March '11 Realist Novel Reading: The Jungle

[Jozanny]

I will start the novel this evening perhaps, a little reluctantly, more or less because I am pouting about starting another Sinclair novel so soon, but duty calls. One thing that is of interest to note, Upton had a serious dialectical argument with Henry James, much as James had a dialectical argument with Dickens. But whereas James tried to beat Dickens by using the same paradigm as the earlier Victorian, Upton takes the Jamesian formula and basically smashes in the mirror. He fails, accordingly, but, like Jacob's ladder, the game of musical chairs excites the intellect.

As of 3/16 I am still delayed, alas.

[OrphanPip]

OK some thoughts on the novel.

I agree with most people that aesthetically the ending is kind of a smack in the face.

That being said, this novel is socialist agitprop, a genre of literature that has certainly fallen out of favour since the early 20th century. There's some agitprop poetry that I'm quite fond of that I think works quite well, but fails at its political aims. Sinclair I think has the rare distinction of being one of the few artist in this genre to succeed both artistically and politically, he achieved actual social change (though not what he wanted as he says "I aimed for America's heart, but I hit their stomach"). He wanted to bring attention to worker's conditions, and I think that's what contemporary readers take out of it since it no longer makes us worry about our immediate food supply. So, maybe he didn't miss the mark so much, just he hit another mark more poignantly for the time.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Yeah, I admire Sinclair for actually accomplishing change. I think there could still be some. The FDA allowances for what can go into our food is still pretty scary. I don't know about you, but I don't want any insect fragments in my chocolate bar.

Another thing I forgot to mention that really turned me off is the overt racism. I know, I know, it was the early 1900s, everyone was racist, blah blah blah. I don't care. Doesn't make it right. I hate reading racism, period.

Also, does anyone else think this story could make an awesome HBO series? After seeing how good HBO did with the period-series Boardwalk Empire, it just seems like this setting and characters would be awesome.

[manolia]

I liked the characters, but found them a little one-dimensional, and sometimes questioned Jurgis's motivations at times--i.e., the drive to murder his wife's boss. I get his anger, but it seemed like his thinking was a bit over-clouded. Up to this point all he thought of was supporting his family, and not once did he think what repercussions murdering his boss might have?

Yep it looks a bit odd but then again crimes of passion are odd. It doesn't take much reflecting and planning ahead.

I also questioned his quick shift into being a criminal. He didn't even seem to give it a second thought, and it took one paragraph for him to turn from his honest ways to a man who had no qualms over "cracking skulls." I think this was just bad character development.

I didn't find that odd either. I believe that it doesn't take much time for a hungry and poverty stricken individual on the verge of death by starvation to find not so acceptable means of staying alive. Of course this isn't the case for everyone but we can accept that Jurgis was one of them. Besides he tried really hard the honest way (to find a jod) and he couldn't and let's not forget that Jurgis was a fighter. Not the person to lay down and just die.

I also believe that Sinclair wanted to make a point about crime and criminals. That crime is born out of poverty, class differences and not necessarily out of lack of morals, or a whim or anything else. Even the best of us (like Jurgis who is described as an exemplar individual at the beginning of the novel) can turn bad given the right circumstances. Reminded me of Hugo's "the miserables".
If all human beings have access to the basics of life (food, shelter, education) then crime could be no more (at least at a large scale).

I skimmed over the last three chapters looking for anything concerning Jurgis or the family, as it became clear that the whole book up to that point was really a piece of propaganda, truthful or not.

Now, before one accuses me of not liking the book because its politics disagrees with my own, I must say this isn't the case, because its politics do agree with mine, for the most part. I'm not a socialist today, but I would've been back then, no doubt. The reason I didn't like this book is because its political preachiness got in the way of telling the story. Sinclair's main purpose wasn't to write a good piece of literature, but to sway minds for his cause, and while that's okay (okay as in he has the right to do it), it makes for a book that sacrifices plot and character-development for a political cause, and this hurts the piece of literature in its literary sense. I found this unfortunate, especially because I think he could have conveyed his message in much subtler ways, which may have been more effective than the string of speeches we get at the end.

I was going to give this a 4, but after writing this and reflecting on the book, I think I'm going to have to bump it down to a 3. A really good book marred by the author's politics.

Am i the only one who enjoyed the ending?
It is propaganda but not disquised. I have issues with disquised propaganda. The kind you get (most of the time) when you switch on your tv set.
Besides there's this quote from seven (the movie) and despite the fact it's being said by a serial killer i find it to be true sometimes:

"Wanting people to listen, you can't just tap them on the shoulder anymore. You have to hit them with a sledgehammer, and then you'll notice you've got their strict attention."

Perhaps that's how Sinclair felt? Don't know but the quote kept coming to my head while reading the last three chapters.

Also there's a kind of art that serves a specific (political) purpose..i don't know the term in english (most of Neruda's poetry for example, Gorky's novels, Brecht etc) so if any of you get what i mean and can please provide the term..and this book is definitely of that sort, so a bit of preaching or a lot of it was surely to be expected : ]

Another thing I forgot to mention that really turned me off is the overt racism. I know, I know, it was the early 1900s, everyone was racist, blah blah blah. I don't care. Doesn't make it right. I hate reading racism, period.

Oh i definitely agree with that part. It made me cringe although i believe he was trying to make his point stronger, that if you keep people poor and uneducated working and living under horrible conditions, they will be constantly in touch with their animal side. But still those parts and the terms he used made me feel very uncomfortable.

Nice reading your thoughts on the book btw.

[dfloyd]

He was invited to the White House by President Teddy Roosevely. He prompted congress into enacting the Pure Food and Drug Act against the powerful lobbyists headed by Armour. It was reported that after finishing the book the night before,
Teddy Roosevelt, the next morning, threw his sausage breakfest out a White House window.