How does London both contrast and compare human beings and animals throughout White Fang?
Parts I and II of White Fang raise this question by juxtaposing two dramatic fights for survival: those of the gold-rushers and those of the wolves. The human beings are clearly superior, called “gods” in relation to wolves and dogs-yet all are subject to the Darwinian struggle for survival. It is not unfair to say that, in some ways, London uses his wolves, and creates them as such fully realized characters, to examine human “wildness” and human nature. In III.6, for instance, we learn about the “one besetting weakness” in White Fang’s otherwise strong constitution: “He could not stand being laughed at.” Unfortunately for White Fang, the famine is no time for weakness; during the time of testing, “only the strong survived”-an obvious reference to Darwinian theory. Here again, London is “leveling” humanity and beast: for instance, “White Fang’s gods were also hunting animals” (emphasis added). London is reiterating an implicit thesis that, for their differences in power, man and animal
