Talk:The Call of the Wild

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article needs to be longer!!![edit]

Again here's another article on a Jack London piece of work that is in desperate need of being lengthened! This is degrading to any fans of Jack London to have to read an article like this! Please would someone lengthen this! -James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.154.190 (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing more to include. It's already pretty descriptive. Maybe the time should be added.--99.141.169.115 (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)reader§[reply]

I've fleshed it out more, including more key details of Buck's life, and more key canine and human character profiles in the "main cast list" (many key pivotal characters are not profiled!). I've also edited it for accuracy!!! BTW, other editors, if they find this version "too long", should edit, not "revert", it. There are important pertinent changes here that should be preserved! Although hardly his longest novel (White Fang is much longer), The Call Of The Wild has a complex narrative. RobertGustafson (talk) 05:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about the sequal?[edit]

The story "White Fang," is often considered a sequal to the story "Call of the Wild," and even if this is not true the parallel similartie between the two is to important not to be mentioned. In "Call of the Wild," the dog goes from being a house dog to being a wild dog and in "White Fang," the dog goes from being a wild dog to a house dog? This would be an excellent way to lengthen this article! -Again James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.154.190 (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've read both stories many times, and there is nothing in either to indicate that one is the sequel of the other. The two stories parallel each other (in reverse directions) but there is no continuity between the two.Mediatech492 (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why many people might see White Fang as a follow-up to The Call Of The Wild, as they are often published together. But they are 2 different stories. Interestingly, although Buck and White Fang evolve in opposite directions ultimately, the individual stages they go through are similar—in the same direction. (What's more, Buck never fully goes wild [he retains his sentimental affection for the late John Thornton], and White Fang never fully domesticates [his wolf-savagery always lies just below the surface, checked only by his respect for Weedon Scott].) RobertGustafson (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Style and content of this article needs to be improved[edit]

The tone of the article doesn't read clearly and smoothly like a good encyclopaedia article should. Sometimes the text seems clunky or childlike. There are problems also with the content of the article; some sentences trail off into areas not relevant to the article itself. 210.80.129.127 (talk) 03:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The text was written this way is because Jack London was a war correspondent so he used short and violent sentences, and that's what made his novels special. There was quite a lot of space for the reader to imagine and create their own scene in mind. 90.160.149.240 (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally Considered His Best? BAH!!!![edit]

That claim is completely erroneous. It is his most popular, partly because vehement McCarthyism cast a shadow over his more intellectual works that defended and explored socialism. Too often do we think of most popular as best. I challenge a wikier to change this misconception. I believe that among the literary community, Martin Eden is generally considered to be his magnum opus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.31.131 (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeehats[edit]

If you read the novel carefully the characters leave the Yukon valley over the moutains heading east. This puts the Yeehats and final scene in the Canadian Northwest frontier not Alaska. Yes I am one of those Bonds.RichardBond (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First edition in Canada?[edit]

In the infobox, the country of the first edition is indicated as Canada. Is this correct? Wasn't this book published first in the United States? --Panda10 (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first edition was published in 1903 by the Macmillan Company which is New York based, an offshoot of Macmillan Publishers of London England. The Macmillan Canada office was not established until 1905. As I understand it up until that time the Macmillan company did have presses in Canada in order to circumvent the high import tariff on books. So some of the first edition were printed in Canada for the Canadian market. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anime adaption[edit]

There's also an Anime adaption of this novel, an approx. 70 minute movie. However, I have very little info on it, just a European VHS release which unhelpfully has no opening or closing credits (not even a title screen). I believe it to be the work of Toei (possibly the same production crew as Ginga Nagareboshi Gin), based on the animation and art-style though again I have no way of confirming this. Does anyone know more about it so a note could be added under Adaptions in the article? --TheHande (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was broadcasted on January 3, 1981 by Fuji-TV net. The title was "Kouya no yobigoe. Hoero, Buck.　(荒野の呼び声　吠えろバック: The Call of the Wild. Buck, bark!)" and it was a program of "NISSEI family special (ja:日生ファミリースペシャル)" series. The director was Kouzou Morishita (ja:森下孝三) and he is a vice-president of Toei Animation now. Time of the film is 68min. If you want to know more information, please check this Japanese page. (荒野の呼び声　吠えろバック)--Watcher0911 (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More information is here, someone needs to create an entry for it on Wikipedia and also add a reference on The Call of the Wild article as well. Hei Liebrecht 17:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source[edit]

I will be using the source below and don't know how to format {sfn} style:

  • London, Jack. The Call of the Wild and White Fang. New York: Barnes and Noble. 2003. ISBN 978-1-59308-002-0

These are the various chapters I'll be using:

  • Chapters > "Jack London" (no author); "The World of Jack London" (no author); "Introduction" author = Tina Gianquitto; "Endnotes" author = Tina Gianquitto; "Inspired by The Call of the Wild" (no author); "Comments and Questions" (no author)

Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted copyedits[edit]

A copyedit has now twice been reverted, described as "erroneous".[1], [2] I have access to the sources and wrote most of the text in the article, so am interested to know what's erroneous. Will change anything that's inaccurate. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted back to your edits after a lot of digging. I don't know who messed them up, but the page went through a lot of unnoticed vandalism between edits of a certain range. I corrected all of that today as well. Your version of the lead is far cleaner and more informative. Icarus of old (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This had fallen off my watchlist and I'd forgotten about it, but thanks for reinstating. I'd already reverted at least once. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an abridged version or something?[edit]

99.246.93.154 (talk) 03:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)I just read Call of the Wild in a collection entitled something like "Jack London: Tales of the North" from a reputable publisher. It has the illustrations of this page and the same plot, but it's only about 40-50 pages long, plus the plot summary episode (here) of the Skookum King doesn't occur. Am I reading an earlier version, an unacknowledged unabridged piece, or something else? The page as currently written provided no guidance.[reply]

Yes, there are several abridged versions. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a Novella[edit]

It would help if this article could refer to this book in all instances as a novella as opposed to a novel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.199.76.165 (talk) 07:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book is clearly too long to qualify as a novella. Mediatech492 (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is not too long to qualify by word count. I just counted 32,262 words. On the novella page, you can see the major awards cap at 35k to 40k. On Chesil Beach, which caused a stir in 2007 by being shortlisted for the Booker Prize, is a whopping 38k or 39k. By today's standards, it is a novella. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.199.76.165 (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As further evidence, I present the "Novella" page. It lists the book right under "notable examples". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.199.76.165 (talk) 08:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily we're not bound by "today's standards" which is a weird form of presentism. It was considered a novel then and is now by many, regardless of some definitions. In any case, formal consensus would be needed to make a change. All best. Icarus of old (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for giving me a reasonable amount of consideration with my opinion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novella#Notable_examples. If someone familiar with the formal procedure could bring this to a vote here on the talk page. It has more qualities of a novella than just word count, but I concede it also has characteristics of a novel. Much appreciated. 107.199.76.165 (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, chiming in a bit belatedly. I've removed it from the Novella page until we have sources verifying it as such. I wrote almost all the text here and looked at the sources used - none refer to it as a novella. I'll dig around a bit more, and if there are scholarly sources identifying it as a novella, then the best thing to do would be to add an additional section explaining the discrepancy. Victoria (tk) 15:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, thanks for these. The Itunes description might be a mirror of this article. The edit was introduced here in 2012, diff, and I rewrote the lead in here in 2013, diff, so that needs some research, but basically we can't use iTunes as an RS. Teacher's guides we generally avoid, and in this case it does admit it's a novel, then adds an opinion re novella. If I get time during the week, I'll check for scholarly sources to see if I can find anything that mentions novella; so far everything I've found and have used as sources here refers to it as a novel. Victoria (tk) 17:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know there was history of the article referencing the work as a novella. Thank you for that, I don't know how you dug up that old version and found it to be a verbatim copy of the iTunes description. I see that your edit introduced multiple references to "novel" that might be amended in future versions using synonyms that avoid the novel/novella classification issue. 107.199.76.165 (talk) 01:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been comparing ratios on the popular site "Goodreads". The ratio is (novels/novel):(novella/novellas) using the "top shelves" feature.

  • This book: 251:36 ~7:1
  • Animal farm: 929:196 (no "novel" category) ~5:1
  • Of Mice and Men: 891:198 ~9:2
  • Heart of Darkness: 465:131 ~7:2
  • The Metamorphosis: 431:158 ~3:1
  • Ethan Frome: 169:55 ~3:1
  • On Chesil Beach: 126:25 ~5:1
  • The War of the Worlds: 183:22 (including "novela") ~8:1 (on the novella page!)

This is partly an issue of "advertising". If the book is billed as a novel, then it continues to be regarded that way. --Honestly, Bodhi (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More numbers.
  • Death in Venice: 84:59 ~3:2
  • The Turn of the Screw: 133:70 ~2:1
  • The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: 309:121 ~5:2
  • Armageddon 2419 A.D.: 3:2

--Honestly, Bodhi (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good reads, iTune, none of those are reliable sources. This is fairly definitive: McCrum, Robert. "The 100 best novels: No 35 - The Call of the Wild by Jack London (1903)". The Guardian. 19 May, 2014. Retrieved 5 September, 2015.
All of the sources currently being used in the article say novel and I have a source with a letter from London's editor calling it novel (will post when I get back here again). Looking through the history of this page, it flips back and forth from novella to novel, so it would be best to see reliable sources for novella. Victoria (tk) 23:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to abandon my pursuit of this change, but I am glad to see there is a history on Wikipedia of the alternate classification. I will leave with one final source Google Books: 100 one-night reads

I would encourage those who actively maintain this article to make the change in the right direction to "a short novel". With its ~<32k word count and lack of subplots, I believe it is most accurately described as a "novella", although "novel" will do. The fact that On Chesil Beach at around 40k words was scraping the bottom of the barrel for the Booker Prize "novel" category shows how far behind tCoTW is by a purely length criteria. The "length" section of the "novel" article here on Wikipedia states "The requirement of length has been traditionally connected with the notion that a novel should encompass the 'totality of life.'" I don't think tCoTW encompasses that lofty breadth of experience. It is divided into chapters, Animal Farm is too… White Fang is the real "novel" and it is nearly twice as long. I think it qualifies as both, but most novels now come in at greater word counts than even White Fang, that number being 80k words… Readers of this article would be better poised to understand the context of this historical narrative by the use of the word "novella". --Honestly, Bodhi (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Themes" / Donald Pizer[edit]

Without having read the cited article by Donald Pizer, "Jack London: The Problem of Form", I am curious about his "evident finding" of "a Christian theme of love and redemption as shown by Buck's refusal to revert to violence until after the death of Thorton..." Buck engages in and even initiates physical violence several times in the story, beginning with his repeated attacks on a human, the man in the red shirt. Most of the fighting in the middle part of the story is then dog-on-dog and some of it is quite pronounced as in a fight to the death with Spitz. Later Buck attacks another human with intentions to kill him. This occurs in Chapter VI: "For the Love of a Man", just prior to Buck saving Thornton from drowning. While at a bar, a character named "Black" Burton accosts Thornton inciting Buck to primordaly lunge for Burton and take two attempts at his throat. Even after Buck is separated from the man, he continues to "prowl up and down, growling furiously, attempting to rush in..." This incident is significant in that Thonton is alive and well able to defend himself and Burton is implicitly a Caucasian, not a nameless aboriginal, but Buck still attepmts to solve the problem immediately and ultimately with physical violence. 

 I admit again I have not read Mr. Pizer's essay. Does he write about the incidents I have mentioned with a reconciliation to his point above?  Dmw15101 (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

The disambig page shows a poem of the same name by Robert Service. Did Jack London take his title from this? Valetude (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How much did Macmillan pay Jack London?[edit]

This page (until I removed the amount) says $2500. The page for Jack London said $2000: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_London&oldid=1026250868

Both were marked with a citation. I don't know which is correct, so I am adding this note and removing both figures.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Call_of_the_Wild&oldid=1194080475"