The daily worker. [volume], June 28, 1924, Magazine Supplement, Image 10

About The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958

Image provided by: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library, Urbana, IL

                
Jack London and Maxime Gorky
|ACK London has been called the
Maximo Gorky,” but
this is hardly correct. Both these
great writers resemble each other
only in their lives. Both came from
poor, ignorant parents. Neither got
any training or education to speak
of. Both were vagabonds.
In early youth they began to feel
the burden of life. As boys they had
been thrown on their own resources,
condemned to hard toil for their sus
tenance. They tried their hands at
all sorts of trades, and engaged in a
dozen occupations, enduring humilia
tion, insult, starvation and misery.
They wallowed in the mire of the
worst elements of society, in the
darkest dens of the underworld, and
witnessed the most nauseating spec
tacles; of sin and crime. They wan
dered incessantly, got entangled in
numerous adventures and encountered
all sorts and conditions of men. More
than once they stood on the brink of
a precipice. Eventually they strug
gled out of the noxious quagmires,
and by sheer innate force hewed their
way thru to a bright, comprehensive
life, acquiring extensive culture, de
veloping conspicuous talent and be
coming world-renowned writers.
Thus far the resemblances between
Jack London and Maxime Gorky hold.
In their creative art they often stand
in contrast to each other. Altho in
their conception of life both were led
to Socialism, yet they greatly differ
in its application to life. While with
London it is purely external, with
Gorky it is entirely internal.
The past American “tramp” con
ceives life altogether differently from
the past Russian Bossiak.* The for
mer sees in man all that is bad, all
that is savage and beastly; the latter
sees in man only the beautiful, the
noble, the ideal. The main thing with
London is the accidental circum
stance and not the man. With Gorky
the circumstance is incidental and
secondary; the essential thing is man,
his inner life, his soul’s strivings.
Londcgi’s heroes adapt themselves
to their surroundings, but Gorky’s
heroes reach above the surroundings;
they strive to change and dominate
their environment. London’s writings
breathe a deep pessimism; Gorky’s—
a deep optimism.
Gorky is now a thorough-going col
lectivist; he believes in the inexhaust
ible force and unlimited power of the
collectivity, and he embodies this idea
in his creations. At one time he was
a pure individualist. Then the indi
vidual personality played the primary
rule in his work; then he held that
the will of the individual surpassed
everything. But even in his works of
that period there is no similarity be
tween him and London. In his crea
tive art London was and has remained
jn individualist, notwithstanding-, his
strong personal belief in Collect
ivism as conceived in the Socialist
philosophy. ' His individualism, how
ever, is not the same as that of Gorky.
Gorky’s individualism is more philo
sophic, more abstract; it has reference
to universal world problems. The in
dividualism of London, on the other
hand, is more practical, more con
crete, applicable to definite facts.
Fundamentally, London, In all his
works, is an anarchist, and therein
consists the contradiction between
London the artist and London the
man. Both are tremendously inter
esting, but they do not harmonize. On
the other hand, Gorky the artist is the
very embodiment of Gorky the man.
The Russian Bossiak in vivid colors
has portrayed the barefooted vaga
bonds, and the American "TRAMP”
has, in bold strokes painted the
tramps. But what a difference be
tween the two types of vagabonds?
Gorky's illiterate Konovalov attains
to a high moral altitude. Brought up
in the worst circumstances abound
ing with filthy and disgusting con
duct, ho is nevertheless purity per
sonified. His environment has not ex
tinguished the human spark within;
on the contrary, it kindles into a
brighter glow, and there enfolds be
fore our eyes a man with a wondrous
soul, large sympathies and aspira
tions.
London’s Frenchman Leclaire, who
•A barefooted fellow.
descends from civilized Europeans, is
changed into a wild beast, when neces
sity compels him to live together
with the dog, Battai*, son of the large
forest wolf. They both fight with eaoh
other in a manner that renders it dif
ficult to distinguish between Leclaire
and Battar.
Why is this so? The answer is
plain. In Konovalov, the man is al
ways predominant, even when he
finds himself in bestial company, and
in Leclaire the beast is uppermost,
in spite of his being overfilled with
civilization. In the former the man
may be partly disguised, but at the
first opportunity he emerges to the
surface. In the latter the beast is
masked and bounds forth when the
mask becomes unnecessary.
Thus artistically conceiving man, it
is not surprising that London was par
ticularly fond of portraying animals.
In this respect he is one of the most
remarkable writers of fiction, and na
turally “The Call of the Wild” ranks
with the beslrof the world’s literature.
We have here a masterly description
of the psychic processes of the dog
Buck, how the new surroundings in
the gold mines of Alaska aroused
in him extraordinary ferocity and
what dreadful strength he thereby
reveals. Properly speaking, Buck is
merely a symbol of bestial men. In
this we see the qualities of London’s
talent. He seems to apply his best
colors to the extraordinary, the clum
sy, the beastly in life, while Gorky
reveals the refined, the delicate, the
truly human.
Particularly characteristic of both
these literateurs is their portrayal of
proletarian life with which they were
so familiar.
In "The People of the Abyss” Lon
don paints a grandiose, vivid but most
depressing picture of the workers'
lives in London Town. There is,Aot a
single ray of light to relieve the
gloom. All the people here described
are veritable automata, devoid of vflll
power, without ambition or aspira-
tion; living corpses physically and
mentally. All of them must, step by
step, gradually sink down to the bot
tom of life whence there is no return.
They are condemned thereto by a
cruel fate; and in completing his
study of them the author comes to
the conclusion that he would rather
choose the life of a savage than the
life of these outcasts in Christian
London. There is no hope for these
benighted machine slaves. They do
not feel their shackles. What can
we expect from them?
Truer here and there isolated indi
viduals manage to break away from
this thraldom. They perceive the
truth, the causes of their baneful
plight, the wherefore of their down
ward course and begin to struggle for
their emancipation. There are strong
personalities who possess indomitable
wills. But they are isolated aud must
succumb to the inevitable. S,uch an
individual is “Martin Eden,” a great
spirit. Himself a son of the oppressed
Maxime Corky
working class, he breaks thru the un
yielding wall of life, develops literary
talent and engages In a combat with
the bourgeois world. In the end he is
exhausted and commits suicide. He
cannot overcome the adverse sur
roundings and fails to infuse light
and hope into the dark slums in which
he was reared because he is not
united with others, not realizing the
necessity therefore, and thus overes
timating his powers.
In his novel, “The Mother,” Gorky
similarly gives us a remarkale picture
of proletarian life in a small Rus
sian factory town. We see here no
less poverty and squalor than in the
metropolis of the world; the some
exploitation, the same drudgery; but
the picture does not terrify and de
press us so much. The solitary strong
personalities, as Paul and his mother
manage to infuse into the benighted
lives of the machine slaves so much
the more light and sunshine because
they do not overestimate their pow-
By S. EPSTEIN
ers. They know and feel that only in
merging with those around them in ,
somewhat united and compact whole
will they be able to reach their goal.
They set out upon this course and —
a miracle takes place. The oppressed
and enslaved, who apparently have
been on the brink of perdition, are
seen to possess enormous force. They
are capable of inexhaustible powers.
They become at times true heroes,
heralding a new, bright future.
It is the force of the collectivity,
of the combined units, in which Jack
London does not seem to believe. In
the “Iron Heel” London denies the
rule of the majority, ridicules and al
together dismisses every form of gov
ernment. Not because the present
forms of government do not satisfy
him, not because he is generally an
opponent of government and of major
ity rule. To him the majority, the
collectivity, is just a herd of cat
tle, submitting to be led by the
nose, having no will of its own, im
potent. To him the true ruler over life,
from whom alone redemption may be
hoped for, is the individual with his
mighty Ego.
Originally Gorky had likewise be
lieved in the power of the individual;
but as his knowledge of life increased,
as his Weltanschauung expanded, he
perceived that the Martin Edens can
bring no«palvation to humanity, that
the frenzy of the dare-devils by no
means promote the cause of the op
pressed. The power of oppressed hu
’ inanity consists in it 3 unity, in its col
lective psychology. Only a united
humanity is powerful. In “The Con
fession” Gorky dwells on this idea,
portraying the* force of the collectivi
ty in romantic hues that assume the
form of religion. Under the hypnotic
effect of the mass wish its unlimited
wjll a paralyzed, crippled girl ac
quires walking strength.
With his faith in the united-power
of humanity so deeply rooted, it is
not surprising that with him life
triumphs over surroundings. His hero,
especially in his latest works, is the
people, and # the people can never per
ish. It may suffer temporary defeat,
but is bound to rise again, recuperate
and regather its forces. In the end the
people must triumph. It cannot be
otherwise.
Not so, however, in the case of
Jack London’s Jieroes. These are, in
deed, powerful personalities, restless
and irresistible. But they act alone;
in their fight with raw nature and ad
verse-circumstances they are isolated.
Hence their struggle is in vain and
they succumb in sadness and loneli
ness. Hence London has so many
suicides, misfortunes, and frightful
tragedies. With him, not life but
death triumphs. The respective crea
tions of Jack London and Maxime
Gorky reflect the conception of life
of two separate worlds, of the old
idealistic world and of the new mate
rialistic world.
In the old world there Is not that
feverish pursuit of wealth which is
so marked a feature in the new world;
not that dependence on chance, or
hope of large possibilities. The culture
of the old world is profound, its tra
ditions are firmly rooted and perme
ated with the humanitarian ideas of
centuries. Hence, there, art itself is
inspired with a profound idealism. The
Weltschmerz is its main theme, and
the European, particularly the Rus
sian, artist and man of letters ig
nores the petty phases of life. He
directs his attention to the generality,
the aggregate whole. For him the in
dividual starveling is the symbol of
the starving masses, the individual
prostitutes—of prostitution in gener
al, and in the same way he views
every social evil he sees around him.
His types are world types; they em
body. what is characteristic of all
humanity, they express the continual
seeking and striving of the soul to
improve the world, to reconstruct life.
As a child of that culture Gorky re
flects all these problems as the New
Age conceives them. Hence, the ab
sence, in his works, of the hurry-up
atmosphere which pervades Jack Lon
don’s pages.
London is a child of a culture which
has hardly any literary traditions, a
culture still formative and flat, con
sisting principally of technical prog
(Continued on next page.)