I think your comments about Martin Eden are very harsh. I think the story is very touching, in fact, almost of universal appeal.<br><br>You must not be from Harvard, as I am from Yale.<br><br>Thank you.
I think your comments about Martin Eden are very harsh. I think the story is very touching, in fact, almost of universal appeal.<br><br>You must not be from Harvard, as I am from Yale.<br><br>Thank you.
Your comments are too harsh on Martin Eden.<br>I think it is a very touching subject, and it should be read by everyone.
I feel you had a right to respond to the rather unfocused and ambiguous comment preceding yours (i.e. "In my view,Eden is too mentally weak to go on living in the tiresome society..."), but you do neglect the artistry, sincerity, and downright love that went into describing Eden's conflicts in society, in his affections for Ruth, and in the description of "South Sea beauty" as well as in those detailing San Francisco. None of these descriptions would have been necessary if London was solely concerned with what you regard as the "flaw". Truthfully, I feel that your analysis of the "flaw" is misleading and unstructured; for instance since when did the power to live combat socialism? I don't feel the two are conflicting. Sorry, my friend, you are muddled. Eden is awesome and it delves into its protagonist's ambition as I have never before seen done in what I've read.
I write in reply to the comment submitted which begins "In my view,Eden is too mentally weak to go on living in the tiresome society...", which fails to realise that 'Martin Eden' is a fundamentally flawed, though brilliant and inspired, novel. Eden has to die because he is not a socialist at heart, like London himself (who built a sprawling ranch with the profits from books which included Marxist tracts and novels, and came under heavy fire from the American socialist contingent for doing so). He is London himself in the beginning, and doesn't have suicide in him. London was able to live as an outsider perfectly well until his early death (he may have killed himself, but only because his body was an agonising, failing wreck after several lifetimes of drink and adventure compacted into half a lifetime), despite what he knew to be his inner-contradictions (socialism Vs. a consciously Nietzschean will to power). Eden is not weak-minded either; but London couldn't appease his readership by making a happy outsider of him in the end, so he killed him off. Therein lies the inconsistency, the flaw. Vitality like that might destroy itself, but it doesn't kill itself through despair. The relish London takes in the suicide of Eden is in fact an expression of his longing for escape from the pains of his wasted body. If we look closely, we can see his reluctance to drown Martin Eden. <br> This flaw makes for a fascinating book, though.<br>Roger Davidson
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote