In the novel The Call of the Wild written by Jack London, Buck was presented as a compelling main character who undergoes multiple character developments throughout the novel due to nature and culture. London's approach in characterizing Buck was widely recognized by Donald E. Pease in his essay "Psychoanalyzing the Narrative Logics of Naturalism: The Call of the Wild" to explain Buck's transformation due to the change in the environment he is surrounded by . While Barbara Hardy Beierl, in her essay “The Sympathetic Imagination and the Human-Animal Bond: Fostering Empathy through Reading Imaginative Literature” reflects the idea that the gain and loss of human-animal connections act to put pressure on the character change of Buck. I intend to show that Buck's character development in the novel is the consequence of naturalistic behavior as this is what Jack London conveys most clearly regarding his use of character progression. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay London's work draws inspiration from the works of The Theory of Evolution while portraying the ideals that Buck is influenced by his surroundings. In particular, we see this with the harshness of the North: “its development (or regression) has been rapid. His muscles became hard as iron and he became numb to all common pains.” London clearly instills this adaptability in Buck to suggest his ability to survive. Buck is shaped by changes in his environment, thriving because he possesses the necessary genetic gifts of strength and intelligence to adapt to his unstable circumstances. Buck's physical transformation gave rise to his change in character, as he became more ambitious for leadership. Therefore, London demonstrates where his position lies in the nature vs. nurture debate as, through Buck's strengthening through the above events, we see him change to adapt to these. Pease appears to have come to similar conclusions regarding Buck's transformation by stating, “the agent of free indirect speech seemed to have been activated by Buck's most intimate sensations so as to transcribe Buck's bodily drives and intensities.” The “free indirect speech” Pease mentions is a type of third-person narration that works to manipulate a character's consciousness. London's attempt to manipulate Buck's character reflects the great impact of Darwin's evolutionary theories. London takes into account that Buck, who once lived in the “sun-kissed Santa Clara Valley,” was equipped with the domestic comforts of Judge Miller's estate. Buck quickly learns the brutal world of dog sledding: the "law of stick and fangs" in the harsh environment of the Northland. This reflects that the fundamental deciding factor in how individuals change, in London's mind, is the hardship they endure which allows their true character to show. Indeed, London's belief lies in the fact that Buck further develops as a character through unlocking his innate wildness through environmental pressures and that he has always laid bare these traits within him. London put Buck in conflict with humans, to effect further character changes. guiding it towards a more civilized state; however, this does not play the same fundamental role as its environment. Throughout the story, Buck has multiple masters, one who causes a dramatic change in the novel is John Thornton. No one had given Buck “love, genuine, passionate love” like this,“it was his for the first time.” This affection from Thornton does not contribute to Buck's development, on the contrary, the only purpose of this passage is to establish the human-animal bond that humanizes the relationship between Buck and his owner. The introduction of the existence of love into the world of Buck's mental state is purely a sensation. It does not induce any change in Buck's character; further demonstrating that they point out that London's fixation on personal development is rooted more heavily in their genes rather than how they are treated. This is exemplified by the fact that in this sentence there are only intangible words such as love and genuine passion. For London, these are mere abstractions independent of the physical change made to Buck. In fact, these feelings of love and the warm affection he receives from his companions, humans and dogs, have no influence on his survival in the Arctic. Indeed, Thornton was “the ideal master,” “he had saved his life,” which Buck greatly appreciated. However, London has instilled a strong personality that is difficult, almost impossible, to change through emotional connection. What really begins the transformation of Buck's character are the impulses of his inner being. The “call of the wild” that guides Buck through multiple character developments brings out his true, innermost form. Unhindered by the social constraints of his owners or others in the pack, Buck is truly able to succumb to the full power of his “primal beast.” London shows that Buck prioritizes nature more than the only human who has ever shown him affection can understand. When Buck was taken into the wilderness with Thornton, he "marched no more," "he became a wild thing." London also describes Buck's reaction to nature as an "instant and terrible transformation" that transformed him into a wild beast. Buck has great dedication and is remarkable to Thornton, yet he reveals his true identity simply through exposure to the wild. We must understand that Buck's transformation was driven by his natural instincts, while his master shows no control over his thirst for blood and freedom. London embraces the freedom and pride that can be achieved as a path to Buck's character development. Referring to the scene where Buck's loving master, Thornton, is killed by the Yeehats, "left a great void in him," yet this experience had less of an impact on Buck than we would expect. London took the opportunity to point out that even in the heart of the most emotional event in the entire book, Buck's natural power was exaggerated, leaving "carcasses" lying around wildly. Many would argue that this was to take revenge on those who killed his closest friend, however, looking specifically at the word carcasses, it has no connotations related to revenge. Rather this word engages the reader in sensations of primal carnage, the true nature of Buck, the wild and untamed wolf, capable of escaping free from the shackles of domestication. Buck felt “great pride” in the killing, “greater pride than any he had ever experienced,” in killing the man the highest prize. While this could be interpreted as revenge on Thornton's life, the emphasis on the murder once again shifts the argument to the fact that London is allowing Buck to control his more primitive impulses. The “law of stick and fang” no longer limits Buck's naturalistic being, Buck is freed from the chain of command made up of men and sticks. London leads the change in Buck's character in a climactic order, where men play the role of forbidding this.