Talk:Jack London/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2021

Proposed change at bottom.

The section below, found in this article, grossly misrepresents Jack London's full perspective on race as well as his depiction of the fight between Jack Johnson and Tommy Burns:

"An amateur boxer and avid boxing fan, London reported on the 1910 Johnson–Jeffries fight, in which the black boxer Jack Johnson vanquished Jim Jeffries, known as the 'Great White Hope'. In 1908, London had reported on an earlier fight of Johnson's, contrasting the black boxer's coolness and intellectual style, with the apelike appearance and fighting style of his Canadian opponent, Tommy Burns:

'[What won] on Saturday was bigness, coolness, quickness, cleverness, and vast physical superiority ... Because a white man wishes a white man to win, this should not prevent him from giving absolute credit to the best man, even when that best man was black. All hail to Johnson. ... [Johnson was] superb. He was impregnable ... as inaccessible as Mont Blanc.[84]'"

In fact, in the same sources from which the material above was derived, London frequently refers to Jack Johnson as a "giant Ethiopian," a "playful Ethiopian," and as possessing "Ethiopian stolidity." London further refers to Johnson's "fierce, vicious" expression. While the latter example is not so deliberately bigoted and possibly justifiable to some degree, it certainly contradicts the assertion above that Johnson was solely described for his coolness and intellectual style. There is an implied inhumanness or savagery to the words "fierce" and "vicious" that cannot be ignored in the context of this discussion.

Furthermore, London had the following to say:

"Personally, I was with Burns all the way. He is a white man and so am I. Naturally I wanted to see the white man win. Put the case to Johnson. Ask him if he were spectator to a fight between a white man and a black man which he would like to see win, and Johnson's black skin will dictate a desire parallel to the one dictated by my white skin. But now, to come back to the point. There is no foolish sentimental need to gloss over Burns's defeat. Because a white man wishes the white man to win should not prevent him from giving absolute credit to the best man who did win, even when that best man was black."

I would like to draw attention to the phrase "even when that best man was black" as an example of white supremacist language. It a compliment wrapped up, once again, in an implied denigration based on race.

Additionally, London implies a sympathy for Burns in his language that, though not immediately obvious, is unmistakable. While London by no means downplays Johnson's superiority as a boxer and domination of the fight based on his skill, he notes the "hopeless, preposterous, heroic" nature of Burns' defeat against the "giant Ethiopian" against whom Burns never stood a chance. Once again, there is a plausible deniability to this language; it is, by design, cryptic.

Lastly, I would pose the following quote from London:

"But one thing remains. Jeffries must emerge from his alfalfa farm and remove that smile from Johnson's face. Jeff, it's up to you."

This is clear bigotry, especially when evaluated in its relation to racial rhetoric surrounding "The Fight of the Century" between Johnson and Jim Jeffries, a fight that symbolized the white supremacist system of that era.

I propose the following changes.

Change:

"An amateur boxer and avid boxing fan, London reported on the 1910 Johnson–Jeffries fight, in which the black boxer Jack Johnson vanquished Jim Jeffries, known as the 'Great White Hope'. In 1908, London had reported on an earlier fight of Johnson's, contrasting the black boxer's coolness and intellectual style, with the apelike appearance and fighting style of his Canadian opponent, Tommy Burns:

'[What won] on Saturday was bigness, coolness, quickness, cleverness, and vast physical superiority ... Because a white man wishes a white man to win, this should not prevent him from giving absolute credit to the best man, even when that best man was black. All hail to Johnson. ... [Johnson was] superb. He was impregnable ... as inaccessible as Mont Blanc.[84]'"

To:

"An amateur boxer and avid boxing fan, London reported on the 1910 Johnson–Jeffries fight, in which the black boxer Jack Johnson vanquished Jim Jeffries, known as the 'Great White Hope'. In 1908, London had reported on an earlier fight of Johnson's, in which he displayed respect for Johnson's boxing ability:

'[What won] on Saturday was bigness, coolness, quickness, cleverness, and vast physical superiority ... Because a white man wishes a white man to win, this should not prevent him from giving absolute credit to the best man, even when that best man was black. All hail to Johnson. ... [Johnson was] superb. He was impregnable ... as inaccessible as Mont Blanc.[84]'"

However, it must be noted that London used language that racially caricatured Johnson, referring to him often as a "giant Ethiopian," a "playful Ethiopian," and as possessing "Ethiopian stolidity." He referred to Johnson's expression at times as "fierce, vicious," while sympathetically referring to Burns' overwhelming defeat as "heroic." London's racial bias can be observed clearly below:

'Personally, I was with Burns all the way. He is a white man and so am I. Naturally I wanted to see the white man win. Put the case to Johnson. Ask him if he were spectator to a fight between a white man and a black man which he would like to see win, and Johnson's black skin will dictate a desire parallel to the one dictated by my white skin. But now, to come back to the point. There is no foolish sentimental need to gloss over Burns's defeat. Because a white man wishes the white man to win should not prevent him from giving absolute credit to the best man who did win, even when that best man was black...But one thing remains. Jeffries must emerge from his alfalfa farm and remove that smile from Johnson's face. Jeff, it's up to you.'

London's accounts of Johnson's boxing feats demonstrate an innate proclivity towards white supremacy (particularly in relation to Black people) that complement and reinforce his racist stances towards other non-white communities." General racc (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Both the original and your version is considered original research of London's writing. Since only a primary source is given, Wikipedia should not give any sort of analysis or reach any conclusions from it. I've removed the paragraph from the article. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

References

How much did Macmillan pay Jack London for Call of the Wild?

This page does (or did until I removed it) say they paid $2000. The page for Call of the Wild itself said $2500: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=The_Call_of_the_Wild&oldid=1027020132

Obviously, these numbers can't both be correct. I saw both of them relatively near to a citation, so it isn't as simple as removing the unsourced number either. So I removed both numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LrdDimwit (talk • contribs) 01:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Jack London as Eugenicist

I would like to propose a change to the erroneous statement in the summary page that states that Jack London was a "passionate advocate of...eugenics." This is erroneous. The citations included do not support this position - rather they are articles of literary criticism arguing for evidence of eugenicist ideology in London's work. Furthermore, neither article states that Jack London was a Eugenicist, nor do any articles in the very broad scholarship on Jack London (again, because it is simply false). This should be enough for removal of the statement, but I will also forward several arguments against that position. To state London was a "passionate advocate of...eugenics" implies he explicitly supported the idea. There is no evidence for this, because it is not true - there are no statements he made supporting eugenic policies, and there are multiple pieces of evidence to the contrary.

I will cite two pieces of evidence here, though they may read as only tangentially related, because, in fact, London was not overly concerned with practices of eugenics and made few statements explicitly on the subject (this is opposed to his positions on race, of which he had many views and made many statements, often contradictory). First, as the section on London's belief in Eugenics, the original poster points out that the central policy proposal at the time related to eugenics was the forced sterilization of prisoner's and those with developmental disabilities. London's final work, The Star Rover, is from the first person perspective of a prisoner in solitary confinement, and expresses explicit support for prisoner's rights, as Lorenzo Carcaterra states in his introduction to the Modern Library Classics edition. The second piece of evidence is that in his lecture "Revolution", the speech he gave whenever invited to speak throughout his brief career, beginning in 1905, the fourth paragraph states that "The comradeship of the revolutionists...transcends race prejudice," and goes on to describe connections between socialists of different racial groups. These two pieces of evidence indicate that, while there are few explicit statements on the subject, it would be just as accurate to state London would have been passionately against eugenics (to be clear, neither statement is accurate, because there is no evidence for either). The only statement from London the article currently cites is his letter stating "I believe the future belongs to eugenics, and will be determined by the practice of eugenics." This is hardly a statement for eugenics, and just as easily could be a statement against.

The section on eugenics further down the page successfully conveys more nuance. The line in the introduction should read "a passionate advocate of unionization, workers' rights, socialism, and Social Darwinism." This statement is obvious and true, conveys Jack London's racialism, and does not need a citation, just as the statements on unionization, worker's rights, and socialism do not have citations. If a citation is required, I can provide one. The statement as it currently reads is erroneous and misleading about London's complex racialism, which is better explained in the substance of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave neustadt (talk • contribs) 15:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Melmann 09:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Soviet Union popularity

A link about his popularity in the Soviet Union has been added in a comment at Talk:Jack_London/Archive_2#Soviet Union translations (should have been added here instead, of course). AnonMoos (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2022

2nd paragraph of section 8 Beauty Ranch states: "He [Jack London] was proud to own the first concrete silo in California, a circular piggery that he designed." However, you can see on the Jack London Park website (archive of historic information for his former estate in Glen Ellen) that the piggery (also circular; aka Pig Palace) and the silos are two separate buildings. 65.200.105.218 (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2022

I found a missing citation, see below:

Change the following:

London explained both writers based their stories on the same newspaper account. A year later, it was discovered that Charles Forrest McLean had published a fictional story also based on the same incident.[citation needed]

To this:

London explained both writers based their stories on the same newspaper account. A year later, it was discovered that Charles Forrest McLean had published a fictional story also based on the same incident.

References

Thanks! Emixolydian (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done PianoDan (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Jack London's selling method

In one of London's publications - possibly Martin Eden, possibly not - he describes his method of selling stories: take a page, write the names of stories down the left-hand side and the names of publications across the top, and draw a grid. Send the first story to the first publication, and put a mark in the first box where that story and publication meet. When the story comes back, send it to the second publication and send the second story to the first publication, and mark that in the grid… and so on. Unfortunately I can't track down the reference, but it would be a good addition to this Wikipedia piece if anyone finds it. Pageturners (talk) 07:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)