Since 1997, you’ve been coming to BarnesandNoble.com to discuss everything from Stephen King to writing to Harry Potter. You’ve made our site more than a place to discover your next book: you’ve made it a community. But like all things internet, BN.com is growing and changing. We've said goodbye to our community message boards—but that doesn’t mean we won’t still be a place for adventurous readers to connect and discover.

Now, you can explore the most exciting new titles (and remember the classics) at the Barnes & Noble Book Blog. Check out conversations with authors like Jeff VanderMeer and Gary Shteyngart at the B&N Review, and browse write-ups of the best in literary fiction. Come to our Facebook page to weigh in on what it means to be a book nerd. Browse digital deals on the NOOK blog, tweet about books with us,or self-publish your latest novella with NOOK Press. And for those of you looking for support for your NOOK, the NOOK Support Forums will still be here.

We will continue to provide you with books that make you turn pages well past midnight, discover new worlds, and reunite with old friends. And we hope that you’ll continue to tell us how you’re doing, what you’re reading, and what books mean to you.

Reply
Scribe
vivico1
Posts: 3,456
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

SPOILER: CHAPTER 28 TO END

Well, here we are at the end of the book and where rather than understanding the book thus far, the debates on its merit at what Sinclair was trying to do and how he did it can really begin.

There are the good and the bad of this book. First, looking at the book in a literary sense, Sinclair, for the first 2/3 of the book really has a great style of presenting his characters, their lives,problems and the horrors of the meat packing industry, that he really makes you see and feel it through Jurgis' eyes. These are people that you care about from the first, they are real. The slaughterhouse is described in all its "glory" so well, that it should turn the stomach of anyone eating meat products and now wondering, does this have a rat, or tuberculosis or HUMAN parts in it? He is such a vivid writer that he really brings you into the story.

Looking at another good point, the book did have an influential effect on the meat packing industry with the passage of the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which established the Food and Drug Administration. Thank goodness too huh! You know, I read in part of a biography on Sinclair today that he actually opposed this legislation, seeing it as an unjustified boon to large meatpackers. Ironic huh? I think though that this look at the industry did affect others later too and thats a good thing.

Now to what was the bad things about the book. I think, the last three chapters, rather than do what Sinclair wanted, to hit the hearts of the people about the plight of the workers, actually blew it for a couple of reasons.

Sinclair has a sharp eye for detail and what a journey he takes us on through the eyes of Jurgis. You have just spent almost an entire book, building the details of what is happening and going through it all with the protagonist, Jurgis , then BAM! A complete change of style.

Jurgis who has been through it all and has once again tried to go out and gain work,feeling really lost again, goes into a place where there are lots of people, in hopes for a little rest, some warthm,and who knows maybe some food with all the goings on. He sits and then the book takes on a whole new character. What follows is not only just a bunch of propaganda, as some who read the book before and then left have said, but has done it badly too. I agreed while first reading the book, that whats wrong with propaganda if it does something good and was looking for that. What i read was like the tale of the fallen man, lost at any and everything he did, stumbles into a huge religious revival and in all the speeches and ferver,"sees the light, is reborn!" How utterly disappointing as a way to get across other ways to solve the workers problems.

Let me share a quote with you, that I couldnt say better myself and as I felt this very thing at the end. Thats what got me researching some about the book after reading it to see if it was just me and I had lost the point or feeling of the book or was it a common problem wiht the ending. " Ironically, the peoples’ movement seems devoid of real human beings.(which up till now was what made you care). If Sinclair wants the reader to identify with his socialists, he fails because there is no real human being with whom to identify. Jurgis, a constricted character to begin with, almost disappears, and the new characters are flatter than any that Sinclair has offered so far."

This was a huge problem for me, the protagonist changed from a human, who through him we felt the pains and lessons, to a thing, Socialism. And Sinclair, in these last three chapters, seems like now he is just writing a pamplet on the virtues of Socialism. He lectures us with it and the human aspect that lead us up to this in the form of Jurgis and his thoughts, are all but lost. He just fades into the background and agrees with what is being expounded instead of continuing the formula of letting us FEEL through Jurgis what it is that he is supposedly learning. Oh, you get Jurgis feeling that he has finally found something. Again, its like, well stand up and shout Hallalujah! I have found my savior! Now things are going to be better I know it! And gee, they do too, once he is "converted", just around the corner is the job of his life and he is fixed for the rest of his life because of it. This just has no realism to it in the face of the rest of the book.

Aside from expounding the virtues of socialist ideas to us, Sinclair is short on details (at one point mentioning something Jurgis learned, or would at least at a later date), when this was his strong point in the rest of the book.We spend three chapters being told what he has found out, learned and have been taken out of the narrative style of the book before that allowed us to understand it throught Jurgis. So I agree with the above quote that Jurgis has all but disappeared and the Socialism he wants us to understand is now devoid of the human with whom to identify.

You have this great book, that in the end was like being forced to sit down in one of those meetings and have speeches thrown at you. The problem is, if you bring people along this far with a character we expect to learn with and then just drop him in a new story of the virtues of Socialism, you lose your audience on the point you are trying to make because its so seperate from the rest of the book, the protagonist you had, there is no interest for helping the working man because the need is lost in the political propaganda you now are force to endure.

Sinclair aimed at the heart but then took the heart out of it. And the shouts at the end of "Chicago will be ours!" is so contrived and unreal, you now wonder if they should stand and raise their hands in a particular salute reminiscent of a later time to come.

Most of the book is a magnificent indictment of the meatpacking industry and because it was, it helped bring about changes. The last part on Socialism, seems just dropped into the story and best done in more detail in another book that is for just that, the expounding and explaining of Socialism. Because of the way it was presented and because it wasnt a solution thus presented that was going to move people to change to Socialism, it may have been detrimental in that people then, not seeing it as a solution, just a bad ending to a good story were not moved to help the working man by it at all. Sinclairs desired message was lost and the outcome proved it. Interesting enough, it is said that ultimately, Sinclair himself disavowed the ending.

It was a marvelous book for the most part, a real eye opener. I loved Sinclairs writing and he had my head and heart till as I said in another post, 2/3s through we start to become desensitized to it because sometimes more is not better, when the feeling you want has been achieved in less. He did this at the first with the metaphor of man and the hogs, remember? I loved his metaphor as Jurgis was watching and glad he wasnt a hog. You know in your heart that he is exactly that, but then there were two pages of the feelings of the hog and humanizing the hog after such a good point was made about the dehumanizing of the man, watered it down. This was the same for the last of the book, after going over it so much that we become desensitized to it, then the idea of socialism as the way out, becomes nothing more than a man's indulgence into his own political rhetoric. Its a shame really, I think with a different ending, I am not sure what at this moment, but with this book to that point and a different ending, I think he really would have hit the heart as he had wanted.

The proof is in the pudding. Great health legislation has come about since then, socialism as a remedy to our ills has not. We have had changes that have helped the working man and if the fit the ideas of socialism too, I have no problem with that. Its just as has been stated elsewhere by some, we have within the framework of democracy, the tools to make the changes, so we can have hope for the future. Democracy is not a static order so its up to us to make the right changes.

Now let the discussions begin! lol :smileywink:
Vivian
~Those who do not read are no better off than those who can not.~ Chinese proverb
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Jungle

[ Edited ]

Message Edited by Choisya on 01-22-200707:26 PM

Scribe
vivico1
Posts: 3,456
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: SPOILER: CHAPTER 28 TO END : Summary and answer to Vivico/ and back

Choisya, we agree on many things about the book and its ending. Its funny tho, where you found all the deaths and prostitution and woes of the family, making them less real, these things I had no problem with. The reason is, we do know from our history, some of us, our own history,that these things can happen and all together too, where such conditions happen. This to me is not the melodrama of it. I believe you said you read Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. That was no Victorian melodrama, that was real and wasnt it as bad as here and written with the same such detail? There were complete families and tribes wiped out.

In our south, with slavery, all these things could and did happen, horrendous things and they were not melodrama. So, I dont see this as too melodramatic,it made them real to me and feel for them. This was the human part he should have kept going throughout the end of the book. Instead he gave is an ending that did feel unreal and with no human element. What did become melodramatic tho, was to keep rehashing those horrors over and over and detailing them to the point of desensitizing us to their plight and then as you say...becoming bored with the melodramatics of it.

As for the young wealthy drunk man being something out of an old silent movie, heres the thing for me. There was a point to it but so subtle after all of Sinclair's detailing ad-nauseam, that I think it could be lost. What he found was, that the rich (personified in this young man) may not have been such bad people as a whole, but were as ignorant to the realities of what the Machine was doing, as Jurgis had been too for so long! Whereas Jurgis was too drunk on the idea of the American dream to see it, this young man was too drunk (here on alcohol but representative of his blindness born out of his wealth that kept him locked away from the world) to see it either! And interestingly enough,just as Jurgis is trapped in his world it seems, look how this young man goes on about how his father had trapped him inside this mansion every night. This signifies how the rich can keep themselves safe from the woes of the world and also away from knowing about them too. But when they were at a one on one level, they were not so different. This interaction to me if you look deeper really was a better argument for the need of a great equalizer that the whole end of the book. It showed that when they could be one on one together, they were just equal fellows, and wasn't that what Sinclair really wanted us to see anyway? I found it very interesting that Sinclair should put such a little story such as this in there.

Changes did come and continue to come.The specific ones Sinclair wanted at the time didn't happen then but gradually some have. He had such a great book going but yes, he most definately hit the stomach instead of the heart by not carrying through with his style and suddenly bombarding the reader with a political tract. But even at that, as we have said many times, he was directly helpful to the food health issues of the time. Other things were beginning to happen in the country and continued later, some he was privy too, some much later. I think one of the reasons this book has stayed so popular, tho it was never taught in any of my schools and I have asked everyone I know or meet since starting this book, if they knew of it and NONE had, is that there are elements in it that have spoken to different groups at different times.

We agree that it is a good book but lacking in areas and what for you may be the interesting parts and what for me are not the boring parts, is probably just a product of our experiences, both personal and from our different culteral backgrounds too, so that makes it interesting to talk about too.

You have given me a new term too, yesss, the last part of this book has a high "fog index" LOL! :smileywink: I think tho for me, I will have to sneak that term in now when talking to people who ramble on or I just have no idea what the heck they are talking about anyway. I will have to say, geesssh you have a high fox index! LOL!! :smileyhappy:

Also Choisya, tho we disagree on the Iraq issue, I want you to know this, I applaud you for getting out there in a peaceful march and speaking your mind about it. I do not see that as a fascist thing at all. I do see it as the act of a free woman doing something about her beliefs instead of sitting on them. Just as I did this year when I really researched before I voted, then got off my butt and DID vote. The difference in your march and my vote, with the last line, "Chicago will be ours!" is that, i was not saying with my vote or organizations, IRAQ IS OURS! because we are trying to help with changes there and I think had you been writing this line for Sinclair, you could have done it in a way your march did. Instead of screaming at the reader CHICAGO IS OURS, which brings to mind such scary ideas to many many people, I bet you would have written, THE RIGHT TO SAFETY AND PAY IS OURS! Then Choisya, I would have marched along side you too :smileywink: Sinclair blew it to the American readers on that score. But yes, it has its merits and its place among books worth reading in any age.

I appreciate you wading through my fog index of writing lol. Online, i am aware of my laziness of shorthand in spelling, punctuation, capitalization and paragraphing. It comes from fast typing in games with people that i love to play, where as long as we get the gist of it, no one cares how it is spelled or punctuated. Believe me, if this was for a college class or some other paper, you would see a different style altogether!
____________________________________________________________________
Choisya wrote:
Well Vivico it looks as if it is between you, me and the gatepost - goodness knows where the early, enthusiastic posters went!
Vivian
~Those who do not read are no better off than those who can not.~ Chinese proverb
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Jungle

[ Edited ]
I like your take on the rich young man - hadn't thought of that angle - but I still think the writing of it was melodramatic, and that much of the style of writing was. Bury my Heart was different because that was not a novel, it was factual and so one was predisposed to believe it. On the whole I do not like Sinclair's style because it is too full of hyperbole, even the socialist bits. He over-eggs his puddings too much for me:smileyhappy:

Message Edited by Choisya on 01-22-200707:46 PM

Scribe
vivico1
Posts: 3,456
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: SPOILER: CHAPTER 28 TO END : Summary and answer to Vivico/ and back

ROFL!!!! you will put it down my way of typing in here to me being an American and I just cant help it? LOL!!! What a backhanded insult when I brought up my laziness about it online and typing fast. Choisya, you just said you trained at typing, touch typing and get it all perfect. Perhaps you didnt understand me. I never took typing, one hand has arthritis, and I type fast not because I am good at typing fast, or typing at all, I do it like i said, to keep up with the conversations of my friends playing scrabble and canasta online. And like I said, as long as they get the gist of it, we dont care, we arent being graded.

As for your surprise at an American still behind being in Iraq,your not here, you know what you read and what you read will be what is the most promoted or controversial at the time. You dont know how many of us stand behind this but understand we need new tactics and NOOO its not worse than Viet Nam. It will be if we cut and run now. As for us not doing any good there, I live near one of the biggest military air bases over here and many are deployed from here and come back here and let me tell you, the soldiers more than not, see the good that is happening there that doesnt get publisized. They can tell you about the people on the streets that greet them and thank them. They can tell you how they dont want us to leave because they are afraid of everything happening there now too. AND many of our men and women go back, and want to go back. So you dont live here, you dont know. There are those who come home with the war stories that are the ugliness of war of course. No one wants to be in any war so yes, its tiring on us too and we want to see it end but we dont want to just walk away. I have a friend who lost a brother over there and is not bitter,she aches but she is not bitter. She says she knows what her brother felt over there from his letters and what would make her bitter is to walk away from what he fought so hard for, that THAT is what would make his death meaningless. If it comes to us doing that, if we walk away without at least following through with a new plan to get them in charge of themselves so they can have their own peace,then yes, we have another Viet Nam. THIS is not it or worse, you dont know Viet Nam, or the American heart if you think so.

You know, I admit I am very oppinionated, its my perogative and I dont hide it. But for a self proclaimed socialist, you seem terribly oppinionated on other people's beliefs when you are not walking in their shoes. Is that part of socialism too? I havent tried to put down the ideals of socialism or people who live by it. I just didnt like the way Sinclair shoved it down the readers throat at the end of this book. I tell you I admire you for your march and standing up for your beliefs and you come back with, I am suprised you are still "being ignorant" about the war, is basically what you are saying to me. And thank you teacher for the lecture on the etiquette of writing and how lacking I am, surely because I am american too! WOW, our last exchange I thought was just a good debate on the books and sharing our beliefs and things openly without any disparagement of the other,then you smack me with this?? You know what Ms Socialist? CHICAGO IS OURS! didn't happen and ain't going to! Its part of OUR democracy here. Pardon me while i go pull the reds out from under my bed you seem to think we see. I think I am starting to hear one tho.
Vivian
~Those who do not read are no better off than those who can not.~ Chinese proverb
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Jungle

[ Edited ]

Message Edited by Choisya on 01-22-200707:32 PM

Scribe
vivico1
Posts: 3,456
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: SPOILER: CHAPTER 28 TO END : Summary and apology to Vivico/NP

NP, and so we go on.

Choisya wrote:
Oh dear I was teasing you about your 'fog index' and being American Vivico - that was meant to be a joke not an insult! I admire that you type at all in view of your disability. Sorry to have upset you I was not intending to 'grade' and I don't think it matters a d*** how folks type except that personally I find very long paragraphs difficult to digest - my problem, not yours. Sorry too about your arthritus - I have quite bad arthritus in one hand, have difficulty in using the mouse and have RSI problems with my right elbow, so we have something in common there too
Vivian
~Those who do not read are no better off than those who can not.~ Chinese proverb
Frequent Contributor
fanuzzir
Posts: 1,014
Registered: ‎10-22-2006
0 Kudos

Re: SPOILER: CHAPTER 28 TO END : Summary and answer to Vivico/ and back

Vivico writes:
This was a huge problem for me, the protagonist changed from a human, who through him we felt the pains and lessons, to a thing, Socialism. And Sinclair, in these last three chapters, seems like now he is just writing a pamplet on the virtues of Socialism. He lectures us with it and the human aspect that lead us up to this in the form of Jurgis and his thoughts, are all but lost. He just fades into the background and agrees with what is being expounded instead of continuing the formula of letting us FEEL through Jurgis what it is that he is supposedly learning. Oh, you get Jurgis feeling that he has finally found something. Again, its like, well stand up and shout Hallalujah! I have found my savior! Now things are going to be better I know it! And gee, they do too, once he is "converted", just around the corner is the job of his life and he is fixed for the rest of his life because of it. This just has no realism to it in the face of the rest of the book.

This echoes something I said in another thread, but it adds a beguiling question: does socialism have to come at the expense of human interest? Of course, many would say the opposite, that socialism is the only thing that guarantees our humanity. But it would seem that the novel bears out the idea that the more human features of the character emerge when he is just an individual fruitlelssly struggling. It's troubling to me . . .
Scribe
vivico1
Posts: 3,456
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: SPOILER: CHAPTER 28 TO END : Summary and answer to Vivico/ and back


fanuzzir wrote:
Vivico writes:
This was a huge problem for me, the protagonist changed from a human, who through him we felt the pains and lessons, to a thing, Socialism. And Sinclair, in these last three chapters, seems like now he is just writing a pamplet on the virtues of Socialism. He lectures us with it and the human aspect that lead us up to this in the form of Jurgis and his thoughts, are all but lost. He just fades into the background and agrees with what is being expounded instead of continuing the formula of letting us FEEL through Jurgis what it is that he is supposedly learning. Oh, you get Jurgis feeling that he has finally found something. Again, its like, well stand up and shout Hallalujah! I have found my savior! Now things are going to be better I know it! And gee, they do too, once he is "converted", just around the corner is the job of his life and he is fixed for the rest of his life because of it. This just has no realism to it in the face of the rest of the book.

This echoes something I said in another thread, but it adds a beguiling question: does socialism have to come at the expense of human interest? Of course, many would say the opposite, that socialism is the only thing that guarantees our humanity. But it would seem that the novel bears out the idea that the more human features of the character emerge when he is just an individual fruitlelssly struggling. It's troubling to me . . .




That's what was troubling to me too. He did such a meticulous job of making Jurgis human to us that it gets lost in the last 3 chapters. I thought that this was going to show in the end the humanity OF socialism, to make it more enticing as the cure but it got lost. Those chapters, redone, humanized, could have done so much more.
Vivian
~Those who do not read are no better off than those who can not.~ Chinese proverb
Inspired Wordsmith
chadadanielleKR
Posts: 368
Registered: ‎10-29-2006
0 Kudos

Re: SPOILER: CHAPTER 28 TO END : Summary and answer to Vivico/ and back

I understand that the end of the book can be disappointing or at least hard to read for those who are not used to political speeches. But times have changed. We must keep in mind that Sinclair wrote at the turn of the century and that there was no TV, no Radio and that the spoken or written Word was more valued then than it is today. I read that speeches which could last several hours, in the French Parliament for instance, were not unusual.The oratory art was very much appreciated. For me, this last part is just old fashioned. Had Sinclair written his book today, he wouldn't have dare to write an ending of this kind or at least he would have written it differently. So I forgive him!
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: CHAPTER 28 TO END :

[ Edited ]

Message Edited by Choisya on 01-22-200707:33 PM

Frequent Contributor
fanuzzir
Posts: 1,014
Registered: ‎10-22-2006
0 Kudos

Re: SPOILER: CHAPTER 28 TO END : Danielle : Political meetings then and now.



Choisya wrote:
. One of my proudest's possessions is an autographed copy and one of my proudest moments was sitting by his side when I was around 13, when he took tea at my parent's home shortly after being elected an MP in the first Labour Government:smileyhappy: He subsequently became the Minister of Health who established the British National Health Service.

Wow! You really were there at the beginning. Was national health insurance considered the foundation of the British social welfare system?
Frequent Contributor
fanuzzir
Posts: 1,014
Registered: ‎10-22-2006
0 Kudos

Re: SPOILER: CHAPTER 28 TO END : Summary and answer to Vivico/ and back



vivico1 wrote:

fanuzzir wrote:
Vivico writes:
This was a huge problem for me, the protagonist changed from a human, who through him we felt the pains and lessons, to a thing, Socialism. And Sinclair, in these last three chapters, seems like now he is just writing a pamplet on the virtues of Socialism. He lectures us with it and the human aspect that lead us up to this in the form of Jurgis and his thoughts, are all but lost. He just fades into the background and agrees with what is being expounded instead of continuing the formula of letting us FEEL through Jurgis what it is that he is supposedly learning. Oh, you get Jurgis feeling that he has finally found something. Again, its like, well stand up and shout Hallalujah! I have found my savior! Now things are going to be better I know it! And gee, they do too, once he is "converted", just around the corner is the job of his life and he is fixed for the rest of his life because of it. This just has no realism to it in the face of the rest of the book.

This echoes something I said in another thread, but it adds a beguiling question: does socialism have to come at the expense of human interest? Of course, many would say the opposite, that socialism is the only thing that guarantees our humanity. But it would seem that the novel bears out the idea that the more human features of the character emerge when he is just an individual fruitlelssly struggling. It's troubling to me . . .




That's what was troubling to me too. He did such a meticulous job of making Jurgis human to us that it gets lost in the last 3 chapters. I thought that this was going to show in the end the humanity OF socialism, to make it more enticing as the cure but it got lost. Those chapters, redone, humanized, could have done so much more.





Very observant; I really do know what you are talking about. You really hold him accountable to the artistry of his early chapters, when socialism was not the issue. Is it possible to dramatize the goals of a movement in human terms? I don't know. It certainly seems easier to dramatize the conditions that call for one.
Scribe
vivico1
Posts: 3,456
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: SPOILER: CHAPTER 28 TO END : Summary and answer to Vivico/ and back/ rewrite

I think its always easier to see the problem than to think of ways to solve a problem. I think thats one of the best things we can do for our children in school, teach them to be problem solvers. Also teach them HOW to learn, not just what to learn.Is it possible to dramatize the goals of a movement in human terms? I am not sure either but I think he could have. What if he would have had Jurgis walk into a socialist home, then community and get to see a difference and then meet the man where he became a bellhop. Let us get to know the socialists first and how their lives and feelings were different first, then take us to the meetings of why. There is a saying. "a man doesnt care what you know, till he knows that you care". Even if it took him 200 more pages to develop the socialists, he is one of the ones who could have done it with his writing skills and his knowledge of the movement. I just think he didnt. Since later he disavowed the ending, I wonder what he would have changed it to then. That would be interesting to read.


fanuzzir wrote:
Vivico writes:
This was a huge problem for me, the protagonist changed from a human, who through him we felt the pains and lessons, to a thing, Socialism. And Sinclair, in these last three chapters, seems like now he is just writing a pamplet on the virtues of Socialism. He lectures us with it and the human aspect that lead us up to this in the form of Jurgis and his thoughts, are all but lost. He just fades into the background and agrees with what is being expounded instead of continuing the formula of letting us FEEL through Jurgis what it is that he is supposedly learning. Oh, you get Jurgis feeling that he has finally found something. Again, its like, well stand up and shout Hallalujah! I have found my savior! Now things are going to be better I know it! And gee, they do too, once he is "converted", just around the corner is the job of his life and he is fixed for the rest of his life because of it. This just has no realism to it in the face of the rest of the book.

This echoes something I said in another thread, but it adds a beguiling question: does socialism have to come at the expense of human interest? Of course, many would say the opposite, that socialism is the only thing that guarantees our humanity. But it would seem that the novel bears out the idea that the more human features of the character emerge when he is just an individual fruitlelssly struggling. It's troubling to me . . .



Vivico1 wrote:
That's what was troubling to me too. He did such a meticulous job of making Jurgis human to us that it gets lost in the last 3 chapters. I thought that this was going to show in the end the humanity OF socialism, to make it more enticing as the cure but it got lost. Those chapters, redone, humanized, could have done so much more.



Fanuzzir wrote:

Very observant; I really do know what you are talking about. You really hold him accountable to the artistry of his early chapters, when socialism was not the issue. Is it possible to dramatize the goals of a movement in human terms? I don't know. It certainly seems easier to dramatize the conditions that call for one.

Vivian
~Those who do not read are no better off than those who can not.~ Chinese proverb
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: SPOILER: CHAPTER 28 TO END : Fanuzzir : The ending of The Jungle

[ Edited ]
Here is an interesting exposition on the history of the publishing of The Jungle, which you probably know about. It says that Sinclair approved of the eventual published version by Doubleday. It also mentions his exhaustion at this time and I wonder if that might account for the lack of artistry and further (socialist) characters in the final chapters? He had 'run out of steam' perhaps, after the struggle he had to get the book published.

http://hnn.us/articles/27227.html

Message Edited by Choisya on 01-20-200702:53 PM

Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: SPOILER: CHAPTER 28 TO END : Fanuzzir : Sinclair on Socialism

Fanuzzir: I saw this on Wikipedia and wonder if you think that Americans today 'will [still] take Socialism, but they won't take the label'?

'Of his gubernatorial bids, Sinclair remarked in 1951: "The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to 'End Poverty in California' I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them."'

The last sentence reminds me of the UK Fabian approach to socialism - by 'gradualism', which of course has had some limited success over here.

http://www.fabian-society.org.uk/About/history.asp
Frequent Contributor
fanuzzir
Posts: 1,014
Registered: ‎10-22-2006
0 Kudos

Re: SPOILER: CHAPTER 28 TO END : Fanuzzir : The ending of The Jungle

Everyone, please take advantage of Choisya's hyperlink to an interesting article about the publishing history of The Jungle. Two interesting facts stick out: a first version was printed in a socialist newspaper in serial form, so there's no doubt it was propagandistic fiction; second, that Jack London, better known for tales of wilderness survival but also a socialist, liked what he read. If only Sinclair had had London's flair for the dramatic. (London was a unique character: a staunch socialist and individualist).



Choisya wrote:
Here is an interesting exposition on the history of the publishing of The Jungle, which you probably know about. It says that Sinclair approved of the eventual published version by Doubleday. It also mentions his exhaustion at this time and I wonder if that might account for the lack of artistry and further (socialist) characters in the final chapters? He had 'run out of steam' perhaps, after the struggle he had to get the book published.

http://hnn.us/articles/27227.html

Message Edited by Choisya on 01-20-200702:53 PM




Frequent Contributor
fanuzzir
Posts: 1,014
Registered: ‎10-22-2006
0 Kudos

Re: SPOILER: CHAPTER 28 TO END : Summary and answer to Vivico/ and back/ rewrite

Viv, I like your ending.
Frequent Contributor
fanuzzir
Posts: 1,014
Registered: ‎10-22-2006
0 Kudos

Re: SPOILER: CHAPTER 28 TO END : Fanuzzir : Sinclair on Socialism

That is a fascinating distinction to make, between a campaign to end poverty and socialism. Obviously, it was more opportune to run on the latter. His near success tells us that this was, and remains a very viable platform to run on in the U. S. (The former Senator John Edwards will be attempting to do this.) There was a recent (5 years ago) bo0k published on Sinclair's campaign; he's probably the only serious political candidate to start out as a novelist. Both Norman Mailer and Gore Vidal ran for office as well but more as stunts. Pat Brown, governor of California in the 1950s and early 60s, was quite progressive by today's standards. Thanks to him, California became with the state with the most extensive higher public education system in the US.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: UK National Health Insurance (OFF TOPIC)

Fanuzzir: I have just seen this: National Insurance was the tax instituted to pay for the National Health Service (together with a large contribution from the Exchequer of course) and we pay it throughout our working lives - as a proportion of income. Employers also pay a contribution. It also funds State Pensions. In the beginning all prescriptions were also free but as the modern drug bills grew larger and larger successive governments have introduced nominal fees for prescriptions for those in work but not for children, pregnant mums, the unemployed, the low paid or the elderly.



fanuzzir wrote:


Choisya wrote:
. One of my proudest's possessions is an autographed copy and one of my proudest moments was sitting by his side when I was around 13, when he took tea at my parent's home shortly after being elected an MP in the first Labour Government:smileyhappy: He subsequently became the Minister of Health who established the British National Health Service.

Wow! You really were there at the beginning. Was national health insurance considered the foundation of the British social welfare system?



Users Online
Currently online: 12 members 237 guests
Please welcome our newest community members: