pumkin,
Don't worry about the mentioning of your feel of propaganda in this book. In a couple of the messages, you will see where we discussed that very thing
Thank you for not getting to specific on chapters past where you are posting i.e. here is 1-6, as to not spoil it for those of us going through our first read of the book. Thus, the messages on spoiler rules too. I am with you about the great story going on here about this family, it makes for great reading. I think tho,since I have not read this book before, only things about it, that the point of it really is about the parts you saw at the end. Actually, the ideas are throughout the book, the people are a way to bring them out. He needs us to really get a feel of this group, as a family, as humans with dreams and hopes, to make them REAL, if he is to get across the point of what is happening to people because of corrupt systems, dont you think?
Don't worry about the mentioning of your feel of propaganda in this book. In a couple of the messages, you will see where we discussed that very thing
Thank you for not getting to specific on chapters past where you are posting i.e. here is 1-6, as to not spoil it for those of us going through our first read of the book. Thus, the messages on spoiler rules too. I am with you about the great story going on here about this family, it makes for great reading. I think tho,since I have not read this book before, only things about it, that the point of it really is about the parts you saw at the end. Actually, the ideas are throughout the book, the people are a way to bring them out. He needs us to really get a feel of this group, as a family, as humans with dreams and hopes, to make them REAL, if he is to get across the point of what is happening to people because of corrupt systems, dont you think?
I interpreted this the same way as Paul. Not that these poor immigrants were blowing money on extravangant weddings, but that the custom was for guests to pay during the dance (like the Dollar Dances at weddings today, except with a lot more money). But the guests at Jurgis and Ona's wedding didn't pay (perhaps suggesting that they've become more Americanized?). Jurgis, not wanting it to upset Ona and spoil the day, promises to work harder.
PaulK wrote:
Choisya wrote:
You asked us elsewhere what contemporary relevance the novel had today and I found the wedding scene to be very contemporary. Not only immigrants, but many quite poor working class people, still spend thousands of pounds/dollars on their wedding instead of using the money to improve their lives or 'saving it for a rainy day'. (I have neighbours living in a small council house with two young children, who this year spent £14000 ($28000?) on a wedding in Barbados which they would have been better spending (IMHO) on a deposit to buy a larger house.) I never have been able to understand this tradition and told my four children that I would not spend money on extravagant weddings but would give them money towards setting up their first home. It is even worse to have this sort of extravagance when marriages often break down after a few years - at least the Jurgis' and Onas would be more likely to have the rest of their lives to pay off their debts!
I also deplore the modern trend (does it exist over there?) of aping the upper classes by hiring stately homes, top hats and tails, horses and carriages etc etc for weddings. Sorry if I offend anyone here who has done this but it is a bete noir of mine.
I felt that the extravagant and chaotic wedding described by Sinclair set the scene for the downward spiral I feel will take place in the rest of the novel. It depressed me
fanuzzir wrote:
The first several chapters of the novel lay out all the great rituals of Americanization that immigrants were supposed to look forward to: getting a job, buying a home, starting a family. In the beginning is also a wonderful wedding that seems to bring all the customs of the Old country intact into the United States.
It's typical of novels of this period to make happiness and personal dreams part of a larger economic drama, but this portrayal has has a special poignancy. Enjoy getting to know these characters in their working and domestic lives.
I do agree with you in your opinions of spending huge sums on weddings. I think one good option is to tell your children how much you are willing to give them and let them choose whether to uses all or part on their wedding.
In the Jungle I believe they had hopes of making a profit on their wedding but too many people did not pay for a dance with Ona or just came for the free beer. The whole experience is just another painful lesson they learned.
Relax, Viv. I don't think Ben was trying to order anybody around and it's not like we'd have to listen to him if he were. He just didn't like the end of the book. I'm sure Fan can handle moderating the discussion without our help.
Besides, the purpose of real literary criticism isn't to tell us which books are worth reading, but to place the book into a wider context and connect it with other work. Sadly, ever since Siskel and Ebert's thumbs came along, it's been hard to find good criticism outside academia. Even the books section of the New York Times is pretty shallow. The New York Review of Books is a good resource though -- www.nybooks.com
Besides, the purpose of real literary criticism isn't to tell us which books are worth reading, but to place the book into a wider context and connect it with other work. Sadly, ever since Siskel and Ebert's thumbs came along, it's been hard to find good criticism outside academia. Even the books section of the New York Times is pretty shallow. The New York Review of Books is a good resource though -- www.nybooks.com
vivico1 wrote:
BenKitchen wrote:
no spoiler dont worry
I finnished the book. I have decided it was worth reading because of how well it was written. I will tell you a few things to keep in mind at the end of the book, anytime there is a speach, skip it because its long and pointless and is several pages of nothing. Also the last two chapters are now worth reading. It is all politics and is boring and not worth it. After you find out what happens to jargus and his family just stop reading. Dont was your time reading Sinclar's views on socialism. They don't really amount to anything and I think they will ruin the book for you. Try to get through chapter 16. I know its hard but it gets easyier to read.
Ben?
I am way behind a lot of you, still in chapter 1, the class just starts today and I have had a lot to do. But, in a book club discussion...for someone who has just finished it, or for anyone who has read it before...dont you think its going a bit beyond discussion to tell people, skip the speeches, they are boring, this chapter was bad, dont read the last two etc??? The thing about books is, that we all take from them something a bit different and how do we get a total feel for a book, in a book club, if we dont read it all? I can see saying at the end when we all get to discuss what we felt about the book, well i hated this part or that part, but this is awefully early for a critique of the book. Its like movie reviews, I will read them, to see what a movie is about if i have never heard of it before, but i rarely go by their advice if they think it is bad. I just decide on my own based on the subject matter and have very often been very glad I didnt miss a film because of what a critic said. I understand your point, but I do think its something to share when the last chapters are posted and we are asked about the entire book. I would say to anyone, you are in the bookclub class of Sinclair's The Jungle, its a serious book, lets all read it together and discuss as we go and when we are done share our feelings on the book. I mean, rather than skip those chapters and speeches you suggest, since this is a place of discussion, wouldnt you rather that we all read them too and then see if we got the same feeling you did? Or what we thought about them that made them more alive for us? Its going to take awhile to catch up with some of you and I know I am not the only one, some may still be just getting their book, so you may have to wait some to get the opinions on things you may be excited at this point to talk about but hang in there with us and, this is just from me ok, never suggest for people what in a book NOT to read. Books are bound papers of discovery , even if its a comedy. Let everyone discover what they can from the full book.
I think the reference to the "relaxed cow" is about adrenaline. When animals are being hunted, the adrenaline they produce contributes to the gamey taste of the meat. An animal being slaughtered, whose first been stunned and doesn't know what's coming, doesn't produce adrenaline and most people prefer the taste of the meat.
vivico1 wrote:
chadadanielleKR wrote:
fanuzzir wrote:
There is a well-known truism in the news business: run a story about a sick man, and you get a ho-hum; run a story about a sick dog, and you get an avalanche of sympathy. Maybe Sinclair knew what he was doing with the slaughterhouse. . . .
Indeed, Sinclair picked a very telling setting to demonstrate how much the working class suffered at the outset of the Century. Comparison between men and animals are thus easy to draw. But incidentally he might also make a point of the terrible plight of the cattle which as well as humans deserved a better treatment without unnecessary sufferings. As far as I know, the cattle is slaughtered much more decently nowadays. One of the reason being that stressed animals don't taste as good as relaxed ones!
Chadadanielle,
I dont think how we kill the animals at the slaughter houses has changed so terribly much today. What has changed more is how the parts are then handled and processed. I have to ask you though, I find it an intriguing idea....stressed animals dont taste as good as relaxed ones? lol, sorry, just had a mental picture of how do you relax a cowand they dont know they are going to be killed, so that cant stress them. Maybe how many are kept in a given pen, or for how long could I guess and maybe those things have changed. Supposedly we seperate the sick from the healthy before they even get to the slaughterhouse but thats only when closely regulated today too. But see, this was the problem I think Sinclair ran into when he said, I aimed at their hearts and hit their stomachs! We are back at talking about how to humanely treat the animals, which is not a bad thing for sure, but its what took away from what he wanted his book to draw attention too, not the animals but the people. Instead, yeah, how things were handled with the animal processing became the issue, cause thats what EVERYONE was eating, everyone being those who had influence.
Ok, I am still tickled by the relaxed cow
