South of the Slot

Short Story: South of the Slot

Author: Jack London

Analysis&Quote:

I found this short story interesting but a bit infuriating. Initially, I was infuriated because Freddie was toying with the poor/working class. As I read more, it began to get more interesting once he unleashed his inner working man, Bill Totts. It also began to get interesting because I could see certain parallels of this short story with other books. And like Desiree’s Baby, I felt there were three main points London was trying to convey. (I always find interesting lines throughout the text, but I try to condense them so I don’t ramble and end up confusing myself.)

The obvious point, in my opinion, London wrote about is class fluidity and from that, what constitutes class. Class fluidity in this story happens quickly. In six months the protagonist, Freddie, finds himself being able to accurately imitate the working class. “In those six months he worked at many jobs and developed into a very good imitation of a genuine worker.” His transitioning between the poor and upper class begs the question of: what constitutes class? When Freddie discovers his fluidity it’s because he has mastered, “the language and qualms.” Later on his fluidity is shown through his drinking, smoking, loose love making, love fatty foods (bacon and sausage), and his way of speaking as Bill Totts.

As Freddie, we see his manners are completely different. He’s cold, stiff, unsociable, and is even made fun of by people in his class. He is always referred to as a “college man” and has a tight control on his emotions. London demonstrates that social customs constitute class more than income. This is the opposite of Desiree’s Baby where class was reliant on wealth and sometimes race.

On the flip side, London comments on how the intellectual/upper classes ridicule and undermine the lower class. Sure Freddie ended up as Big Bill Totts in the end, but he initially saw the working class and his inner working class man as a science experiment to be observed and written about. London shows the undermining of the working class by immediately writing about what Janny Scott and David Leonhardt called, “constitutional optimism”. Freddie says he will play the role of the “free and independent American who chose to work with his hands and no explanations given.” But Freddie doesn't realize he can play that role because has the cushion of being a sociology professor at a university. Because he sees their lives as a game, he doesn't understand why they are angry that he’s making more money that they do and blames it on their “inherit laziness.” He doesn't realize they have to live their lives like that every day. Freddie has the intellectual capacity to write about them, but he doesn't have the empathy to understand them.

He ridicules them by calling them savages, and the way London initially writes about them suggest Freddie’s distaste for them in a passive-aggressive way. Freddie was, “interviewed by his fellow workmen who were very angry and incoherently slangly.” He was “promptly reproached by the other fruit-lumpers.”

But it also has to be noted that Freddie’s has a connection with the working class because his inner working man, Bill is a part of Freddie. Can we say that Freddie learns empathy because Bill is an extension of him? I have to say no. I say this because he created Bill out of necessity to infiltrate the “underworld.” He doesn't feel bad for them as Freddie and in the end, he wants to kill Bill. “Bill Totts had served his purpose, but he had become too dangerous an accomplice. Bill Totts would have to cease.”

London also comments on how division of class can be both manmade and physical. It can even be a sort of feedback loop. (I learned this in my ES102 class. It states that causation can be both the cause and effect.) In this particular story, it means that a physical separation of class can come about because man decided it. Or the physical separation/natural obstacle was already there and so each side developed differently.

I think this is important to note because in the end Freddie has to choose between his two selves and the story starts off with old San Francisco, which to me is old Freddie and presumably, new San Francisco, which is Bill Totts. I also think it’s important to note because the North and South were also divided by the trolley cars, which is a manmade thing. I’m not exactly sure what all of this means but I feel that it’s important to note. (I also wonder why the South part of an area is always the “bad” area. Is it because Hell is South and Heaven is North?)

This story reminds me of Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. I read it senior year and it’s a book I actually enjoyed reading. In a way Freddie was like Bernard Marx in that he wanted to explore the “savage world.” But instead of Freddie leaving with an actual person, he left with his inner working man. This story also reminded me of Jekyll and Hyde. I've never read the book but I know the protagonist has a good versus evil battle inside of him. I think this story shared parallels with those two.

Now as I write this, I’m realizing how these blog posts are like mini-essays (at least for me) and I do appreciate them. I like finding ways to communicate my ideas. I’m not at the point where I can clearly explain what I’m thinking but I think I’m getting a little better every time.

* I think London also writes about gender, duality, cultural capital (education is important in the story), and separation within a class.*