Controversies With Two Timeless Pieces by Saanvi Kunisetty

 Controversies With Two Timeless Pieces

Saanvi Kunisetty

Though classics are the heart and soul of literature, regardless of the era that we are living through, and though they capture the interests of many young readers and nurture their curiosity, there are always a few controversial things that appear from time to time throughout these pieces.

The Call of the Wild (Jack London)

The Call of the Wild revolves around St. Bernard dog named Buck who is uprooted from a quiet happy life with his rich owner, and transported to Alaska to be part of a team of dogs in the mail-delivery system. And while Buck experiences the harsh conditions and brutality that comes with life, he begins to learn of his true nature and where he truly belongs- the wild.

So what makes this book so controversial to many? The acts of violence and animal abuse are quite revolting to many, mainly the “Law of Club and Fang.” Throughout the story, this law is reinforced to Buck, basically saying that if he is not to follow instructions and obey, he will be punished and hit ruthlessly with a club. In addition to this, Spitz, the large husky dog that is considered the “leader” of the pack, frequently uses violence to instill discipline in the other dogs of the pack. If not followed, a fight ensues, and he doesn’t hesitate to kill, like he did to Curly.

Little Women (Louisa May Alcott)

Little Women concerns the story of four sisters living during the Civil War time period maturing into young women and discovering the values and morals in life. The book is mainly a combined series of events and scenarios which they encounter over the course of years that teach them valuable lessons. The four sisters are: Meg (the oldest, who is initially obsessed with looks and materialistic things in life), Jo (the second oldest, tomboyish character who is a diligent writer), Beth (second youngest sister who is kind-hearted and shy), and finally Amy (the youngest sister who has a passion for drawing). 

Many feminists look toward Jo March’s personality as a major demonstration of the core values of feminism. Jo is not interested in dresses, beauty, daintiness, and manners like most women during that time period were, and shows a very “boyish” personality. And unlike most women who are eager to get married, Jo refuses to do so. In fact, she spends a good deal of time expressing her lack of interest in marriage and children. The controversy arises when Jo later gets married to Friedrich Bhaer, an unromantic German professor, later on in Part 2 of the book. Critics of this book question, if Jo speaks against marriage and children, but later follows this path, isn’t she simply following society’s expectations of a woman?