White Fang
discussion
Accuracy?
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Ashley
(new)
Jun 14, 2008 08:31AM
Do you think Kaza puts a modern twist to the Erec Rex series? I do . I mean the people in Alympium use remote controls to do magic.
reply
|
flag
I read White Fang and loved this book. My one concern though was how accurate was Jack London was with his description of wolves' behavior. Knowing how often wolves have been misresprented in literature I think it is important to know it Jack London was on target or not.
Of course, Kaza has a magical world that's modern. That's probably what makes the Erec Rex series stand out. In Harry Potter and most other fantasies, the magical world is frozen in an archaic medieval mode. Does that even make any sense? Wouldn't there be progress even in the realm of magic? In Narnia (or Harry Potter), why should the characters have to walk from a modern world to one where the chief mode of transportation is a horse or dragon or whatever? Whatever it is, Alypium is not a medieval world.
Well, when Narnia was written most fantasies happened in medival worlds, so you can't really compare that to Kaza's books since they were written way before Kaza's. You can, however, relate them to Harry Potter, and I agree, Harry Potter has more of a medival twist and Kaza's is more modern.
I have studied wolves for a few years and he doesn't apply wolf behavior throughout the whole book as well as julie of the wolves.
I was forced to read this book in literature class in 7th grade. I liked it alot better than call of the wild but was way out of my fasanation. I reccomend it better for people in like their freshman sophmore year becouse they might get a better uderstanding then a seventh grader.
I read (and understood) this book in 5th grade. (I'm currently going into 9th) I, with my love of wolves, very much enjoyed this book. I think Jack London did fairly well with representing a wolf's behavior. There are some flaws, but there are flaws in everything. It's a classic story.I read call of the wild in 2 nights. Read it in 6th. Picked it off the shelf in the school library. I loved it. 'Couldn't put it down and stayed up 'till 1AM just reading.
Jack London did an ok job, in my oppinion. :)
The book was not meant to represent clinical wolf behavior. Americans and Europeans still had a widespread fear of wolves during London's time. The savage wolf pack stalking the two woodsmen in the first chapter was just an hook to terrify and lure in nineteenth century readers. It's high adventure and should be taken as so.
I think it was accurate yet not. All wolves act differently yet the same time. It just depends on what's going on in thier life.
Well, a hungry wolf, as the ones described in White Fang, would be very aggresive. They would still have the brains to keep away from man's fire, as they did in the book, and would come closer as the fire dimmed and the men went to sleep. That is semi-normal behavior. I can see it from a starving wolf pack.
i find it that jack London did a fare accurate book i know not all but most of what there is to know about wolves i know every known wolf species and wolf eye and body language i do at MIT that he did not get a lot of wolf behaver in his book but then again back then when people were to afraid to observe a wolf pack it makes scene that it did not have a lot of wolf behaver. in conclusion it is a fare book i would love to read again and yes it does not have as much well thought out wolf behaver as Julie of the wolves Julie's wolf pack and Julie but it is still a classic tale of abuse and how it can affect any ones life!
don't think white fang was entirely 'wolf'. wolves do stalk humans -- ask hunters in northwest. wolves also kill for other than food or defense, especially adolescents.
White fang wasn't all wolf. It was stated he was half dog.
I think it was pretty accurate. As it was stated several times, White Fang was a superiour specimen of his species (try saying that while drunk). Oh, and Lyla, White Fang was three quarter wolf, his mother half wolf and father full wolf, but it probably isn't important.
Badgerlord wrote: "I think it was pretty accurate. As it was stated several times, White Fang was a superiour specimen of his species (try saying that while drunk). Oh, and Lyla, White Fang was three quarter wolf..."
Thanks for correcting me. :)
All I knew was that he wasn't full wolf.
I liked this book that showed how the dog - wolf was so much better than us....
I think that was his accurate portrayal. Have a look at To Build A Fire...
I think the Erec Rex series are just very unique,
Gary wrote: "The book was not meant to represent clinical wolf behavior. Americans and Europeans still had a widespread fear of wolves during London's time. The savage wolf pack stalking the two woodsmen in the..."Exactly. Also, back then they didn't know as much about wolves' behaviors and interaction as they do now. We still don't know everything. Probably for his time he was writing as accurately as possible given the information available.
I'm not an expert on wolves behavior, but I think the way Jack London had portrayed wolves couldn't have been any better in terms of Literary display. In reality, I don't think that female wolves usually lead packs as was the case with white fang's mother, but that helped to communicate the notion that charisma and leadership is running through the veins of that beast from his parents legacy. On the other hand, I guess that London's was reaffirming the belief that dogs were superior animals, by the fact that white fang-25% dog 75% wolf and that in turn gave him some of the better qualities that wolves can't attain, unless they've been domisticated for generations. In short, I believe the author did a pretty good job in portraying his ideas and conventions, which I tend to agree with most of them.
I think that given the fact of him being put into different situations, and not actually being raised in the wild, that he was accurate. but then again you would have to meet a person in real life who raised a wolf the same way to know for sure. i think it is an excellent book, and that he did a good job. wolves are just like dogs, but wild, so just think about if you put a dog through those scenarios. he would act the same way.
I have a Siberian husky dog and I've read many books about training dogs and their behavior and psychology. But after reading the White Fang I discovered many new things. Dogs and wolves have quite a lot in common so maybe J. London had studied them both closely. He describes wolves'character impressively well, but still I am not sure if a beaten and tortured wild animal would ever be willing to trust anybody - neither a man, nor an animal. And this is the dubious part for me. The part where the wolf lives with the family, protects them... Wolves are not watchdogs. On the other hand maybe White Fang accepts the family as his own pack and that's why he protects them... But my own opinion is that the last part is a bit too strong to be accepted literally.
London's wolves don't seem to be wildly inaccurate, but there are some pretty unlikely things in that book. I always found it odd that the wolves (and dogs) are described as "slashing" (or similar) with their teeth, which doesn't sound like anything I've seen in, say, documentaries. Other people have taken issue with this sort of thing too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_f... . Some people seem to have considered London's animal stories to be highly suspect, but I think that's being a little unfair.For the time it was written, White Fang doesn't seem to be too bad. Bear in mind that nowadays, wolves caught on camera can be seen again and again. Back then, it would have taken immense effort (and a very long time) just to see one. I don't think I'd consider the book to "misrepresent" wolves as such, but you shouldn't take it as the bible on their behaviour either.
To the extent that White Fang is taken as authority that wolves can be safely domesticated, I would say "don't try this at home." Whether White Fang's malleability stemmed from his 25% dog genetics, or the unique circumstances, from the information I have wolves are not safe as pets. Usually the results are heartbreaking.Taken on a different level, I really appreciated the book. People, even seriously abused ones, can be reformed. If White Fang is taken as a human rather than wolf-dog, the book is stirring and redemptive.
Pretty accurate. And remember he is not all wolf. I re-read this book recently as I have a large Alaskan Malmute I was raising and training from 8 weeks. The dog got to be 9 months old and 150 lbs and when observed exhibited many of the same behaviors. And with me- knocking me down by running up behind, hitting at shoulder height and then dashing away to "attack" again. (We got that all straightened out you will be happy to hear) Lakota was my 3rd Malamute.
I´ve only met wolves who were raised domesticated. They behave exactly like large dogs do. Of course every dog has his own personality, I mean in a general sense there was no difference. Remember they are the same species. We are not comparing cats and lions we are comparing Siamese cats and Tabby cats.
Although they are the same species I have found that some breeds particularly the working classes have retained many of the independant thinking, predatory hunting and behavioral traits of their wild "cousins".For example a Lab is much more of a people pleaser while working classes are much more instinctual amd predatory and more independant the way cats are if you know what I mean. That has been my experience anyway.
Hannah's comment (#6) sounds plausible. It's what has happened in one's life, as well as gene. The same with dogs, cats, or people. So, in this case--if accuracy is all you want, only White Fang knows.
One thing you could point out as being inaccurate in this book is the pack of wolves hunting the humans at the start (if I'm not remembering the book wrong). There has never been a documented case of a wild wolf killing anybody ever. If they were follow people it's because they know that people litter, and litter is often edible.
When people start feeding wolves, or try to train them and domesticate them, then they have been known to attack.. but no wild wolf has ever done so.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/35913715/ANCHORAGE, Alaska — In a small southwest Alaska village where natives have forever lived side-by-side with wild animals, the fatal mauling of a schoolteacher by wolves has shattered an uneasy co-existence.
It may not be an everyday occurrence but it does happen
Thank you for posting that article, it confirms what I said. Those wolves had "become habituated" to people.
I think we have to give London some literary license. The accuracy, yes needs to be plausible, but the wolfs are characters, just like any human. To tell a great story, you have to have some elements of behavior to make the book a great read. I have been around animals when farming and each cow or dog or cat has their own personality and will react differently. I believe wild animals must mirror this.
I don't think it was accurate nor meant to be. If anything, it makes the case that these animals should be given more study and to extend the branch of peace rather than extermination out of fear. It's a humanist/animalist story of adventure and perseverance. It's not a wild animal documentary. Great story though.
Rebecca wrote: "Thank you for posting that article, it confirms what I said. Those wolves had "become habituated" to people."It's perhaps not fair to claim that an animal that has "become habituated" to humans is no longer wild--particularly since that article never explicitly states that these wolves had become habituated to humans (though it does seem likely that was the case).
Overall, though, I agree with your original point. Wolf attacks are so astoundingly rare that the opening of London's book can hardly be considered an accurate representation of reality.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
