Naturalism in "The Open Boat" and "To Build a Fire"
This paper offers a comparative analysis of naturalism in Stephen Crane's 1897 short story "The Open Boat" and Jack London's "To Build a Fire." Both works depict nature as an indifferent, dominant force that renders human free will and individual effort largely meaningless. The paper examines how each author uses character, narrative focus, and symbolic elements — such as London's unnamed protagonist and the dog, and Crane's island setting — to argue that fate overpowers human agency. It also explores how both stories sustain false hope before reasserting nature's ultimate authority, reinforcing the central naturalist theme that people are powerless in the face of forces beyond their control.
- Introduction: Naturalism and the Power of Fate: Thesis: fate overpowers free will in both stories
- Nature's Indifference in Crane's 'The Open Boat': Crane shows nature ignoring human struggle and pride
- Human Insignificance in London's 'To Build a Fire': London's unnamed protagonist signals human worthlessness
- Nature as an Active Antagonist in Both Stories: Nature controls fate in both narratives
- The Psychological Struggle Against Nature: Characters fight nature psychologically but remain powerless
- London's Character and the Consequences of Hubris: Traveler's mistakes stem from overconfidence, not inexperience
- Survival Instinct and the Indifference of Nature: Dog and survivors embody cold naturalist survival logic
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It draws clear, consistent thematic parallels between two canonical naturalist texts, keeping the comparative argument focused throughout.
- It uses specific textual details — such as London's unnamed protagonist, the dog's instinct, and the island as a symbol of false hope — to support its claims concretely.
- It acknowledges nuance: the paper distinguishes between the men on the boat (who have no control) and London's traveler (who contributes to his own fate), avoiding an overly simplistic reading.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative literary analysis by identifying a shared philosophical framework — naturalism — and then tracing how two different authors express that framework through distinct narrative strategies. It moves beyond plot summary to interrogate authorial choices, such as the decision to leave a protagonist unnamed or to focus on narrative over character interiority.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a thesis about naturalism, fate, and free will. It then alternates between the two texts — first examining Crane, then London, then returning to both together — before closing with symbolic readings of the dog and the oiler. The structure is thematic rather than strictly text-by-text, allowing for integrated comparison throughout.
Introduction: Naturalism and the Power of Fate
Stephen Crane's 1897 short story "The Open Boat" and Jack London's short story "To Build a Fire" both address philosophical questions concerning literary naturalism. These stories explore the importance of accepting nature as a powerful force capable of making free will appear to be an illusion. Both writers want readers to understand that fate is stronger than free will, and that it is pointless for individuals to try to alter their future when it is obvious they are powerless. All that people can do is endure the suffering that nature imposes on them and hope that things will change for the better.
Nature's Indifference in Crane's 'The Open Boat'
Crane apparently wants to present readers with the reality of life by emphasizing that people must struggle in order to survive. The surrounding environment expresses no interest in the well-being of humanity and simply acts in accordance with its own laws. The characters in the story experience nature's indifference first-hand. This feeling is emphasized by Crane's description of the birds that sat comfortably in groups as if nothing were wrong with the situation the four men faced. The writer essentially teaches his readers that one of the few things people have in their struggle to survive is their pride — and that this pride can lead them to terrible mistakes, playing a decisive role in determining their chances of staying alive.
Human Insignificance in London's 'To Build a Fire'
London conveys a similar attitude to Crane's in the way he deals with the central character of his story. He appears to believe that a human being is of little to no importance when faced with the greatness of the universe. The protagonist in his story appears to be insignificant to London — so much so that the writer does not even bother to give him a name. The story focuses on the narrative rather than on the character, in order to have readers understand that a human being is rendered worthless when placed alongside more powerful natural forces. The main character rarely expresses his inner thoughts, which further encourages readers to conclude that he is insignificant and that they should concentrate on the narrative itself.
Nature as an Active Antagonist in Both Stories
In addition to the human characters — Crane even names his — readers are likely to overlook a very important character present in both stories: one that exerts a powerful influence over all the others. Nature acts as an individual force, confronting these people as they struggle to stay alive by any means possible. It is more powerful than any of them and can decide their fate at will, particularly because none of the characters ever reach a point where they feel truly safe.
While London's solitary traveler appears to have his fate decided from the moment he disregards the instructions of the "old man," Crane's characters constantly hope to find salvation on the island. Even so, the prospect of finding no shelter or resources there forces them to acknowledge that their chances are constrained by nature's power. All these people can do is wait and hope that nature allows them to overcome their circumstances.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.