Talk:To Build a Fire

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Davidrich.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DylKohe1, Mmack19, Czapa1. Peer reviewers: Czapa1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fsugg1, Bwhrit, Madisonrod. Peer reviewers: Dhuds1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Past tense

Please note that "To build a fire" is written in Past Tense! Made major rewritting of plot. Unsure if it needs shortening, if you deem it fit, you may shorten the plot. Fierywindz 04:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Character Relationships

Is it okay to remove the sentence "Often times, people are quick to judge those who mistreat animals."? This does not seem to be neutral in nature. Czapa1 (talk) 03:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I removed it. Please let me know if you feel this should be reversed. Czapa1 (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay that is fair. I agree with your edit Eristev4 (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I am removing "as the man repeatedly abandons his fires and continues to travel in the terrible conditions.[8]" because in the story the man is only successful in creating a fire once. The second time is foiled by the snow coming off the tree. I am also removing the link because it is a link to a point of view page not a factual source. JsansoUNH (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering if the part when he burned his hand on the failed second attempt of building the fire was already mentioned? If not, I think it should be added.Aalve1 )talk)6:45, April 18 2019 (UTC)

The description of the relationship between the man and the dog is poorly executed. To state the ideas of the man viewing the dog as a "salve", there needs to be literary evidence from the short story to back this claim. The description of the relationship, due to no evidence, can only be taken as a readers opinion of the short story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgabo1 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The claim of the man viewing the dog as a slave can be supported by, "Usually the snow above the hidden pools had sunken, candied appearance that advertised the danger. Once again, however, he had a close call; and once, suspecting danger, he compelled the dog to go in front"(page 68). This quote shows the man has no affection towards the dog and rather the dog be in danger than himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgabo1 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree, to say the man considers the dog a slave without any evidence is a far reach. That statement is very subjective and should be removed if no evidence is presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhuds1 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

In the story it says "There was no real bond between the dog and the man. The one was the slave of the other." Nikhedonia (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Added a new character relationship to this section that represents the dog as a symbol of instinct and the man of that of limited mental intellect. Ghelu1 (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Where is the evidence to prove this point? Yes, I agree but on what basis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhuds1 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Should we add the character relationship between the man from Sulfur Creek and the main protagonist? They don't quite have a relationship but while reading it helps establish the main protagonist as arrogant because he does not heed the man's warnings.Devynsouza2072 (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I think it would be important to show the relationship between the man from Sulfur Creek and the main protagonist because it shows that if he wasn't arrogant he could have survived in this story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madisonrod (talk • contribs) 23:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I also agree, their relationship is very important throughout the story and should be added. He is even referenced during the death of the man when he encounters regret of not listening to the advice given. Olivianapolitano (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The claim that "The protagonist and the old man of Sulphur Creek are seen in the beginning of the story" is not true in the 1908 version. The old man was never seen in the story. He was only in the protagonist's thoughts.Samharris11 (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Man vs. Nature

I would have thought that "To Build a Fire" is an example of Man versus Nature, but someone more knowledgeable than me should consider it. (GJD 5 July 2007)

It certainly is one of the major themes portrayed by London.

I think another part of the Nature v. Man that is relevant to the story, Darwinism. The survival of the fittest.SmoreNooit (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Man vs nature would be considered theme of the story, or if you could just call his struggle against nature a consequence of his arrogance. That being said his conflict is more self inflicted rather than a conflict against an externality. Therefore, Man vs Nature could be explained in a part of the plot section of the article rather than a theme section. --BenjiPolk2112 (talk) 03:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and I believe there should be a little more explanation about that in this article. Man vs. nature is mentioned as a theme of this story, but there is no other explanation! Lexymaz (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, the theme of man vs. Nature should be more elaborated on with providing examples from the story. Also to add on, this particular theme is very much expressed throughout the story which should receive more recognition in this article. N123 st (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree, Man vs Nature is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, theme present. I would add much more detail, possibly even make it a bigger subcategory under the Themes category to make sure the importance of the theme is properly realized and understood.Darla0421 (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree PfickNohl (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I also agree as well there needs to be more detailSgabo1 (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I am also in agreement that there is a need for more details to be added to this theme. This theme lacks in-depth details about how the theme connects to the story in comparison to other themes mentioned such as "stupidity and arrogance" and "the man's human sense of judgment contrasted with the dog's animal instinct." This theme should have some in-depth plot details or some in-depth quotations that relate to this theme and tie it to the story. Ghelu1 (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I noticed a few grammatical errors, so I'm going to fix those. Marye.hoban (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I expounded on two themes: Perseverance and Wisdom and Experience. Little was said about these two so I went in and added some key points.

I think there should be more expansion on the arrogance of the man as a theme since it lead to the man's demise. SmoreNooit (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Is it okay to remove the sentence "Naturalism is often looked at."? It seems to lack substance and does not contribute much to the article. Czapa1 (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I removed it. Let me know if it should be reversed. Czapa1 (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

School book report

this newer version of the pages is from my school report. -Helopusobiwa (7 December 2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helopusobiwa (talk • contribs) 20:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Page Deletions

To who ever deleted the whole page stop it. -Helopusobiwa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helopusobiwa (talk • contribs) 16:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree MpaduUNH1 (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Characters

On Characters: I would like to note that it in fact mentions 1 name, curiously, it's not mentioned anywhere else in the text, it's simply the only name.

I noticed that to but the name (Tom Vincent) is only mentioned once because it is reference to the 1902 version of the story. The man is given a name in the earlier version, but it was omitted in the 1908 version. I would clarify that aspect better to avoid confusion.Darla0421 (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Once in a while the thought reiterated itself that it was very cold and that he had never experienced such cold. As he walked along he rubbed his cheek-bones and nose with the back of his mittened hand. He did this automatically, now and again changing hands. But rub as he would, the instant he stopped his cheek-bones went numb, and the following instant the end of his nose went numb. He was sure to frost his cheeks; he knew that, and experienced a pang of regret that he had not devised a nose-strap of the sort Bud wore in cold snaps. Such a strap passed across the cheeks, as well, and saved them. But it didn't matter much, after all. What were frosted cheeks? A bit painful, that was all; they were never serious.

It might be a useful tidbit to add if somebody can figure out who Bud was or why Jack put it in there.

Edit: Found old version, also found reference to nose-straps: Most men wore nose-straps; his partners did, but he had scorned such "feminine contraptions," and till now had never felt the need of them. Now he did feel the need, for he was rubbing constantly. So Bud might be a hunting buddy?

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.118.2 (talk) 06:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC) 

I think that there needs to be more background on the character of the dog and what it was doing to keep itself alive, and how his instincts should have shown the man that he should not have been traveling in this weather.Jdifi1 (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The "Dog" is a wild wolf. A dog and a wolf are two different species. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guac123 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The dog is a wolf dog, which is a domesticated dog breed. Nbona2 (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The article says the man was accompanied by his dog, while it was actually a wild dog, not his pet.Kiarabhiro (talk) 16

57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

: I agree, there is no mention of ownership of the "wild" dog.JsansoUNH (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The dog is not wild, a wolf dog is a domesticated dog breed that is part wolf and part dog. Nbona2 (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree, this is not a husky dog, it is also not the man's dog. Mszos1 (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the dog is neither wild or belonging to the man. I believe that the dog, although not specified if it was owned by the man, that it was possibly just the kind of dogs that are stray, and were once owned by someone. Aalve1 (talk) (UTC)

General observation. Noticed that in multiple points of the article the dog's breed/type changes from husky to wolfdog. Don't know if this was on purpose or not, but seems slightly confusing.Fsugg1 (talk) 12:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree as well as talk about why the author failed to provide the readers a name for the protagonist.Ploui1 (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe that the author did not provide a name for the protagonist in the 1908 version in order to prevent the readers from becoming attached to the character. If this was to be included in the article it would best be included in the 1908 version section, as it it not true for the 1902 version. 786elt (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The relationship between the man and the dog

This relationship is the main way the reader is shown the man's personality. The way the man treats his dog is very important to the story. It helps to demonstrate how the author lead the reader to dislike the man and not grieve for his death. The actions between the two take up almost the entire story. It is clear the man is dominant over the dog. The dog cowers before him. At one point, the man even considers killing the dog to warm his hands with the dead body. This is important! An entire section could be filled with a discussion of this.Eristev4 (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Talking about the man and the dog, I agree that London shows the man mistreating the dog leading the reader to dislike the man, I know I disliked the man because of how he treated the dog AnBell5 (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe that the relationship of the man and dog is purely based on survival. The dog uses the man for fire and the man uses the dog to detect danger on the ice. The dog leaves the man signifying that life goes on without the man. SmoreNooit (talk) 03:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The relationship between the man and the dog can also be seen as the symbolic relationship between man and nature. The man believes he is superior to the dog just as humans believe they are superior to nature. In the end however it is the man who dies and the dog who lives which speaks to how in the end, nature will always come out on top.MoscowEagl (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

This article is too short!!!

"To Build a Fire," is one of Jack London's most critically acclaimed stories...yet when you look up on Wikipedia it's barely two paragraphs long! This article needs to be longer! It is embarassing that a fan of Jack London would look up an article on his most famous story and find barely a page long of information on it!!! Please somebody make this article longer!!! -James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.154.190 (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I agreeBmalo1 (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I also agree. I thought that the article would be much longer than what I was reading. Ehern3 (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, the story was pretty lengthy to begin with and I thought the article would be much longer with more detail. Paytonreis1 (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree, maybe the cold made it too much for the man to come up with the knowledge or physical strength to build an igloo in that situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfort15 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

If you look at the history you can read earlier much longer versions.Chemical Engineer (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

There are two versions of this story so you should use the one that best suits your needs. Will wonti (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree its very short and there is no talk about the symbols which were a big part of the story and helps explain the themes.Caitlin1198 (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

It is only a short story, (just over 7000 words) I'm not sure how much more commentary is needed. This is an encyclopedia article, not a scholarly thesis paper. That said, if you think there is more valid material to add, then you are free to do so yourself. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, the article is very short and does not go into much detail other than a plot summary and one possible theme. Slibr1 (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, there is so much to cover about this short story that can really be expanded on. Mentioned above symbols are very important in understanding the themes and also would contribute to the underlining of what London was really trying to show/prove. N123 st (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The article is a bit short. I think it should go into more detail about the man's journey and how he made his fires and how he is the reason his final fire was extinguished at the end AnBell5 (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this article is a bit short and lacking meaningful content. Considering that it is classified at a "Mid-Importance" level on WikiProjects, I believe there should be some more meaningful content added to expand the article and should also be brushed up a bit when it comes to citations and references. For an article that is at an intermediate importance level, it should not be at a "Stub-Class" low-quality level, it should be worked towards being a "Start-Class" quality level and be expanded upon in the future. As of right now, this article appears to only be useful for basic information. Ghelu1 (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Reversion

I have reverted to the version of a year ago which includes a plot summary. Some proper citation and encylopedic content would be appreciated.Chemical Engineer (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

In the first paragraph, I simply want to change the wording to say two versions of a short story instead of "two short stories".Jswen1 (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I agreeBmalo1 (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I added an additional theme to the theme section because I think it is important to note. Slibr1 (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Trivia

Has anyone noticed that there is a geographical error in Jack London's text? I will not say what it is right now to see if some JL fan could point it out to me...The error I'm referring to appears at the very first page of the narrative. To my knowledge, this error has never been spotted by commentators.I will just wait for one week and then I will tell the readers what it is...Gemb47 (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC) 77.42.225.4 (talk) 05:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.91.130 (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Well, I guess I should tell the readers what this error is! On the first page of the story, JL writes: "It had been days since he had seen the sun, and he knew that a few more days must pass before that cheerful orb, due South, would just peep above the skyline and dip immediately from view." What this means is clear : the man is walking in a region situated North of the Arctic Circle, the only region in the Northern hemisphere where the Sun disappears for days... But in the next paragraph, we are told " The man flung a look back along the way he had come... This dark hair-line was the trail- the main trail- that led South five hundred miles to the Chilkoot Pass, Dyea, and salt water; and that led North seventy miles to Dawson..." So the man is walking 70 miles South of Dawson, which represents a full degree of latitude. But the latitude of Dawson is 64.04 degrees, so the latitude of the place where the man is walking is about 63 degrees, and where he had come is still further South. This is well below the Arctic Circle(~66.75 degrees), at a latitude where the Sun never disappears completely for days: Dawson's shortest day is about four hours!Gemb47 (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not notice this error before. Interesting find. 786elt (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of fact, I was reading this story for the first time in almost half a century, and immediately noticed it. Terry Thorgaard (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The man could have survived.

The man could have survived, he could have built an igloo or snow cave and sheltered there till the boys came to search for him. The dog would have helped keep him warm. I guess 19th century and early 20th century people didn't know that.

Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Alternatively Jack London may have known that igloos and snowshelters can be built, London may have imagined the man beginning to become apathetic due to hypothermia. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree, maybe the cold made it too much for the man to come up with the knowledge or physical strength to build an igloo in that situation. Jdifi1 (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

London's story states that the man is a "chechaquo" (newcomer to the Arctic), but otherwise give us little basis to say how much (if anything) the man knew about winter survival. Any discussion on snow shelters, or any other "... maybe if he would have...." situation is irrelevant speculation. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Although I do agree with this, I believe that the severe cold was clouding the man's judgement. He was too focused on the fire to think about anything else.Mcont4 (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Imagery Theme

London's use of imagery should be mentioned considering its impact on the story. The author uses gloomy and dark imagery to emphasize the intense cold and further express his point Emilyworpek (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

More can be said about Jack London use of imagery He uses physical imagery throughout the story in order to allow his audience to interpret it as a greater idea and emotion-evoking thought. While attempting to make a fire "the snow fell without warning upon the man and the fire... it was like hearing his own judgment of death" he uses the fire as an image of life and death. The fire represents life and the absence of it symbolizes death.Jaceto07 (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Imagery was used throughout the story and definitely should be talked about in a section of its own. the setting and the description of the mans surroundings add to the belief that the man is doomed from the start of his journey. AnBell5 (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, even in the first paragraph London writes " However, there seemed to be an indescribable darkness over the face of things." and this theme of doom is continued throughout the story.MoscowEagl (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I also think the depiction of the cold makes the scenes with the fire seem desperate because the imagery shows the extreme cold.SmoreNooit (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

References

links

The links should be linked to a credible or scholarly source not another wiki page. Bryalis (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The summary should mention that "The Man" was warned about his trip but refused to listen. Bryalis (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I feel as though the comments by Bryalis above^ should be placed in correct sections. The links comment should be placed in "References" section and the comment about the summary should go in the "Plot" section. If anyone else feels this way please respond to me and once I get an agreement from two people I will copy the entire section along with the comments I get and place it in the correct space. Feel free to edit.--HaydeB (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Symbolism

Overall, I agree with the summary of the story you have created here. However, I feel as if you should incorporate some of London's symbols he uses throughout the story. The symbols he creates are so important to the relevance and understanding of the story, and I feel as if they are what makes the story itself. I would consider adding some of them in the summary. Tsansone842 (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, there are symbolic elements in the story that should be mentioned here. Pat otoole (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

There is a lot of symbols that are shown throughout the story, it should be mentioned in the overview of the story. To mention symbolism it will allow for a deeper and better understanding of the story. 9Frank (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9Frank (talk • contribs)

There should be a separate section to talk about symbolism in the article, not just in the overview Slibr1 (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

i agree that there was a lot of symbolism missed within this article that could of been talked about but other than that i feel this article was a good summary of the story. Mmack19 (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree and think symbolism should have its own section in this article because symbols were used by London throughout the entirety of the storyAnBell5 (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree and believe that there should be a detailed section about symbolism so a reader of this story can fully understand all of the symbols that London presents. Dama024 (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree as well, I feel it would be best placed after the section on themes. 786elt (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Details

I agree with your plot summary; overall it was very well-written. However, I found myself getting distracted on the main point of the summary because of the amount of details it contained. I would consider removing some and leaving the readers to discover what ultimately leads to the man's demise on their own. After all, that is the joy of reading a story. Tsansone842 (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The plot summary is accurate but wordy. I would also have liked to see more about the mans arrogance on taking this journey and less about the description. The older man should be included in the plot summary too, since he is referenced throughout the story. Olivianapolitano (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Grammar

In the opening paragraph change "an oft-cited example" to "an often-cited example"

Bmalo1 (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I changed the g in grammar to a capital G to read Grammar. It looks cleaner in the content section. --HaydeB (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

1902 Vs 1908 (Should They Be Separate?)

I believe there should be two different articles. One for the more commonly known version of the story and one for the lesser one. I just believe more people are looking to find the commonly known story if they are going to Wikipedia for information. I think the themes could use more detail and more references to support them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannah Vail (talk • contribs) 18:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, these different versions of the story have different elements and key pieces. They are not identical therefor I don't believe they should be in the same article overall.Olivianapolitano (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, both stories are slightly different and should have two separate wikipedia pages, for example there is a separate one for the movie as well. Kiarabhiro (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree while most people may be looking for the most commonly known version they are still two versions of one story. I think they should both be discussed in one article but with details and themes listed about both. Tkiss1 (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I have changed the title of this section to "1902 Vs 1908 (Should They Be Separate) to better describe the topic. Feel free to edit further --HaydeB (talk) 12:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe the 1902 version section (towards the bottom) shouldn't be there since it is repeating the information in the introduction. Unless someone adds more information to it, it is just repetitive. Cornonthecob44 (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe that heading for each section should be the same for each version. The 1908 version is "1908 version plot" while the 1902 version is simply "1902 version". Recommend removing "plot" from the 1908 version heading. 786elt (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Jack London's Website

The website put down for Jack London is not correct and is going to get removed because the link does not work. -10 November 2016

Can you find and add a link that does work? Oeparker1 (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Found a website, http://jacklondon.com Rbout (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I have changed the title of this section to "Jack London's Website" with a capital W in order to clean up the contents page. Feel free to edit.--HaydeB (talk) 12:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Foreshadowing

Please consider adding examples of foreshadowing the the article. As soon as the author mentions "the old timer at Sulphur Creek", the reader notices something may not go right. In paragraph 5 for example, the author writes, "It certainly was cold, he concluded, as he rubbed his numb nose and cheekbones with his mittened hand". Now the reader knows it is only 9 AM, and the man won't get to camp until 6 PM, so most likely the man won't end up very well. Also, you can focus on how numb the man's hand gets when he exposes it to the cool air while picking the ice bits out of his dog's fur.Emilydean1 (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the article should talk about London's use of foreshadow as it is evident throughout much of the story.AnBell5 (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Foreshadowing plays an important role in this story and should definitely be talked about in this article. There are plenty of examples to talk about for foreshadowing in this story Slibr1 (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I will be adding a short paragraph describing the naturalism in the short story. The paragraph will relate naturalism to the foreshadowing present in the story as it becomes clear to the reader that the man will die due to the environment he must survive in. Let me know if it needs any edits, belongs elsewhere, or should not be included in the article. Thanks in advance. Czapa1 (talk) 05:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I did not see anything in the story about "the old timer at Sulphur Creek."Mszos1 (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The short story foreshadows the man’s fate all throughout the story, which is indicated in this description. Evidence of this foreshadowing is needed to prove this claim. A quote that can show the foreshadowing of the man’s life-threatening fate, “The trail was faint. A foot of snow had fallen since the last sled had passed over, and he was glad he was without a sled, traveling light. In fact, he carried nothing but the lunch wrapped in the handkerchief”(66). This shows that the man is ill prepared for his travels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgabo1 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the addition of the quotes, there are many instances of foreshadowing in this story and the addition of quotes would only make the evidence stronger/easily recognizable.

Plural "locals"

I thought the story mentioned that only a single local man warned the hiker of the impending danger? In the first paragraph of the article it mentions that multiple locals warned the hiker.Bcana1 (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

As pointed out in the article, there are two version of this story. Is it possible that the person/people who wrote about "multiple locals" is writing about the version you didn't read? Dumas1110 (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Symbolism

There is a lot of symbols that are shown throughout the story, it should be mentioned in the overview of the story. To mention symbolism it will allow for a deeper and better understanding of the story. 9Frank (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

This Talk page already has a section on symbolism (above). This comment should appear there. Dumas1110 (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I totally agree!Sgabo1 (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Themes

I added a section for themes as I felt that leaving a short blurb about a theme in the plot summary was inappropriate. I also added a theme of the story that I noticed so the section wouldn't have only one theme.

I added to your section on themes under stupidity and arrogance because I felt the old mans advice to the protagonist and then the protagonists disregard of that dice needed to be mentiond. Also it was another example of the protagonists arrogance.

I agree. I think this is a very important section of the story and shows the readers how the protagonist acts and takes advice. Obviously, the protagonist denied the tip and continued his journey. This should be included so I am glad you added this.Olivianapolitano (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I added to themes to show the difference between how the man dies and the dog survives contributing to his arrogance and stupidity. Asant12 (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I added a quote from a scholarly source that is under the section that talks about the differences between the man and the dog. This is a reference to Darwin's theory of natural selection and I think this works well with the dog being fit to survive, but the man is not. Jwlinacre (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

In addition to the theme of "Man Vs. Nature", the theme of "Pride" should be included. The man in the short story the man displays his strong sense of pride. Despite others telling the man the dangers of going off into the wilderness alone, he precedes to do so. A quote from the short story showing this "Well, here he was; he had had the accident; he was alone; and he had saved himself"(pg.72). This quote shows the mans pride of being able to save himself, when others told him it was dangerous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgabo1 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Pride is a huge theme of the story and a driving force when it comes to the man's decisions.Ztyler460 (talk) 03:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that pride should be included since that could be one the reasons that the man died in the first place. His pride is what blinded him from seeing the best route would be to stop and stay warm at a fire.Jwlinacre (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I added a short section for an additional theme, wisdom and experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meast2 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The addition of wisdom and experience does fit in well in helping contrast the character and the dog when facing the elements.

The comparison of intellect between the man and the dog may take away from the concept of arrogance driving his decisions. I made a small change at the end to include "lack of instinct" as was referred to by the narrator.

I disagree, I believe that the comparison of intellect adds to the concept of arrogance driving the mans decisions because the dog understands the position they are in while the man does not because of his arrogance.MoscowEagl (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it would make sense for arrogance to have its own section instead of being put with "wisdom and experience" because arrogance seems to play such a major theme in this story. The man is arrogant throughout the story and only realizes when it is too late. Arrogance is the reason that he is in the position he is in which speaks to how powerful arrogance can be.MoscowEagl (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree, arrogance is definitely what got him killed and deserves its own section. London really tries to convey that he died because he didn't listen to the elder, mentioning his advice six times throughout the story. --BenjiPolk2112 (talk) 03:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I think there should be more evidence and/or details added to the individualism theme to give it better support since that section is small. Tkiss1 (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I added an additional interpretation regarding the theme of death. The interpretation associates the protagonists death with self discovery. 786elt (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem with the man is not wisdom and experience because he has decent survival skills. His problem is his arrogance more than anything. Gmora1011 (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe the section on Individualism is unnecessary because once the man meets the dog he is reliant on the dog as one of his main sources of survival. The only thing the man does as an individual is making the mistake of making his journey alone. I would simply remove the section altogether.Darla0421 (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree since with the Individualism section being unnecessary since the man attempting to kill the dog was mentioned in the Desperation section. With it being a smaller section as well, it seems like there isn't much to add to it as well.Jwlinacre (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I added George R. Adams' perspective to the Wisdom and Experience section. This is my major edit.Gmora1011 (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I added the idea of human evolution to the Wisdom and Experience section. Which contained a quote from Why the Man Dies in "To Build a Fire". Which is considered a major edit.SmoreNooit (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that there could be something added to acknowledge how the characters in the 1908 version do not have any names and how this contributes to there being a disconnect between the man and the audience.Jwlinacre (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

When talking about Wisdom vs. Experience in the article it starts off strong but veers off into Instinct vs. Experience. I think that paragraph should have included more examples relating to the man lacking wisdom which the article interpreted that into lack of instinct and compared that to the dogs instinct. N123 st (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Citations

After looking at the citations at the end of this article, I found that several of them either no longer direct me to a valid article or are of information that is not relevant to the article. Citation 1 is not anything to do with "To Build a Fire" and should be removed. Citations 2 and 4 are a University of New Haven database for the short story "To Build a Fire" and cannot be accessed by the public. Citation 6 is a movie that although related to another Jack London book, does not relate to "To Build a Fire" at all. Citation 7 is a link to yahoo movies which does not relate to "To Build a Fire." Citations 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 should be removed from the article. The information within the article that is based on these citations should be modified if necessary and cited with proper sources. Jerubino (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. These citations are not useful and are just links to the stories. Whoever put these citations in had no direct evidence from a source, they just used different links to the story to fill in for the citations. A scholarly journal should be used for a reliable source. Slibr1 (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I have also noticed this problem. Citation 1 still leads to an article about Abraham Lincoln for some reason, 11 is a James Madison University cite that cannot be accessed by the public, 16 leads to a general yahoo search page... I think these should be removed. In addition to that, many of the citations (5-10, 13-19) are just links that should probably be formatted into an actual citation --Vsous1 (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I also discovered that the James Madison Univerisity one only brings you to a login area. Another link brings you to an Indiegogo page that has merchandise to buy and the video that is shown is unavailable. It would make more sense to have these removed since they are unable to be used by the public.Jwlinacre (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Some of the links in the reference list didn't work so I got rid of them Camcam80 (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

There are multiple links that take you to a general site not a specific page. I would recommend double checking all the links to make sure they direct you to the source material.Mconb1 (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. There are some links that lead to source material not related to the topic, are inaccessible to the public, or just general sites without a specific page. Some references in need of double checking are number one, number eleven, and number sixteen, just to name a few. Ghelu1 (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no link to click on for reference number 4. When I paste it in my web browser, the top result is a wiki source page on the article. I suggest adding the think for reference. Mszos1 (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The article has two reference sections and a citation section on the talk page. I suggest it be condensed to just one to make it easier to communicate. Mszos1 (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The use of this reference, http://www.hettahuskies.com/en/our-farm-dogs/more-about-huskies/types-of-huskies, is not necessary for the short story 'To Build a Fire'. This article talks about the different breeds of huskies, which is not relevant to literary aspects of the short story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgabo1 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I have deleted the other "References" section as it only asks the question. "There are no references at all?" This was an outdated comment and the content section is now easier to read. Feel free to edit.--HaydeB (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

1902 Version

I think that the input of the earlier version is a good addition to the page, but if it's going to be added I think it needs to have a little bit more information as well as maybe a link to the story so people could read it. Jdifi1 (talk) 14:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. If the first person of the story is short and not well known a link should be provided to explicitly see the differences. Those difference would be very helpful to understand what made the change from a character who appeared to love life and so struggles at the end but came through compared to a character who was filled with arrogance and accepted his death peacefully.N123 st (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to add just a link to the story to give readers more information about the 1902 version of the story. Jdifi1 (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The earlier version needs to be more elaborated on. Quickly talking about the differences between the other version isn't going to help give the readers of this article a better understanding of both versions. Use both versions and connect similarities, differences, common themes, symbolism, etc. Slibr1 (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

This version was mentioned in the intro, and is then given its own section further down the page, which I feel is valid except that the sections are just copies of each other. I think one of them should be either deleted or rephrased. The way it is now provides no extra information to a reader by just saying the same exact thing twice --Vsous1 (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with the two previous comments above. Although it may be relevant to touch upon the older version of London's story, it's important to do so in a way that doesn't confuse readers that haven't actually read either version. Smxash39c (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't we add more information about the 1902 section to enhance the article as a whole?Dama024 (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

adding this here because it falls under the same catagoryFsugg1 (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

It differs in some details, mainly in the plot details and tone of the story. In this version, there is no dog, it is not as cold, and the fire does not get burnt out. Along with some of the main differences, the man, that does not have a name in the 1908 version, is given a name-Tom Vincent- in this one. By the end, the man makes it to the camp safe, where he meets his companions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alewi5UNH (talk • contribs) 02:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the 1902 version section should be moved to underneath the 1908 version section so that readers can see both sections together to more easily compare the two versions. Tkiss1 (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it feels out of place to have the 1902 version at the end of the article. Moving it underneath the 1908 version would make the article more consistent.786elt (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree, when I first read the article, I thought there was only an explanation of the 1908 version. I think that it should go above the 1908 version since it came first chronologically. Jwlinacre (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I added more information to the section that shows an additional difference between the two versions of the story. The difference being that the 1902 narrator had a "love of life" that caused him to live to the end of his story that the 1908 narrator lacked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darla0421 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Theme Addition

Under the theme portion of the article, I added a paragraph that talks about arrogance based on the story's plot. I thought that was a big theme that no one addressed. Any edits and suggestions would be highly appreciated. Thank You! Ehern3 (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Within the theme section I added a brief paragraph discussing the way in which London showed the death of the man. I felt as though the peacefulness the man experienced was important to consider in the interpretation of the story. I'm not sure if themes was the correct place to put it. If someone thinks it belongs somewhere else then feel free to move it or change anything within the post. Jerubino (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, Londons word choices to simulate the hikers death had a peaceful tone to the, although, tragic death. This was important to the story because after the roller coaster ride of safe to in danger multiple times over the peaceful death put an ease to the hiker and if any can agree the readers.N123 st (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

There are two "Theme Additions" under the talk page, they should be combined under one heading. Kiarabhiro (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I have copy and pasted the two "Theme Addition" talk pages together to make one page. I used the November 21st, 2017 page as the main page because it was created first. Feel free to edit.--HaydeB (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I have also deleted the secondary talk post about "Theme Addition" as it was no longer needed. I have also changed the title of this post to "Theme Addition" the "a" was not capital. Feel free to edit--HaydeB (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

The Article of "To Build A Fire" is relevant to the topic of man versus nature as a theme we mentioned in class I feel though the author of the article should have went into more detail about the theme within the story..

I agree with this that it should have gone into more detail about man vs. nature Asant12 (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The Links do work but seem to have been edited by others because they originally didn't work.

Quotations are not integrated within this story and quotes from the story could of helped make the article better for example with the theme section of man versus nature.

Viewpoints within the article seem to be equally presented throughout of all the view points.

The plot summary is accurate to the story. Mmack19 (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the article on To Build a Fire, I have to wonder if the initial section is entirely accurate. The entirety of it is based on one source and it may be confusing for some people as they may think parts of the section have no source to draw from. The article is mostly neutral, perhaps the foreshadowing section sways a little in terms of having a neutral stance but not glaringly so. Also connecting to the section on foreshadowing, it seems to lack further and necessary detail. It is too short to give foreshadowing its justice nor be able to explain, in detail, its use in the story. The links provided for the sources work and the information seems to be still up-to-date. Along with this, the information included in the article reflects previous discussions in class. However, the discussion of multiple versions of the story was not discussed in class before. All in all, it is a solid article that can stand on its own but must be noted that it could use some improvements. Czapa1 (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Original research tag added to "Foreshadowing" section

I added the original research tag to the foreshadowing section. To me, the paragraph reads a bit like a snippet of a high school paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acire93 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this section on foreshadowing can potentially be composed of original research or possible bias material that is not noted as bias material. Ghelu1 (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Evaluation for Class

- Information is well centered onto topic and doesn't go off-topic

- Information remains neutral and purely informative about the story

- Citations work and relate to the article

-Information is well organized and structured

- Good representation of both versions of the story

- Could go more in-depth about different possible themes in the story

- While it's good that the article talks about the 1902 version, it could go more in-depth about how it differed from the 1908 versionBwhrit (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

== Chechaquo ==Olivianapolitano (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I was reading a journal about this short story and they referred to the unnamed man as a chechaquo which means a newcomer to the Yuckon. I thought this was something that should be included so I added it in the plot description. With the title it could be a little easier to refer to him with a "name" of sorts rather than just referring to him as "the man" whenever someone might write something bout this story.--BenjiPolk2112 (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

For grammar purposes I think this section should be capitalized!Olivianapolitano (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Please, whoever is doing it, please stop assigning this story's article for your class assignments. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)