Talk:To Build a Fire

message: Please note that "To build a fire" is written in Past Tense! Made major rewritting of plot. Unsure if it needs shortening, if you deem it fit, you may shorten the plot. Fierywindz 04:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Past tense

message: Is it okay to remove the sentence "Often times, people are quick to judge those who mistreat animals."? This does not seem to be neutral in nature. Czapa1 (talk) 03:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it. Please let me know if you feel this should be reversed. Czapa1 (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay that is fair. I agree with your edit Eristev4 (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

text: I was wondering if the part when he burned his hand on the failed second attempt of building the fire was already mentioned? If not, I think it should be added.Aalve1 )talk)6:45, April 18 2019 (UTC)
The description of the relationship between the man and the dog is poorly executed. To state the ideas of the man viewing the dog as a "salve", there needs to be literary evidence from the short story to back this claim. The description of the relationship, due to no evidence, can only be taken as a readers opinion of the short story.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgabo1 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, to say the man considers the dog a slave without any evidence is a far reach. That statement is very subjective and should be removed if no evidence is presented.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhuds1 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In the story it says "There was no real bond between the dog and the man. The one was the slave of the other." Nikhedonia (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

text:  Where is the evidence to prove this point? Yes, I agree but on what basis?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhuds1 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

text: I also agree, their relationship is very important throughout the story and should be added. He is even referenced during the death of the man when he encounters regret of not listening to the advice given. Olivianapolitano (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Character Relationships

message: this newer version of the pages is from my school report. -Helopusobiwa (7 December 2007)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helopusobiwa (talk • contribs) 20:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: School book report

message: To who ever deleted the whole page stop it.  -Helopusobiwa  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helopusobiwa (talk • contribs) 16:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree MpaduUNH1 (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Deletions

message: "To Build a Fire," is one of Jack London's most critically acclaimed stories...yet when you look up on Wikipedia it's barely two paragraphs long! This article needs to be longer! It is embarassing that a fan of Jack London would look up an article on his most famous story and find barely a page long of information on it!!! Please somebody make this article longer!!! -James Pandora Adams  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.154.190 (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agreeBmalo1 (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

text: I also agree. I thought that the article would be much longer than what I was reading. Ehern3 (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

text: I agree, the story was pretty lengthy to begin with and I thought the article would be much longer with more detail. Paytonreis1 (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

text: If you look at the history you can read earlier much longer versions.Chemical Engineer (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two versions of this story so you should use the one that best suits your needs. Will wonti (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree its very short and there is no talk about the symbols which were a big part of the story and helps explain the themes.Caitlin1198 (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is only a short story, (just over 7000 words) I'm not sure how much more commentary is needed. This is an encyclopedia article, not a scholarly thesis paper. That said, if you think there is more valid material to add, then you are free to do so yourself. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, the article is very short and does not go into much detail other than a plot summary and one possible theme. Slibr1 (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, there is so much to cover about this short story that can really be expanded on. Mentioned above symbols are very important in understanding the themes and also would contribute to the underlining of what London was really trying to show/prove. N123 st (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

text:  The article is a bit short. I think it should go into more detail about the man's journey and how he made his fires and how he is the reason his final fire was extinguished at the end AnBell5 (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that this article is a bit short and lacking meaningful content. Considering that it is classified at a "Mid-Importance" level on WikiProjects, I believe there should be some more meaningful content added to expand the article and should also be brushed up a bit when it comes to citations and references. For an article that is at an intermediate importance level, it should not be at a "Stub-Class" low-quality level, it should be worked towards being a "Start-Class" quality level and be expanded upon in the future. As of right now, this article appears to only be useful for basic information. Ghelu1 (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is too short!!! 

message: I have reverted to the version of a year ago which includes a plot summary.  Some proper citation and encylopedic content would be appreciated.Chemical Engineer (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the first paragraph, I simply want to change the wording to say two versions of a short story instead of "two short stories".Jswen1 (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

text: I agreeBmalo1 (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added an additional theme to the theme section because I think it is important to note. Slibr1 (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion 

message: Has anyone noticed that there is a geographical error in Jack London's text? I will not say what it is right now to see if some JL fan could point it out to me...The error I'm referring to appears at the very first page of the narrative. To my knowledge, this error has never been spotted by commentators.I will just wait for one week and then I will tell the readers what it is...Gemb47 (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not notice this error before. Interesting find. 786elt (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

text: The sun can disappear completely for days in a location south of the Arctic circle if the location is somewhere where the horizon to the south is above level, e.g. if there are tall mountains to the south or if the location is inside a deep valley. — flamingspinach | (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: The man could have survived, he could have built an igloo or snow cave and sheltered there How to build an Igloo, survive a blizzard, finish your mission on time This web page gives basic instructions for westerners. Cold Weather Survival, Shelkters This has instructions about building different types of shelter till the boys came to search for him.  The dog would have helped keep him warm. I guess 19th century and early 20th century people didn't know that. 
Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, maybe the cold made it too much for the man to come up with the knowledge or physical strength to build an igloo in that situation. Jdifi1 (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  London's story states that the man is a "chechaquo" (newcomer to the Arctic), but otherwise give us little basis to say how much (if anything) the man knew about winter survival. Any discussion on snow shelters, or any other "... maybe if he would have...." situation is irrelevant speculation. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although I do agree with this, I believe that the severe cold was clouding the man's judgement. He was too focused on the fire to think about anything else.Mcont4 (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The man could have survived. 

message: London's use of imagery should be mentioned considering its impact on the story. The author uses gloomy and dark imagery to emphasize the intense cold and further express his point
Emilyworpek (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Imagery was used throughout the story and definitely should be talked about in a section of its own. the setting and the description of the mans surroundings add to the belief that the man is doomed from the start of his journey. AnBell5 (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, even in the first paragraph London writes " However, there seemed to be an indescribable darkness over the face of things." and this theme of doom is continued throughout the story.MoscowEagl (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. I also think the depiction of the cold makes the scenes with the fire seem desperate because the imagery shows the extreme cold.SmoreNooit (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imagery Theme  

message: The links should be linked to a credible or scholarly source not another wiki page.
Bryalis (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel as though the comments by Bryalis above^ should be placed in correct sections. The links comment should be placed in "References" section and the comment about the summary should go in the "Plot" section. If anyone else feels this way please respond to me and once I get an agreement from two people I will copy the entire section along with the comments I get and place it in the correct space. Feel free to edit.--HaydeB (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  links 

message: Overall, I agree with the summary of the story you have created here. However, I feel as if you should incorporate some of London's symbols he uses throughout the story. The symbols he creates are so important to the relevance and understanding of the story, and I feel as if they are what makes the story itself. I would consider adding some of them in the summary. Tsansone842 (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a lot of symbols that are shown throughout the story, it should be mentioned in the overview of the story. To mention symbolism it will allow for a deeper and better understanding of the story. 9Frank (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  There should be a separate section to talk about symbolism in the article, not just in the overview Slibr1 (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

text: i agree that there was a lot of symbolism missed within this article that could of been talked about but other than that i feel this article was a good summary of the story. Mmack19 (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and think symbolism should have its own section in this article because symbols were used by London throughout the entirety of the storyAnBell5 (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree and believe that there should be a detailed section about symbolism so a reader of this story can fully understand all of the symbols that London presents. Dama024 (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree as well, I feel it would be best placed after the section on themes. 786elt (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbolism 

message: I agree with your plot summary; overall it was very well-written. However, I found myself getting distracted on the main point of the summary because of the amount of details it contained. I would consider removing some and leaving the readers to discover what ultimately leads to the man's demise on their own. After all, that is the joy of reading a story. Tsansone842 (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Details 

message: In the opening paragraph change "an oft-cited example" to "an often-cited example"
:Bmalo1 (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: I believe there should be two different articles. One for the more commonly known version of the story and one for the lesser one. I just believe more people are looking to find the commonly known story if they are going to Wikipedia for information. 
I think the themes could use more detail and more references to support them.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannah Vail (talk • contribs) 18:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, these different versions of the story have different elements and key pieces. They are not identical therefor I don't believe they should be in the same article overall.Olivianapolitano (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

text: I agree, both stories are slightly different and should have two separate wikipedia pages, for example there is a separate one for the movie as well. Kiarabhiro (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

text: I disagree while most people may be looking for the most commonly known version they are still two versions of one story. I think they should both be discussed in one article but with details and themes listed about both. Tkiss1 (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  1902 Vs 1908 (Should They Be Separate?) 

message: The website put down for Jack London is not correct and is going to get removed because the link does not work. -10 November 2016
::Can you find and add a link that does work? Oeparker1 (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Found a website, http://jacklondon.com Rbout (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Jack London's Website

message: I thought the story mentioned that only a single local man warned the hiker of the impending danger? In the first paragraph of the article it mentions that multiple locals warned the hiker.Bcana1 (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As pointed out in the article, there are two version of this story. Is it possible that the person/people who wrote about "multiple locals" is writing about the version you didn't read?  Dumas1110 (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plural "locals" 

message: There is a lot of symbols that are shown throughout the story, it should be mentioned in the overview of the story. To mention symbolism it will allow for a deeper and better understanding of the story. 9Frank (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This Talk page already has a section on symbolism (above). This comment should appear there. Dumas1110 (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbolism 

message: After looking at the citations at the end of this article, I found that several of them either no longer direct me to a valid article or are of information that is not relevant to the article. Citation 1 is not anything to do with "To Build a Fire" and should be removed. Citations 2 and 4 are a University of New Haven database for the short story "To Build a Fire" and cannot be accessed by the public. Citation 6 is a movie that although related to another Jack London book, does not relate to "To Build a Fire" at all. Citation 7 is a link to yahoo movies which does not relate to "To Build a Fire." Citations 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 should be removed from the article. The information within the article that is based on these citations should be modified if necessary and cited with proper sources. Jerubino (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. These citations are not useful and are just links to the stories. Whoever put these citations in had no direct evidence from a source, they just used different links to the story to fill in for the citations. A scholarly journal should be used for a reliable source. Slibr1 (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have also noticed this problem. Citation 1 still leads to an article about Abraham Lincoln for some reason, 11 is a James Madison University cite that cannot be accessed by the public, 16 leads to a general yahoo search page... I think these should be removed. In addition to that, many of the citations (5-10, 13-19) are just links that should probably be formatted into an actual citation --Vsous1 (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I also discovered that the James Madison Univerisity one only brings you to a login area. Another link brings you to an Indiegogo page that has merchandise to buy and the video that is shown is unavailable. It would make more sense to have these removed since they are unable to be used by the public.Jwlinacre (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: Some of the links in the reference list didn't work so I got rid of them Camcam80 (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There are multiple links that take you to a general site not a specific page. I would recommend double checking all the links to make sure they direct you to the source material.Mconb1 (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. There are some links that lead to source material not related to the topic, are inaccessible to the public, or just general sites without a specific page. Some references in need of double checking are number one, number eleven, and number sixteen, just to name a few. Ghelu1 (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no link to click on for reference number 4. When I paste it in my web browser, the top result is a wiki source page on the article. I suggest adding the think for reference. Mszos1 (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I think that the input of the earlier version is a good addition to the page, but if it's going to be added I think it needs to have a little bit more information as well as maybe a link to the story so people could read it. Jdifi1 (talk) 14:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If the first person of the story is short and not well known a link should be provided to explicitly see the differences. Those difference would be very helpful to understand what made the change from a character who appeared to love life and so struggles at the end but came through compared to a character who was filled with arrogance and accepted his death peacefully.N123 st (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

text: The earlier version needs to be more elaborated on. Quickly talking about the differences between the other version isn't going to help give the readers of this article a better understanding of both versions. Use both versions and connect similarities, differences, common themes, symbolism, etc. Slibr1 (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  This version was mentioned in the intro, and is then given its own section further down the page, which I feel is valid except that the sections are just copies of each other. I think one of them should be either deleted or rephrased. The way it is now provides no extra information to a reader by just saying the same exact thing twice --Vsous1 (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in agreement with the two previous comments above. Although it may be relevant to touch upon the older version of London's story, it's important to do so in a way that doesn't confuse readers that haven't actually read either version. Smxash39c (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Shouldn't we add more information about the 1902 section to enhance the article as a whole?Dama024 (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

text: adding this here because it falls under the same catagoryFsugg1 (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

text: I agree, it feels out of place to have the 1902 version at the end of the article. Moving it underneath the 1908 version would make the article more consistent.786elt (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

text: I agree, when I first read the article, I thought there was only an explanation of the 1908 version. I think that it should go above the 1908 version since it came first chronologically. Jwlinacre (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  1902 Version 

message: Under the theme portion of the article, I added a paragraph that talks about arrogance based on the story's plot. I thought that was a big theme that no one addressed. Any edits and suggestions would be highly appreciated. Thank You! Ehern3 (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Londons word choices to simulate the hikers death had a peaceful tone to the, although, tragic death. This was important to the story because after the roller coaster ride of safe to in danger multiple times over the peaceful death put an ease to the hiker and if any can agree the readers.N123 st (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

text: There are two "Theme Additions" under the talk page, they should be combined under one heading. Kiarabhiro (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theme Addition

message: The Article of "To Build A Fire" is relevant to the topic of man versus nature as a theme we mentioned in class I feel though the author of the article should have went into more detail about the theme within the story..
: I agree with this that it should have gone into more detail about man vs. nature Asant12 (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Evaluation  

message: I added the original research tag to the foreshadowing section. To me, the paragraph reads a bit like a snippet of a high school paper.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acire93 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this section on foreshadowing can potentially be composed of original research or possible bias material that is not noted as bias material. Ghelu1 (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research tag added to "Foreshadowing" section 

message: - Information is well centered onto topic and doesn't go off-topic
- Information remains neutral and purely informative about the story
- Citations work and relate to the article
-Information is well organized and structured
- Good representation of both versions of the story
- Could go more in-depth about different possible themes in the story
- While it's good that the article talks about the 1902 version, it could go more in-depth about how it differed from the 1908 versionBwhrit (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, whoever is doing it, please stop assigning this story's article for your class assignments. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evaluation for Class