit me reading it when I was younger.

Really, Wolf makes the book. He is not the protagonist, but the main character, and I have never seen anyone not impressed by him.

Believe it or not, I am an American and despite the fact that I've been reading almost daily for a few years, this is the first I've heard of Jack London. Your admiration for him is noble and I respect you for it. Recommend one work of his and I will read it soon, I promise.

Not that guy, but I recommend The Sea-Wolf; the ending might not be the most fitting for the book, as said above, but the main character is just too interesting to miss out on.

>I have never seen anyone not impressed by him.
Because the character is tragically beautiful, he is reflective of reality.

Hump on the other hand becomes a bad fan fiction where everything ends happily ever after and the main character retires to his mansion and marries his waifu (who also has her own mansion) and gets to wistfully reduces and reflect on episodes such as Larsen as quaint, all from a vantage of impossible security and happiness (oh btw, that was the story!). He is totally unrealistic and thus irrelevant.

It's rare I get to discuss the Sea Wolf with anyone. Have a rare frog-fu for your troubles.

>frog-fu
?

Emma Stone is a frog. And a waifu. Hence, frogfu. I believe it's called a portmanteau.

>Emma Stone
>celebrity
Ew, deleting. Thanks for warning me before I filed the image away.

Read White Fang and then Into the Wild. It blew my mind when I realized just what a reversal the two were and really made me consider the nature of pulp writing (both books sold an insane amount).

>implying you don't covet this albino jewel

>Is Jack London the most influential American author of the twentiest century?
That's honestly like saying J.K. Rowling is the most influential writer of the 21st century.

I might have spoken too soon in making that promise. I read a little about him and found this quote of his:

>"I write for no other purpose than to add to the beauty that now belongs to me. I write a book for no other reason than to add three or four hundred acres to my magnificent estate."

To write only for material gain is contemptible in my opinion. I wonder if the admiration of his work comes as a result of revering him as a man. Maybe I'll just read a short story to start, but when the motivation is only money, I cannot imagine there exists anything of value in the work. If you disagree, tell me what you find in it that would have you say it's worth reading.

Also, someone here said he might have lost his teeth from a fight. It was from scurvy. I wonder if this guy is being romanticized.

>implying you don't covet this albino jewel
I don't. Celebrities are revolting whores.

Yes, I agree, Hump is not the selling point. But that doesn't mean his situation is completely unrealistic. Remember that he started out as a rich nobleman, and then returned to being one later one, but with the experience of the Ghost's voyage making him grow somewhat. (And relationships like that actually can sprout out of dangerous situations due to hormoney going crazy on adrenaline, though these affairs rarely last, and I am unsure London was aware of that anyway.)
There is no reason Hump would stop being a rich bourgeois just because Wolf Larsen opened his eyes towards what that actually means.

Larsen seems to me like London's imagined ideal way of dealing with the "white logic" (basically his name for existential nihilism) when being aware of it. Hump and Maud obviously deal with it by being unaware/ignoring it, and they return to their happy mansion loving each other and it's all fine and dandy. Wolf is aware of the white logic. He has nothing but the ecstasy of the ferment to take his mind off of it. And in the end he is thrown into himself, being like a monk (I think that is what he was described as), having nothing but his own thoughts. He fails. And that, especially in contrast to Hump, is what makes Larsen so tragic.

Maybe that sheds a different light on the ending.

>Have a rare frog-fu for your troubles.
On the thumbnail her face looks like a potato.

I don't think he was talking about a physical estate there, user.

I only read it on Wikipedia, but it was in the context of the farm land he bought, which he claimed after his wife, was the thing he loved most. What is admirable about this man? He seems like the typical materialistic and confused atheist.

>materialistic
What is this meme?

Well I find that hard to reconcile with what I know of the man, he was an ardent socialist and did things like go on a voyage for years by himself on his little ship and suffered a 'real' experience just to get away from the fame he won with his earlier works.

>I wonder if this guy is being romanticized.
He definately was in his time. He was an advanturer celebrity, a proto-Hemingway. But he didn't really find himself in that image. He was frustrated that his works were mostly read superficially as adventure novels.

Maybe I should change my recommendation to John Barleycorn. It is sort of an autobiography in the form of a novel, and tells about how he spent his youth in poverty, working for 30$ a month in a tincan factory for 10 hours a day without weekends, threw it away to become a sea man or a gold digger, only to find success in writing books, needing to write more and more to sustain himself, eventually sucumbing to depression and alcoholism. Sure, the guy wrote for money (not only for money!), but if you know his life story you will sorta understand why.

And yes, his books actually do have quality to them. I for example read his books before reading about him as a person and was impressed nevertheless. I guess you could say that his adventurous spirit carries over into his writing. (Though his readers tend to "miss the point", apparently; I would have never guessed the man was a devoted socialist after reading the Sea-Wolf.)

He was a conflicted character - disliking sheer materialism while thinking that everything else brings you nowhere.

His stories are basically that of self-made men, that were born with potential and intelligence, but without support or education, having to claw themselves out of the hole they were thrown in; obviously for London that is mostly auto-biographic. But with all their wits and self-taught knowledge they still struggle with a lot of things that they want to have an access to - like religion, metaphysics, etc - but they cannot really grasp, and have to dismiss as a result.
London was not just a materialist atheist proud of his lack of religion. He was a struggling atheist wanting to overcome the existential dread that comes with atheism.

Atleast that is my impression.

I will read John Barleycorn in that case, if only to see if he is worthy of your admirable admiration. I'm afraid if he's anything like his contemporaries, i.e. Steinbeck and Hemingway, then I will find nothing valuable. American literature from that period unfortunately lacks so much of the substance found in works from the 19th century. Maybe by then, the influence of Europe was already spread too thin, leading to the simplicity of expression seen in the United States from the beginning of the 20th century to this very day.

I am reading Don Juan now and I genuinely believe that in one Canto of Byron, there is more to be found than in all that I've read by the authors I mentioned. If it is possible for admiration to exceed yours, you would find me in possession of it: I literally have come to love Byron more than any of the women I've dated. I'll probably make a thread to spread awareness next time I'm on a computer.

>FFS
No
Really want to know?
Edgar Rice Burroughs, Stephen King, and Faulkner were the most influential.

That much is clear, user, but the op did its purpose: a thread with almost 50 replies, for the most part discussing Jack London.

>not just a materialist atheist proud of his lack of religion. He was a struggling atheist wanting to overcome the existential dread that comes with atheism.

This is not possible. One cannot be proud of his atheism while also wishing to overcome the spiritual futility inherited by the atheist. It would be like being proud of being black but also wishing to be white. My impression, granted I've only read the Wikipedia article, is that he was only proud of his atheism. I say this after having read this quote:

>"I believe that when I am dead, I am dead. I believe that with my death I am just as much obliterated as the last mosquito you and I squashed."

Of course I neither know when he said this nor if he held this thought as he was dying, but it is suggestive of a blasphemous and stubborn pride that leaves no room for a desire for existential reconciliation. But this too is just my impression, formed almost out of thin air.

You misunderstood my phrasing. When I said he was not just a proud atheist, I mean that he was not at all a proud atheist, when you tried to dismiss him as "just another one of those proud atheists".
So strike the "just" out of that description to make it more readable.

That quote you just posted is a rather neutral one, you ccould read pride into it, but also terror. Really, you should not judge people based on what quotes are chosen on their wikipedia page.

>One cannot be proud of his atheism while also wishing to overcome the spiritual futility inherited by the atheist.
Why? Cannot one climb half a mountain, and be proud, but still know there's more to ascend?

Judgment and an impression are quite different. If it were the former, I would not be willing to read any of his works. But in the end, only God knows what was in his heart. However, the grueling death he suffered is not uncommon in those who forsake not only religion, but spirituality. If his work moves me in any way, I will make a thread and dedicate it to you noble admirers of Jack London.

Do you even read? How are these people in any way connected stylistically? Is it because they write somewhat masculine fiction?

>the grueling death he suffered
You mean, renal failur due to a desastrous mercury treatment earlier in his life?

Yes, it is possible with your example because for the climber there is still more to accomplish. What is left for the atheist? Atheism is a rejection of God, it is not the uncertainty which will lead to further exploration. While your climber continues his challenge, he will continue to be tired because it is an inherent reaction to the climbing; but it will only last until he is totally finished. If spiritual futility is inherent to the atheist, how can it be overcome unless one becomes finished with atheism? There is a finality to it that dooms its follower to suffer perpetually; it is a shame.

Yes, that and excessive alcohol consumption apparently. A sincerely pious man is kept from being reduced to alcoholism or other self-destructive habits by his faith. But again, I cannot and therefore do not judge him, it was only the impression I formed for the sake of the discussion. What is important is his writing, which of course I cannot comment on until I read his work.

>Also, someone here said he might have lost his teeth from a fight. It was from scurvy. I wonder if this guy is being romanticized.
My bad. I did read a physical description of his made by a contemporary, his smile was described as having a very familiar and boyish quality because of two ( I might even have gotten the number wrong ) lost teeth, presumably from a *fight*.

>Remember how he failed at the end?
Here we come to it. Apparently dying is somehow equated to losing in every story of London's.

Wolf Larsen has the more compelling philosophy, everything that transpires in the novel reveals the truth of his words -- but suddenly he gets brain aids and dies because he's suppose to be wrong.

Similarly, Martin Eden, burns with a brilliant individualism, kills himself, lolwhataretard.

etc

He should have stuck to writing about doggos.

>London
>American
I thought it's in England?

Yeah, it comes off as a desperate attempt of London defeating his nihilism by killing off the character that turns it into his fuel, but I think, on the one hand, that just makes Larsen all the more powerful, and on the other hand, paints an interesting picture of London; he tries to overcome Larsen, but eventually does not manage to. So he has to get violent and arbitrary.

I mean, sure, you could make the case that it is all allegorical and love and cooperation prevailing is parallel to the animal in men dying, but that is not very satisfying considering when Hump and Maud getting their shit together has nothing to do with what happens to Larsen.

Read his short story To Build a Fire. It is a beautiful piece and an excellent introduction to London's style and pov.

Page 61 here: books.google.com/books?id=YGYZAAAAYAAJ

_John Barleycorn_ is London's superb memoir about his alcoholism. My favorite of London's books.

books.google.com/books?id=8lUGAQAAIAAJ

My favorite ending to a book is that of Martin Eden.

>His wilful hands and feet began to beat and churn about, spasmodically and feebly. But he had fooled them and the will to live that made them beat and churn. He was too deep down. Theycould never bring him to the surface. He seemed floating languidly in a sea of dreamy vision. Colors and radiances surrounded him and bathed him and pervaded him. What was that? It seemed a lighthouse; but it was inside his brain - a flashing, bright white light. It flashed swifter and swifter. There was a long rumble of sound, and it seemed to him that he was falling down a vast and interminable stairway. And somewhere at the bottom he fell into darkness. That much he knew. He had fallen into darkness. And at the instant he knew, he ceased to know.

All of the people on r9k should read Martin Eden so that they can understand that women really are beautiful, soul-uplifting creatures.

purple af

They would probably just yell at the main character for not moping about everthing being everyone else's fault.

needs more adjectives

Fair enough. He's a great adventure writer, though. I got a collection of his for Xmas when I was young and still love it.

Implying she isn't

bump

Sure, London wrote some stuff that would be considered YA fiction if published today, and was fairly popular in his time, but that doesn't mean he is on par with Rowling. His writing actually does have literary merit.

Anyone who becomes rich off of writing immediately has their writing discounted and divorced from literary merit.

Hey, what's wrong with Goethe?

What's right with him? Basically r9k autism. Faust was a happy accident, I can't explain it.

Why are you actively working on bringing the post quality of this board down? It is not like what you wrote was clever or funny. Admit it, you didn't even laugh about it yourself. Please refrain from doing this in the future.