Skip to main content

The Charm of the Devil – 2

 

Jack London - Image from here

For the 1st part of this, click here.

Wolf Larsen, the protagonist of Jack London’s novel The Sea Wolf, is a devil for all practical purposes. He can be ruthlessly cruel if he wants. He can engage you in an intellectual conversation about morality or literature when he is in the mood for that. He can throw one of his crew into the ocean just because his shirt stinks. When that man loses a foot to a shark in the ocean before being pulled aboard, Larsen can shrug his shoulders saying that the shark was not in his control or plan.

What makes Wolf Larsen a charming devil is his brutal honesty. He knows that life has no purpose other than prolong itself as much as it can. “You have no fictions, no dreams, no ideals,” the narrator tells Wolf. It is fictions, dreams, and ideals that constitute nobility. We would all be subhuman brutes without our fictions, dreams, and ideals. Add Wolf’s brutal honesty to that and we would be heartless devils.

What keep human civilizations alive and kicking are their fiction, dreams, and ideals. Imagine life without our gods, religions, isms, arts, literature, and umpteen other fictions and dreams. We need these fictions and dreams to tame the devils within us.

But those tamed devils are not as charming as the untamed Wolf Larsen. Towards the end of the novel, Wolf is rendered totally helpless by some disease which is assumed to be brain tumour. He loses his eyesight and is racked by paroxysms of headache. One whole side of his body is becoming paralysed. He doesn’t want to live anymore because such helpless existence is not life. Life has to be pulsating with energy. Life is an intoxication.

Wolf wants to die because his life now is at the mercy of others which he can’t accept. He asks the narrator to kill him. The narrator has enough and more reasons for killing this monster in human shape. Even when Wolf wants to destroy the last chance of their escape from a remote part in the vast ocean, the narrator is incapable of killing him. He can’t kill a helpless man.

“And you know that I would kill an unarmed man as readily as I would smoke a cigar,” Wolf mocks him. “You know me for what I am – my worth in the world by your standard. You have called me snake, tiger, shark, monster, and Caliban. And yet, your little rag puppet, you little echoing mechanism, you are unable to kill me as you would a snake or a shark because I have hands, feet, and a body shaped somewhat like yours.”

Wolf is mocking the narrator’s sophistication, his “fictions, dreams, and ideals”.

The utter ruthlessness that Wolf possesses because he has no fictions, dreams, and ideals is part of what makes the devilish character charming. The other part is his brutal honesty. No ordinary human being is capable of such blunt honesty. Wolf will tell you exactly what he thinks or feels. He doesn’t need the sophistication of any fiction or dream or even simple figures of speech. Worse, he knows that our sophistication is mostly a sham. Scratch our sophistication, and devilishness bleeds out. In other words, Wolf Larsen is a mirror that his creator holds up before us. See how different you are really from him. And the difference is caused not by any heroism but by cowardice! We are plain hypocrites, in plain words. Wolf Larsen exposes our hypocrisy. That is what makes the devil fascinating.

It is quite obvious that Jack London had some admiration for this diabolic character. Just before his death, London gave his wife a ring and asked her to have it engraved. “With what?” she asked. “How about ‘Wolf to Mate’?” London had called himself Wolf for a long time. His dream house which he built in the Valley of the Moon in California was named Wolf House.

London’s description of Wolf Larsen commanding his ship in a gale is revelatory: “He was an earth god, dominating the storm…” An earth god! Yet wasn’t he the devil? Well, the distance between a god and a devil is not as big as you think.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Adventures of Toto as a comic strip

  'The Adventures of Toto' is an amusing story by Ruskin Bond. It is prescribed as a lesson in CBSE's English course for class 9. Maggie asked her students to do a project on some of the lessons and Femi George's work is what I would like to present here. Femi converted the story into a beautiful comic strip. Her work will speak for itself and let me present it below.  Femi George Student of Carmel Public School, Vazhakulam, Kerala Similar post: The Little Girl

The Little Girl

The Little Girl is a short story by Katherine Mansfield given in the class 9 English course of NCERT. Maggie gave an assignment to her students based on the story and one of her students, Athena Baby Sabu, presented a brilliant job. She converted the story into a delightful comic strip. Mansfield tells the story of Kezia who is the eponymous little girl. Kezia is scared of her father who wields a lot of control on the entire family. She is punished severely for an unwitting mistake which makes her even more scared of her father. Her grandmother is fond of her and is her emotional succour. The grandmother is away from home one day with Kezia's mother who is hospitalised. Kezia gets her usual nightmare and is terrified. There is no one at home to console her except her father from whom she does not expect any consolation. But the father rises to the occasion and lets the little girl sleep beside him that night. She rests her head on her father's chest and can feel his heart...

Two Women and Their Frustrations

Illustration by Gemini AI Nora and Millie are two unforgettable women in literature. Both are frustrated with their married life, though Nora’s frustration is a late experience. How they deal with their personal situations is worth a deep study. One redeems herself while the other destroys herself as well as her husband. Nora is the protagonist of Henrik Ibsen’s play, A Doll’s House , and Millie is her counterpart in Terence Rattigan’s play, The Browning Version . [The links take you to the respective text.] Personal frustration leads one to growth into an enlightened selfhood while it embitters the other. Nora’s story is emancipatory and Millie’s is destructive. Nora questions patriarchal oppression and liberates herself from it with equanimity, while Millie is trapped in a meaningless relationship. Since I have summarised these plays in earlier posts, now I’m moving on to a discussion on the enlightening contrasts between these two characters. If you’re interested in the plot ...

Hindutva’s Contradictions

The book I’m reading now is Whose Rama? [in Malayalam] by Sanskrit scholar and professor T S Syamkumar. I had mentioned this book in an earlier post . The basic premise of the book, as I understand from the initial pages, is that Hindutva is a Brahminical ideology that keeps the lower caste people outside its terrain. Non-Aryans are portrayed as monsters in ancient Hindu literature. The Shudras, the lowest caste, and the casteless others, are not even granted the status of humans.  Whose Rama? The August issue of The Caravan carries an article related to the inhuman treatment that the Brahmins of Etawah in Uttar Pradesh meted out to a Yadav “preacher” in the last week of June 2025. “Yadavs are traditionally ranked as a Shudra community,” says the article. They are not supposed to recite the holy texts. Mukut Mani Singh Yadav was reciting verses from the Bhagavad Gita. That was his crime. The Brahmins of the locality got the man’s head tonsured, forced him to rub his nose at t...

The Real Enemies of India

People in general are inclined to pass the blame on to others whatever the fault.  For example, we Indians love to blame the British for their alleged ‘divide-and-rule’ policy.  Did the British really divide India into Hindus and Muslims or did the Indians do it themselves?  Was there any unified entity called India in the first place before the British unified it? Having raised those questions, I’m going to commit a further sacrilege of quoting a British journalist-cum-historian.  In his magnum opus, India: a History , John Keay says that the “stock accusations of a wider Machiavellian intent to ‘divide and rule’ and to ‘stir up Hindu-Muslim animosity’” levelled against the British Raj made little sense when the freedom struggle was going on in India because there really was no unified India until the British unified it politically.  Communal divisions existed in India despite the political unification.  In fact, they existed even before the Briti...