Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.62 AVERAGE
3.62 AVERAGE
slow-paced
adventurous
dark
sad
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
I couldn’t get into it at all. I was bored reading it, and found myself reading parts of it several times because I couldn’t pay attention to it. While I found the perspective interesting (it was told from the point of view of Buck), it wasn’t enough to make me like it.
I give it a 1 out of 5. I couldn’t get into, and I was bored reading it.
I give it a 1 out of 5. I couldn’t get into, and I was bored reading it.
adventurous
emotional
sad
medium-paced
adventurous
hopeful
sad
adventurous
emotional
medium-paced
Liked the pace and many aspects of the storyline. Struggled with the animal abuse as continual plot point and Yeehat characterization.
Better written than I expected. I'd only read a single short story by Jack London prior to this, though. I thought the prose was quite nice, but I really disliked how much the novel anthropomorphizes the animals, especially Buck. I thought the ending and the titular "call of the wild" were a little cheesy, but overall I enjoyed this book more than I didn't.
Short book but good. Had plenty of stuff to make you think
adventurous
inspiring
tense
medium-paced
"The Call of the Wild" comes in at a solid 3.5 for me and resulted in a better-than-expected book club discussion yesterday.
Both at the novel's initial publication and today, some readers argued that the novel suffers from anthropomorphism. But, how can an author present a story from the point of view of an animal without using some references that human readers can understand? Humans couldn't see the world from a dog's eyes and still can't today, no matter how many mini-cameras we strap to canine heads. The description of Buck's desperation to find shelter during his first night in the Klondike and his amazement at finding Billy burrowed under the snow seemed very realistic. Buck flourished when he could work, not just lay about looking fluffy. That's why he loved Thornton as his master, not Judge Miller.
This isn't a book about dogs, though. It's a frame for presenting what Jack London saw tramping around the Klondike in the late 1890s. It's Darwinisim, it's fate vs. free will, it's civilization vs. the wild.
One member of my book club suggested that nature is the hero of the book. Buck comes of age in the opposite direction from the typical human coming of age tale; he sheds the comfiness and ease of civilization for the harsh reality of the wild. The law of club and fang represent the struggle to live in the frostbitten ruggedness of Gold Rush era Klondike and Buck responds with aplomb. With all of the mugs of imported tea and marinated pork chops stripped away, your own strengths must surface or you don't survive. Jack London used the novel to present a semi-autobiographical tale: "It was in the Klondike I found myself."
The leader of my group found the book extremely ham-fisted in support of socialist political views. Materialism and greed are shown as the very things that will get you and everyone you're with killed. However, I didn't feel that I was being bashed over the head with London's opinions; trying to drag around too much stuff when you have to haul it yourself (over frozen tundra and up and down mountains no less) is a fools errand.
Although "The Call of the Wild" often gets characterized as a children's book, I think it's arguably an all ages book. Some folks in my book club expressed disgust with the amount of violence in the book and felt it was inappropriate for children. Yet, I think this book is entirely appropriate for children to read or have read to them, but perhaps over age 5. The world isn't and wasn't sanitary. Wouldn't it be better for children to see animals, whether a beloved pet or in the wild, as a being to be considered on it's own and respected?
Both at the novel's initial publication and today, some readers argued that the novel suffers from anthropomorphism. But, how can an author present a story from the point of view of an animal without using some references that human readers can understand? Humans couldn't see the world from a dog's eyes and still can't today, no matter how many mini-cameras we strap to canine heads. The description of Buck's desperation to find shelter during his first night in the Klondike and his amazement at finding Billy burrowed under the snow seemed very realistic. Buck flourished when he could work, not just lay about looking fluffy. That's why he loved Thornton as his master, not Judge Miller.
This isn't a book about dogs, though. It's a frame for presenting what Jack London saw tramping around the Klondike in the late 1890s. It's Darwinisim, it's fate vs. free will, it's civilization vs. the wild.
One member of my book club suggested that nature is the hero of the book. Buck comes of age in the opposite direction from the typical human coming of age tale; he sheds the comfiness and ease of civilization for the harsh reality of the wild. The law of club and fang represent the struggle to live in the frostbitten ruggedness of Gold Rush era Klondike and Buck responds with aplomb. With all of the mugs of imported tea and marinated pork chops stripped away, your own strengths must surface or you don't survive. Jack London used the novel to present a semi-autobiographical tale: "It was in the Klondike I found myself."
The leader of my group found the book extremely ham-fisted in support of socialist political views. Materialism and greed are shown as the very things that will get you and everyone you're with killed. However, I didn't feel that I was being bashed over the head with London's opinions; trying to drag around too much stuff when you have to haul it yourself (over frozen tundra and up and down mountains no less) is a fools errand.
Although "The Call of the Wild" often gets characterized as a children's book, I think it's arguably an all ages book. Some folks in my book club expressed disgust with the amount of violence in the book and felt it was inappropriate for children. Yet, I think this book is entirely appropriate for children to read or have read to them, but perhaps over age 5. The world isn't and wasn't sanitary. Wouldn't it be better for children to see animals, whether a beloved pet or in the wild, as a being to be considered on it's own and respected?