|
|
Post by mjunious on Jun 2, 2024 7:56:21 GMT
Lately, I have been fascinated with the idea of "scary sublimity" in Romanticism, such as in Shelley's "Ozymandias". The similar way that "To Build a Fire" approaches nature makes this story an enjoyable read on the surface. Reading deeper, it also encapsulates Sartrean ideas of freedom. Satre says "man is condemned to be free". This is one of my favorite existential ideas (I hope to learn more) and it is on full display here. The main character receives advice to not travel alone when the temperature is below a certain threshold. He disregards this advice and ultimately dies because of it. Unlike the other two stories that we read this week, instead of being an expected narrative snapshot of a moment, London presents a cautionary tale for readers to consider the consequences of freedom, that, Sartre tells us, Existentialism condemns us with.
|
|
|
|
Post by shelbygraham on Jun 3, 2024 18:57:27 GMT
I noted the repetition of the main character recognizing "the old man on Sulphur Lake" was right. Each time he thinks about the old man it's a reminder the main character misused free choice, ignored reason, and made bad decisions that ended his life. I'm curious about who this man is and why the main character decided to not take his advice. It seems like all his choices were bad/not thought out, and only made worse by the elements.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Nemmers on Jun 3, 2024 23:00:45 GMT
Nice phrase-drop, Mitchell-- "condemned to be free" is something we'll be looking at later in the semester as well. But I agree that this really does apply well to this story, and in particular comments on the nature of American (hu)mandom as well. It's likely that the protagonist here was doomed from the get-go; as Shelby mentions, all of his choices were bad/not thought out, and nobody could stop him from doing what he wanted.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Well, in this case it winds up being bad, because he made dumb decisions and wound up frozen to death. But many people (and most Americans, I would wager) would say that having the freedom to make dumb/ bad choices (to ignore advice, to trek off the beaten path) is more important than the consequences that may result from that freedom.
So, to come full circle, in an American sense, what does it mean to be "condemned to be free?" Does that phrase become ironic, especially given our national lionization of unfettered freedom?
|
|
