Last Days and the Fate of His Works

The unclear part in the biography of Jack London were the circumstances of his death. For more than half a century now, the events surrounding London's death have been cause for disagreements among biographers and literary scholars in America and around the world. There are some weighty reasons for that.

In 1915-16, Jack London lived on his ranch in the Valley of the Moon, sometimes making trips to the Hawaiian Islands. He had just had his 40th birthday, but already suffered from rheumatism, frequent cases of dysentery and headaches. The most painful of all of his ailments was uremia, a severe kidney disease. The doctors ordered him to keep a strict diet, which was not like London to observe. He was still active and full of brave plans for expanding his estate; he wanted to buy more horses and pigs. Jack had also thought about building a school for the children of the farm workers. He helped a young writer finish his book by sending him a check every month. Another $50 a month he sent to a woman in Australia, who had lost her two sons in the beginning of World War I.

Jack received as many as 1,000 letters a year. He dictated answers to them every day; sometimes, ten, sometimes a dozen at a time. He tried to get closer to his daughter Joan. By then, she was fifteen and needed her father's advice. Jack recognized literary talent in her and reproached her for keeping her distance. He also had an idea to build a house for Bessie and their daughters on his ranch.

On November 22nd, he was going to go to Oakland. This is what he told Charmian. Then, a week later, he planned to go to New York and Chicago. In Chicago, he wanted to visit a livestock exhibit, to buy some animals for the farm. His business in New York was with editors to discuss the outline for The Sailor on Horseback, an autobiography of his work on Beauty Ranch. After that, he had plans to go to Europe to study the genre of the ancient Scandinavian Saga and to research historical documents necessary for writing the novel.

He had been planning to visit his daughters in Oakland on the next Sunday. He wrote about it in a letter to Joan dated November 21. However, on the 21st, he suddenly felt sick. Early in the morning of November 22nd, 1916, he was found unconscious in his bedroom. The doctors diagnosed poisoning. Immediately, they took actions to save the writer, but all attempts failed. That evening, without regaining consciousness, Jack London died. According to the doctors' examination, death was caused by uremia.

This was three months before the defeat of autocracy in Russia, the country that was so dear to Jack London. It was just a year before the Revolution in Petrograd (St. Petersburg). Some biographers think that if only Jack had lived a year longer and visited Russia, he probably would have been the third American rebel, after John Reed and Bill Haywood, to be buried at the Kremlin Wall.

After the death of the famous writer, there were rumors of suicide. Seven years later, George Sterling, in his letter to a poet Margaret Cobb, produced a sensational hypothesis concerning London's death: "Jack killed himself, because he was in love with two women at the same time and could not bring pain to either one of them by choosing the other. One of them was, of course, his wife, the other. . . .I could not find out for sure who was the other woman. The other, I am almost sure of it, was a white woman, who lived in Honolulu and died of influenza." Sterling mentioned the whiteness to one of London's friends, who allegedly knew about London's feelings for both women. He also noted that Little Lady of the Big House (1916) was a story about Jack London, only in his case there were two women involved. Such a melodramatic legend existed for quite a long time, without any proof or evidence of its truthfulness. One way or another, referring to some secondary evidence and their own suspicions, biographers (especially after Irving Stone's book Sailor on Horseback was published in 1938) supported the hypothesis of London's suicide.

However, as a result of more thorough research of facts, contemporary London scholars came to the conclusion that the death of the author of Martin Eden was not deliberate. Rather, it was a result of uremic poisoning. In addition, it was believed that the dosage of sedatives that London took paralyzed the defense mechanisms of his body. London's death caused great sorrow among his colleagues and friends. Most prestigious newspapers written in English, including the British Times, published articles on London.

Obituaries on the great writer's death appeared in French and British publications, as well as in Germany, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Russia. As I found out later, there was not one newspaper in the United States that did not somehow respond to London's death. Over 100 different newspapers and magazines published articles about Jack London. "The most alive of all people has died," wrote the San Francisco Bulletin. "A man of thousands of lives," said People Magazine. "There is no death for people like him," pronounced a woman's magazine, Every Woman. "He came from the working class," proudly noted the Santa Rosa Press Democrat. "London's success was built by hard labor," mentioned the San Francisco Examiner. "Socialists will always remember Jack London," claimed the Oakland Tribune.

The California Writers' Club gave a highly favorable comment on the talent and personal qualities of the writer. The famous magazine Nation gave an analysis of Jack London's achievements as the author of Martin Eden, which assured a special place for him in American literary heritage. The Current Opinion magazine published an article entitled: "The Great Contribution of Jack London to American Literature." "Jack London---titanic," stated the American magazine, Dial, "he is honored in Russia as a mighty prophet." Yes, in the far-away land of Russia, the news of the death of the famous American writer came not only through the major newspapers of Petersburg and Moscow, but also through the publications in Kishinev, Astrakhan, Rostov-on-the Don, Odessa, Tyflis. He was well known and loved there. The tragic news of his death was painful to London's fans all over the world.

In London's stories, novels, and articles, people found histories of human fates. They found heroes that could not leave one indifferent, as well as an objective overview of contemporary society and its problems. However, the social content of his literary creations caused cautious, and sometimes hostile reaction on the part of the ruling class. The ruling elite never forgave his socialist views and avenged him for his "betrayal." Even while Jack London was still alive, the bourgeois press made systematic attacks on him. Dirty rumors were created around his name by some, accusing him of plagiarizing and of being against the U.S. Constitution. London's books were removed from libraries. Many called London an immoral, cruel man. It was painful for me to hear, how somebody painted the monument to Jack London in Oakland red, right after its completion. A little balding man with restless eyes tried to convince me during a meeting, "Jack London? He is a writer of the past! His works are dead and they will never come back to life."

The attitude of American literary scholars to the work of Jack London had a rather interesting history. During his life, and in the first two or three decades after his death, he remained among the most famous American writers. Also during that period, several books about him were published. However, since the end of the 1940s and the 1950s, in the beginning of the Cold War and McCarthyism, London was no longer considered a writer whose scientific articles were published as a result of new findings. Instead, literary and scientific magazines discussed some untalented contemporary authors and writers before London's time, describing every detail of their lives and works, but nothing was written about the author of "The Mexican" and Martin Eden.

Although, London's stories and novels continued to be published and sold in the United States, and some newspapers (mostly Communist ones) celebrated his anniversaries, university professors enjoyed talking about "the limitations of imagery" of London, about his "unpolished style of a reporter," and about his "inability to portray the problems of human existence." His heroes were called "primitive," and London himself was labeled a "naturalist" and even "a follower of Nietzsche." The same opinion was expressed in literary anthologies. The works on the analysis of literary forms either did not talk about London at all, or mentioned him only briefly.

Those historians of American literature who could not avoid talking about the famous writer tried to present him as the author of such works as The Call of the Wild, The Sea-Wolf (not to mention the main idea of these works), and his thriller stories, referring to all else as propaganda. They concealed his revolutionary activity. But how was it possible to separate the work of London the journalist, his propaganda actions, and his personal life? How could one exclude his clearly anti-capitalist works from his literary heritage? How could one understand The Valley of the Moon, The Iron Heel, The People of the Abyss, "The Apostate," "The Dream of Debbs," and "Goliah" without learning about the socialist views of the author?

Jack London did not hesitate to include in his works the vocabulary of the Far West, the language of Alaskan pioneers, the dialect of gold miners and sailors, of teamsters and California workers of different kinds, of beggars and travelers. The language of his works significantly differs from the so-called "literary language," traditional in the "proper" magazines of New England, whose aesthetic and literary canons dominated the North American continent at the end of the nineteenth century.

At first, the original, unusual style of London's works was an obstacle blocking his way into the literary world. Later on, it was one of the elements with a specific mood and pathos that provided for the longevity of his writings. The greatest scholar of the American branch of English language, H.L. Mencken (1880-1956), admired the language and style of London's best works. According to Mencken, London wrote better than any other popular writer of the time. He used natural, real spoken language and presented his thoughts clearly. He had a strong feeling of words' meaning and a good understanding of his characters' personalities. London had the dramatic instinct, and above all, he was adept at putting together words--both charming and stylistically significant words arranged in the French phrase for respiration and the ear.

However, in 1940s-1950s, when American literature favored refined and intentionally complicated writing techniques, Jack London, together with Theodore Dreiser and other "unpolished" literary figures, were considered too simplistic. These new aesthetic norms were extremely favorable to those who were afraid of socialist and revolutionary ideas. However, London's works spoke for themselves. The love for them was passed from parents to their children. London remained a national tradition, the people's pride. Sitting at a literature class in one of Oakland's schools, I observed the great enthusiasm of a young teacher who told her students about London, pointing out his realistic spirit. She carefully analyzed every nuance of his style. Obviously, London remained a good companion of many young people in America.

Many years were spent on the decision whether or not a Jack London Museum should be opened in the United States. Some were afraid of his popularity—and even more afraid of his Socialist views. Finally, I learned about the opening of a Jack London park and museum in the Valley of the Moon 45 years after his death. A part of the ranch, along with the ruins of the legendary "Wolf House," London's grave, and his wife's House of Happy Walls were now a museum for his library and the relics gathered in his travels abroad. Finally, these became accessible to the public.

In the 1960s, some works began to appear in the United States, whose authors made it their goal to show that the writings of Jack London had not lost their meaning. They claimed that he was, in fact, a serious writer who deserved the closest attention. Arthur Calder-Marshall, in his book for youth, Lone Wolf, analyzed London's life and work from a democratic point of view, calling him a great writer. Ruth Franchere's fictionalized biography Jack London: The Pursuit of a Dream was published soon after Lone Wolf.

Around the same time, the second edition of Irving Stone's Sailor on Horseback was published. Later, a book by the progressive historian Philip Foner, Jack London: An American Rebel, came out. We have already talked about the work of Franklin Walker. Also around that time, a large complete bibliography of Jack London was published. In those years, eight doctoral dissertations were written in the United States on the work of Jack London, more than during all the preceding years. The growing interest in the writer was evident on different levels of literary society.

Also, Jack London's international fame was evident. His works had been published in the most far away places of the world. American literary scholars began to show interest in London's literary ancestors and his followers. First among scholars was a discussion on the parallel between Jack London and Mark Twain. The Frisco Kid, the protagonist of Stories of the Fish Patrol, as some critics noted, continued the path of Tom and Huck Finn. One American critic expressed the opinion that, by his life and work, Jack London, even more so than Mark Twain, represents the restless, naive, and romantic temperament of American culture. Charles Walcutt, in his book Jack London(1966), presented a hypothesis that the "Leopard Man's Story" was written by London under the influence of Twain and other humorists, while "Moon Face" and "The Shadow and the Flash" were influenced by London's reading of works by Edgar Allan Poe. We can also add that Twain's humor is evident in a typically London story "That Spot."

Among the forerunners of the author of The Sea-Wolf and The Son of the Sun, literary critics have mentioned Herman Melville, Robert Louis Stevenson, and Joseph Conrad, keeping in mind the adventurous sea tradition of English literature. Of course, they did not forget about social novelist Frank Norris. Although different in their strength and character, the influence of these writers on London was difficult to deny.

Some other names could be added to the list of London's literary ancestors; London himself wrote articles about belle-lettrists Richard Dana, Rudyard Kipling, and Maxim Gorky. If we included here Bret Harte and the famous California writer, the representative of "black humor," Ambrose Bierce, then the list would be more or less complete. These were the writers that probably exerted the greatest influence on Jack London.

Very interesting observations were made by Arthur Calder-Marshall on the weight of the writer: "One can trace Jack London's influence on later writers of many different types, on the Yukon school, Robert Service, James Curwood; on W. H. Davies' Autobiography of a Super Tramp, on Steinbeck's In Dubious Battle and The Long Valley, and perhaps most noticeably of all on Ernest Hemingway, the next generation of romantic pioneer. For both these writers, the motto could have been 'In the midst of death we are in life'."

Dr. Earle Labor believed that London's "sacrifice conceivably helped to prepare the way for such vigorous successors as Hemingway, Wolfe and Faulkner." One peculiar detail was recurrent in most of the debates and discussions about London's works. Almost always, a conversation about London as a writer was closely connected with a conversation about Jack London as an original and interesting person. Charles Walcutt explained it by the widely known legend of an American writer, which was true about all writers—from Edgar Allan Poe and Mark Twain to F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway. All of these writers tried to live several lives simultaneously. As a result, they sacrificed their real life, as well as their work and their peace. Talking about London's role in America, it is impossible to disregard his influences as a promoter of socialism and as a critic of the capitalist system in the United States.

Three years after London's death, two students were expelled from a school in Chicago for propagandizing socialism. According to them, they got their socialist ideas from reading the works of Marx, Libkneght, and mainly Jack London. There's more evidence. In the San Joaquin Valley (Frank Norris enthusiastically described the struggle of the valley's farmers in one of his works), during the strike of grape pickers in 1965, the preacher David Heavens was arrested for reading aloud excerpts from London's article "Scab." In some secondary schools in America, teachers prohibited their students from writing papers on the works of the rebel Jack London. The progressive newspaper, Dispatch, published by the Union of Port Teamsters and Workers of the West coast of the United States, wrote what literary scholars avoided in their analysis. "But what distinguished him from his contemporaries was the fact," said the newspaper, "that he was a worker, he wrote for workers and he was read by workers. He was a true product of the militant, working class and frontier spirit of the West Coast, embodying its strength as well as its restlessness. The name of Jack London remains to be a living legend all over the West. Teamsters, sailors, fishermen, and, in the depths of the continent, miners and workers, think of him as one of their own. For many years now, his name serves as a symbol of camaraderie and warrior spirit of the working class."