[readers]Jack London archaic?

Good afternoon.
Here, in the Czech Republic, there were published 3 nice readers by Jack London. It looks terrific, the text has huge comments, so there is 100% comprehension. BUT, for example:Call of the wild is 100% the same as original text(I had a look at the Internet).
So , do I study archaic language(London wrote this 100 years ago)?
No mater how superb is the comment - style, no matter whether I enjoy the comprehension, isn't this wast of time? And what if I acquire archaic languge habits- big danger.
First I was full of joy, now I am confused about the problem.

Thanks in advance for any help,

Jiri Lindovsky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JiriLindovsky

Good afternoon.
Here, in the Czech Republic, there were published 3 nice readers by Jack London. It looks terrific, the text has huge comments, so there is 100% comprehension. BUT, for example:Call of the wild is 100% the same as original text(I had a look at the Internet).
So , do I study archaic language(London wrote this 100 years ago)?
No mater how superb is the comment - style, no matter whether I enjoy the comprehension, isn't this wast of time? And what if I acquire archaic languge habits- big danger.
First I was full of joy, now I am confused about the problem.

Thanks in advance for any help,

Jiri Lindovsky

---

***** NOT A TEACHER

***** ONLY MY OPINION


Jiri,

I think that the problem may lie in your definition of the word


"archaic." Usually, a book that was written "only" a hundred

years ago is not considered "archaic." I admit that I know

very little about Mr. London's writings, but I have heard that

it was vigorous and effective. In other words, if you wrote the

way he wrote, most people would praise your writing. (Of course,

a few things have changed in the last 100 years in vocabulary, but

I imagine that the grammar would mostly reflect current grammar.)

Of course, if you wrote the way Shakespeare wrote, then we would

call that "archaic," and many people would have difficulty in understanding

what you were writing.

Hopefully, someone who is a fan of Jack London's novels will answer

you. I am very eager to know something about Mr. London's grammar.

Thank you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheParser

Hopefully, someone who is a fan of Jack London's novels will answer
you. I am very eager to know something about Mr. London's grammar.

---

While I'm not a big Jack London fan, I think that he is a great story-teller and "The Call of the Wild" is a great dog story. It is readily accessible and there's nothing "archaic" about either the vocabulary or the grammar. The only difficulty a learner might encounter would be in deciphering the French-Canadian accent of François. Reading it is definitely not a waste of time.