To Build a Fire

From the beginning, the setting is portrayed as harsh and unforgiving. By placing the man in this setting, there is immediately a primary line of tension: Will he survive this journey? Because the man is “without imagination” (2), he isn’t concerned by the isolation and extreme cold. This suggests he is tough, but liable to put himself in grave danger. Ultimately, his underappreciation of nature’s power leads to his death. An early indication of his arrogance is that he doesn’t consider his own frailties in this merciless environment, which ironically increases his vulnerability.   

He is heading for Henderson Creek where he plans to meet up with “the boys,” who represent the imposition of civilization upon the natural world. There is symbolic value in the deserted trail that leads from the man’s location to the boys’ camp. To successfully traverse this trail would suggest a victory over nature. Succumbing to the trail’s danger is an indication that nature still holds power over man.

By planning to arrive at camp by six o’clock to have dinner and enjoy a fire, he is underestimating the potential peril of the walk ahead. These thoughts may keep him motivated, but they shift his focus away from the immediate dangers that surround him. 

The dog’s presence creates a juxtaposition; the man acts according to human reason (or lack thereof), while the dog acts on instinct. The dog is a “big native husky” that doesn’t have “any visible or temperamental difference from its brother, the wild wolf” (3). This description suggests that the dog also contrasts the man by representing nature, as opposed to civilization. The point of view switches to that of the dog, providing a counter to the man’s perspective. The dog’s instincts are trustworthy, and the man could have been saved by acting in accordance with them. His dismissal of the dog’s instincts illustrates the sense of superiority that contributes to his death.

The description of the “snow-hidden ice skin” (5) foreshadows the foot-wetting incident that triggers the man’s rapid physical decline. As the man walks along these “traps,” the story’s tension heightens. By forcing the dog to lead across a dangerous stretch of the creek, it’s become increasingly clear that he views the dog purely in a utilitarian capacity. When the dog’s feet become wet, it quickly recovers. Later, the man experiences the same problem, but it soon leads to his death. This shows that the dog—despite its status as a supposedly lesser creature—is better equipped to handle the harsh climate.

As the man makes his fire for lunch, he considers how the old man was right about the brutal cold. His underestimation of nature’s power is further emphasized by the old man’s respect for it. The man’s arrogance prevents him from appreciating why the old man and the dog have a healthy fear of the landscape. The dog is disappointed that they leave the fire. It knows that this is no time to be traveling and doesn’t care about the man’s pursuits. It stays with the man because he is a potential source of fire and food. Like the man, the dog only has its own interests in mind.

When the man breaks through the ice, the story’s pace quickens toward its climax. It’s clear that the man is in grave danger, heightening the tension. Now, successfully building a fire is not about increasing comfort, but enabling survival.

The man meticulously constructs the fire but makes the major mistake of building it under a large spruce tree, from which snow falls and puts out the fire. This shows that despite his resourcefulness and fire-building knowledge, his reasoning is flawed. Unlike the dog, he can’t rely on instinct to save himself. His failure with the fire connects back to the earlier descriptions about his limited imagination and subsequent inability to consider potential outcomes.

Moments before the fire goes out, the man pridefully criticizes the old man’s advice about traveling alone. As the fire blazes, he feels a false sense of security. When the snow falls and snuffs out the flames, it seems that nature views the man’s attitude as taunting and disrespectful. Immediately, the man becomes fearful and more aware of his mortality. He acknowledges that he should’ve listened to the old man’s advice. Though it comes with grave consequences, he is finally exhibiting a small degree of humility and character growth. Still, he refuses to accept his fate and attempts to rebuild the fire. The man is driven, but nature is indifferent to his perseverance.

As he tries to restart the fire, the nuanced, step-by-step description paints a vivid picture of his strife. The realistic detail makes it easier to picture the struggle, and the straightforward prose increases the scene’s believability. However, despite the scene’s intensity, the descriptions aren’t melodramatic or overstated.

While desperately trying to construct the fire, the man also focuses on driving away thoughts of his impending death. He clings to this intentional denial as a way to push forward, despite his Sisyphean task. Though he knows how to build the fire, he is no longer physically capable of doing so. His intellectual capacity is still functioning, but his body is failing. This again draws a contrast with the dog, which is of lesser intellect, but is equipped with the instinct and physical tools to survive. The dog’s comfort makes the man increasingly aware of his own deficiencies, and the man’s envy of the dog foreshadows his desperate attempt to kill it for warmth.

When away from civilization, the intelligence that distinguishes humans from other creatures is of lesser value. Here, in the Klondike, reason can be detrimental because it leads one to believe that they can outsmart nature. When the man puts out the fire by trying to remove the moss, his fate becomes clear, though he still clings to denial. This denial was more reasonable when there was still hope, but now that there is no hope, he takes greater comfort in the irrational belief that he might still survive. In an effort to kill the dog for warmth, the man manages to hold the dog close to him, but his frozen fingers prevent him from gripping his knife. When the man releases the dog, it is not due to compassion. Rather, until his bitter end, he fights solely for his own survival.

The thought of death returns to the forefront of his mind, provoking him to act out irrationally by running “blindly, without intention, in fear such as he had never known in his life” (15). This permits him to again cling to denial and take comfort in the thought that he may still reach the camp. He continues to vacillate between the acknowledgment and denial of his nearing death. As his endurance falters, his body again fails him. He is still able to hope and to reason, but his nearly paralyzed body prevents him from acting on his thoughts.

Finally, he moves away from denial and toward acceptance of his death. Though no people are present, and he has given no indication of belief in an afterlife (London was himself an atheist), it is still important to him that he dies in a dignified manner. In light of his failure, he clings to a notion of self-respect.    

He pictures his body being found by the other prospectors. In this vision, he ironically displays a healthy imagination, a lack of which had led him toward his death. After he dies, the dog sets off in search of other “food-providers and fire-providers,” reiterating the point that, in the wilderness, natural instinct is more valuable than human reason.