The Jungle:
I’ve started the 2nd 1/3 of the book.
No one will say Sinclair is subtle or has a fine literary touch.
The saying is, “Never use a sledgehammer when a scalpel will do.”
Now, I understand that exposing rapacious capitalism at one of the heights of its rapacity is no work for a scalpel. But it is becoming too much in the unrelenting deepening of this family’s misery. Which makes it more to the point that it’s more tract than anything else.
The changes in Gurgis as he deteriorates are told to us mechanically, not shown. After the wedding, there’s not a spot of joy to be found anywhere, only deepening, darkening misery, which we’re told about now shown, caused by heartless capitalism.
What is a literary critic to say generally of this book that as literature is mediocre at best but as social document bearing witness is powerful and shocked so many consciences that it generated ameliorative changes in the law?
I’d think just that, or something like it.
Question: would ought it be put on a syllabus in a course of early 20th century American literature and why or why not?
DISCLAIMER WE make no warranty of any kind on the subject matter included or the completeness or accuracy of this website. We aren't liable for any actions (or lack) resulting from the information here. And in no event shall we be liable for any damages resulting from reliance on or use of this information. The posts at this site are for general information only. Get expert help when dealing with specific situations and do not rely on the information here.
Sunday, February 16, 2020
Saturday, February 15, 2020
Brief Note In Midst Of Reading Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle
The wedding scene is an amazing cross section of that swathe of immiserated, exploited, grimly existing immigrants carving out a tragedy-enhancing moment of pleasure in the midst of their terrible social affliction. Here, in this scene, the showing and telling seem to be in accord. From then on, The Jungle devolves to tract-like telling under the veneer of fiction, whatever Sinclair thought he was achieving. And yet, as I say, what he describes, and it gets gloomier and darker as it proceeds, is powerfully resonant. So, maybe there’s another way of seeing what he does, that the thin simulacrum of people living their lives all so externally presented, almost fable like, is enough humanity as to make resonantly work the endless description of the conditions creating their deepening misery.