In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

197 chapte r ni ne Literature of Attractions Jack London and Early Moving Images Owen Clayton M Jack London is himself a moving picture, on or off the screen. —‘‘Something New,’’ Batavia New York News, 29 April 1913 I n 1902, Jack London penned a hurried letter to his lover, Anna Strunsky. It began with an apology: “I had intended to write you a good long letter for yourself, but people have come, must shave now or never and have some toning to do in dark room.”1 The fact that London mentions working in the darkroom alongside routine activities like entertaining guests and shaving suggests that he was regularly developing and toning images by 1902.2 Around this time, when he was still relatively new to photography , he worked to create several multiple-negative images. Some of these composites, from his stint as a photojournalist in Korea during the 1905 Japanese-Russian War, are held in the Huntingdon Library, in San Marino , California.3 In addition to photography, he also had an intimate and well-documented relationship with moving pictures. Robert Birchard has speculated that London’s first direct encounter with cinematic production occurred as early as 1907, when the Kalem Film Company made a onereel adaption of The Sea-Wolf.4 In 1908, he was asked to play the role of a plantation owner in a film produced by Pathé.5 Later that same year, he and his wife Charmian London hosted a dinner for the representatives of three different cinematograph companies.6 Whether they wished to adapt London’s work or to ask him to perform in front of the camera, or perhaps both, is unknown. What the meeting shows, however, is that by 1908, his 198 owen clayton value as a filmic commodity was beginning to be understood. His cultural capital rested not only upon his ability to write highly filmable tales, but also on his adventurous persona and penchant for performance. In London, literary ability and star quality met in a happy convergence. Consequently, as Tony Williams states, “His fiction became ideal movie material for the 1909–1912 period of small narrative mass production.”7 The quote from Williams suggests that London had a particularly close relationship with the earliest forms of narrative cinema. What it does not mention is the author’s relationship with film in the years before 1909, or whether it held any value for London other than as a new form of narrativization . There has been a lack of scholarly work in these two areas, partly as a result of the sketchy historical record for his early career—and also because of the fact that he became embroiled in a messy and long-running copyright dispute with the Balboa film company in 1913. Somewhat pre­ occupied by this series of legal battles, scholars have tended to concentrate on the influence of film from shortly before this time until London’s death in 1916, and to explain the medium’s appeal solely by way of narrative.8 For example, Birchard claims that “the movies were a diversion” for London until around 1911, and that “he really preferred the theatre.”9 Marsha Orgeron argues that, during his one attempt at serializing a movie scenario, Hearts of Three (1916), “Moving images made London rethink the concept of authorship.” During his later career, she suggests, “London regarded cinema as a superior mode of representation” because of its ability to tell stories.10 There is plenty of evidence to support this view. In 1915, London wrote an article entitled “The Message of Motion Pictures,” in which he argued that cinema was a democratizing force. Since it did not rely upon words to transmit its message, silent film was able to appeal to an illiterate workingclass audience right around the globe. He also noted what he called “the feeble output of a short decade back.”11 Although the term “feeble” might suggest a dismissive attitude, it is unclear whether London was referring to the quality or quantity of early film production. In any case, his view of turn-of-the-century film from the vantage point of 1915 did not reflect how important it was for him at the time. Orgeron is right to argue that London found that moving pictures compensated for the limits of literature, and that he tried to make his writing more filmic. What remains unacknowledged , however, is that this was an ongoing process from the beginning of [3.138.114.94] Project...

Share