On November 5, 1915, London wrote to fellow writer Mary Austin, ‘I have again and again written books that failed to get across. Long ago, at the beginning of my writing career, I attacked Nietzsche and his super-man idea. This was in The Sea Wolf. Lots of people read The Sea Wolf, no one discovered that it was an attack upon the super-man philosophy. Later on … I wrote another novel that was an attack upon the super-man idea, namely, my Martin Eden. Nobody discovered that this was such an attack’ (CL iii. 1513). For decades, this statement has beguiled critics and readers alike who have tended to detect some of London's own beliefs in The Sea-Wolf's Captain Wolf Larsen and recognized Martin Eden as one of London's closest fictional alter egos. These novels are not the unequivocal ‘attacks’ London claims them to be. They feature some of his most deftly imagined characters and show that London knew how to imbue rogues and anti-heroes with alluring dynamism. Larsen's cogency and directness captivates readers, but his brutality is repulsive. Martin Eden's zest for knowledge and his dedication to writing are inspiring, yet his self-absorption becomes boorish. The clash of morality and ambition is central to both novels, and London incorporates ideas from the fields of biology, ethics, sociology, business, and aesthetics that heighten the psychological complexity of his characterizations.

The Sea-Wolf ‘s most compelling episodes are the philosophical discussions between Humphrey Van Weyden and Larsen. London pits Humphrey's dualistic idealism against Wolf Larsen's materialistic monism. Ignorant of the brutalities of ‘the world of the real’ (NST 603), Humphrey suffers from an experiential deficit. He is well read and socially conscientious, but his Weltanschauung has been formulated from the sheltered vantage of the leisurely existence funded by his private income. In Larsen's analysis, this west coast nob stands on ‘dead man's legs’ – a liberal intellectual whose privilege has been granted, not earned. Humphrey's delicately nurtured dilettantism (he is a literary critic, after all) is an offence against the self-reliant entrepreneurism that Larsen extols. He must adapt physically and develop the fortitude to sustain himself at sea, and as the narrative progresses, his body does harden.