London’s earliest works such as Call of the Wild and Sea Wolf show the two conflicting personalities within London. In Sea Wolf a young man ,with a striking resemblance to a younger London, is washed out to sea and rescued by a sealing boat on it’s way to the hunting grounds. The captain is a massive self-educated man named Wolf Larsen and he refuses to return the young lad (to whom he refers as “Hump”) to land and offers him a job on board as a sailor. The conflict between the two main characters of the story seems to represent a conflict within London himself, one present in most of his novels. The young educated man is clearly a representation of a younger and more idealistic London, what he envisioned for himself when he was a young man (and he did not drink). An example of the similarities between London and his characters can be seen in a line from Sea Wolf regarding the young man named “Hump”; “he kept a summer cottage…and read Nietzsche and Schonpenhauer to rest his brain” (Teacher 837). We know London was a very avid philosopher and Nietzsche was one of his favorites which is evident in John Barleycorn, the book was influenced by Nietzsche even if he never named him directly; “a pessimistic German Philosopher” (London 11). The older self-educated man known as Wolf Larsen in Sea Wolf represents what London envisioned himself becoming later in life; a hard man who finally realized life is given to those who want it the most, regardless of how worthless or trivial it may be.
The conflict between these two characters is the basis of the story, they become uneasy friends in their nightly discussions of life and all that encompasses it and every night Wolf Larsen is victorious in their arguments. He is not a man who values life or love, money or recognition; he values his life and his life alone. This lack of “morality” goes against everything the younger “hump” has been taught yet in the end he comes to see it as true, although he retains some of his more solid values. This is the unavoidable pessimism that we see in all of Jack London’s later stories, the death of his younger idealistic side, drowned in alcohol, and the ascension of his “realist” side. As London progressed in his writing the conflict lessened and the “White Logic” took over almost completely (London 192).
The White Logic is the primary suffering of any true dipsomaniac; it is the loss of faith in mankind and oneself, it takes pessimism and turns it into realism, it is the constant knowledge that we shall all come to pass (London 193). Although Jack London coined the term “White Logic”, the ailment has always been present, at least in American novelists’ reality. It is a weighty sense of sadness that makes one feel that life is a lie and that there is no real purpose but to grow old and die. It’s a sad thing to know and it must be far worse to have this constantly on ones mind, which is exactly what happened to Jack London and many other American writers. Ernest Hemingway sank deep into his own form of the “White logic” in his last years with us as can be seen in Across the River and Into the Trees, his last two novels which the author could never finish because of the morbid babbling they contained.
A depressing majority of American writers have had their careers in literature cut short by their affairs with John Barleycorn; Ernest Hemingway shot himself because he could not take the constant whispers of death John Barleycorn would made in his ear, maybe if Truman Capote could have put down his glass maybe he would have finished Answered Prayers, Hart Crane might have written poetry into middle age if alcohol did not exist (Waldron 2). Upton Sinclair wrote about Sinclair Lewis’s drinking in The Cup of Fury; “Through a miracle of physical stamina Lewis made it to 66, more tragic than any shortage of years was the loss of productivity and the absence of joy.” (Waldron 2). Why is it that these great people, whom many of us admire and revere in the highest sense, have had their lives mired in an alcoholic binge? Is it a wise career move to drink when one is a writer? Does it give a better understanding of fiction and life in general?
The answer to the above questions is obvious, no, alcohol is a lie and all that is learned through it is also a lie, although it may make the truth clear at times by loosening the tongue, this may seem like contradiction but what in life isn’t? Despite this bit of common knowledge an overwhelming number of people drink and continue to drink as well as encourage others to drink with them. It’s practically impossible to escape the lures of fermented grain; it’s a part of human history (Crowley 35). In truth we are all predispositioned to drink because we are human, this gives us a proclivity to soak our spirits with spirits and our minds with margaritas. Hundreds of years before America was discovered writers were altering their minds with whatever was at their disposal; Poe was a poppy popper (opium), Shakespeare may have been a stoner (Hashish), Nietzsche was drunk off of his ego, and Plato and Socrates were just drunks. All these people, who helped shape the intellectual progress of man, were by today’s standards drug addicts and alcoholics. They lived and died by their choice of poison (Socrates did so literarily) and it greatly influenced their writings, which brings another question to mind.
If alcohol is responsible for the deaths of many great writers and their careers then it must be considered a faux pas and banished from the civilized world right? True the world might be better off without alcohol but then again could anyone say that the great literary works would have been made better by taking the morbid realities out of them. Would War and Peace have been better if it had a happy ending (maybe if they had prozac back then)? Would A Farewell to Arms have been more meaningful if Hemingway wasn’t soused while writing it? Everyone would have probably loved Romeo and Juliet if the lovers in question did not die, and John Barleycorn would have never been written in a perfect world without alcohol. It seems that in literature our faults and weaknesses are great, they help depict a real person and allow readers to relate directly to the characters or ideas in the story, without depression there is nothing to compare happiness too. What makes literature interesting is the positively maladjusted people who write it, if they were to be normal upstanding citizens they would have nothing to write about. To say that alcohol is directly responsible for the end of Jack London’s writing career is just as folly as saying Robert Frost could have benefited from alcoholism, yet it is undeniable that it had something to do with the loss of his life and maybe even the spawn of his career.
One cannot determine the validity of statements through statistics, it does not matter how many writers were alcoholics or how many more were not. They were people just the same and they were prone to the same temptations as the rest of us. Many choose to drink and revel in John Barleycorn’s false but alluring friendship and many more choose not to do so, in the end it matters not because such is life. Although it matters to us it does not matter on the grand scheme, life is really a little game we play and it’s depressing to think about how inconsequential we are. Knowing this why would anyone want to make life and death a constant thought in their minds like the great authors of old? Why were their manically depressed words so inspiring? Simply because to find beauty in all that is bleak is beautiful, and it is in those moments of clarity that we all shine.
