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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment