I greatly enjoyed it.
I don’t think it’s perfect. I wanted more analysis on the writing and impact of The Call the Wild and The Sea-Wolf, which I think every lover of adventure (that would be you, reader of this blog) should read. At 256 pages (albeit another 40 pages of notes and index), it feels a bit sleight on certain aspects of his life.
But what you do get in Jack is an unadorned look at London’s life, told by a dude with opinions. Jack is an even-handed corrective to the hagiography put out by London’s ex-wife and the baseless accusations of petty former friends. Sinclair is not afraid to criticize his subject. London had many defects as a person and Sinclair gives you those. But he also rightly places London as a greatly influential popular writer of occasional genius.
I did not know the details of London’s life and death and Sinclair filled in some major gaps. For example, that he never knew his father and that absence dogged him his whole life. I knew London was a socialist but not as ardent as Jack reveals—nor as contradictory (London had ample cash and was not afraid to spend it lavishly and foolishly on himself and his retinue, not on socialist causes). Nor did I know London stepped away from socialism at the end of his life as well as his Spencerian beliefs in life as a biological survival of the fittest, and turned toward the mythography of Carl Jung. I did not know that London purchased more than a thousand acres of farmland in California and threw way too much money at a schooner that was barely seaworthy, nor served as a journalist and war correspondent.
London lived the equivalent of nine lives, both literally and figuratively, in his short 40 years on the planet. He packed in rags, riches, romance, adventure, wealth, debt, fame, success, and failure in four decades. He lived. London had at best a love-hate relationship with the writing life. He wanted to live a life of adventure and preferred material existence and working with his hands over the examined internal life. Yet he lived both. He wrote tirelessly and incessantly, completing 20 novels and some 50 books over his lifetime. He was quite different but also shared much in common with Robert E. Howard. Howard greatly admired London and both consciously and unconsciously imitated him, both in his writing and his beliefs and even mannerisms. I’ve noticed this prior and Will Oliver aptly points out the similarities in his recent Howard biography, but Jack offers even more parallels to the careful Howard reader.
I loved in particular the closing five pages, which sum up London’s literary legacy and read as though they were written to me by a guy who understands London like I do.
I was pleased to see Sinclair address the Jack London literary revival of the 1960s and 70s, which began to resuscitate his tarnished reputation as a flawed Darwinian racist and/or a children’s writer of simple dog stories. London was an incredible influence on writers as diverse as Ernest Hemingway, H.L. Mencken, Henry Miller and Sinclair Lewis. He pioneered the clipped Hemingway style and the Hobo/beat novels for which Jack Kerouac is credited. He was an early pioneer of the science-fiction genre. But for decades it became unfashionable to admit he was a first-rate writer, one of America’s greatest. Influential critics including William Dean Howells sought to diminish any of his literary contributions, dismissing London as a hack writer of adventure stories, and it took good work by the likes of Earle Labor to set matters straight.
Sinclair sums up these unfair appraisals (not helped by London’s frequent dismissal of his own writing) as follows:
“It was unjust, because his life had been experimental and questing, so that his dismissal as a totalitarian or a children’s writer was absurd. He had been his own worst enemy in his insistence that he was merely a farmer who needed a lot of money for the land, and who lit after inspiration with a club; but such a self-denying ordinance should not have dimmed the mytho-poetic magnificence of some of his books … no critical onslaught on him could kill off the affection of the masses for whom he had always said that he wrote.”
| Read this. |
London was a racist and Sinclair does not hold back there, though a glance at Goodreads confirms that you must take book reviews with a healthy grain of salt. Some idiot on that platform gave Jack 2 out of 5 stars because Sinclair “Completely ignores the racist bent that is a sad and pathetic black mark on London's past.” This is utterly, demonstrably false, and I left a comment of correction that platform. Sinclair repeatedly criticizes London’s racism and Anglo-Saxon mythologizing. But then again idiots read books too.
Anyway, I recommend Jack for any serious reader of London who wants to learn more about the man himself.