Evex’s Weblog

Daniel chose this early 20th century fictional expose of the horrors of the American meatpacking industry (and of the capitalist system in general). All of us attended the meeting due to the combined lure of Ann and Seth’s chilli and taties and our secret Santa presents. Only half of us had managed to read the whole thing (very impressive in Paddy’s case as his version had six extra chapters!) as Christmas was getting in the way of literary pursuits. Most people had read at least a bit and the response seemed overwhelmingly positive which is unusual.

Paradoxically, we all thought that part of the appeal of the book was that it was absolutely of its time, yet we were all able to find modern parallels. The book paints a really vivid picture of the struggle of a particular people at a particular time. The use of the title is obviously metaphorical, considering the setting, but the author doesn’t go for metaphor or allegory in his writing, choosing to baldly and literally describe the dreadful situation of his characters. I thought that description was the main point of the book, with the author creating vast panoramas of sweltering factories and freezing, dangerous streets.

The main character of the book was Jurgis Rudkus, a Lithuanian immigrant, whose experiences represent the iniquities of capitalism. We debated about whether he was a passive character, whose principles changed with his circumstances: embracing socialism only when it was his only option. Martin saw this as a positive characteristic : that he was extremely adaptive, but also pointed out that Jurgis seemed happiest when out on the road. Ann felt that Jurgis was so trapped that he was focused more on survival than socialist principles. The other characters seemed to serve more as examples of the issues that the book was highlighting, regularly meeting grim ends. I was interested in discussing the significance of Marija, who, with her strength and her survival, seemed to be a parallel to Jurgis throughout the book, until the end, where continues with her life of addiction and prostitution instead of finding redemption through socialism. However, I was unsuccessful in leading the discussion in that direction!

We also found it interesting how the characters in the book were stratified socially along ethnic lines. Eastern Europeans seemed to be at the bottom of the pile – as newer immigrants they had yet to discover that ‘working harder’ did not make them wealthier or more socially acceptable. Other, more established, ethnic groups such as the Irish were painted as heavily involved in corruption. We discussed whether this was racial stereotyping, or an intentional reflection that each wave of immigrants would have to learn that becoming corrupted was a necessary part of survival. Jurgis, Ona and Marija are all forced at different parts of the book to abandon their principles in order to stay alive. Ann felt that it was ironic that emigrants were setting up and becoming part of the very systems they had tried to leave behind.
The main point of the book was to denounce capitalism and introduce readers to the alternative that is socialism. Daniel loved the end of the book, where Jurgis fervently embraces socialism, whereas I didn’t feel that it was a real ending. Martin and Paddy disagreed over the role of socialism in Jurgis’  life, with Martin feeling that he was not affected by socialism throughout the story, embracing it only as an opportunity at the time, and was happiest as an itinerant worker in the countryside. Paddy, however, thought that  Jurgis’ discovery of and conversion to socialism was his driving force.  Ann thought it a dark irony that the characters in the book (and many people in the world today) both want and need the capitalism that will exploit and use them up, as the alternative – starvation, illness etc. is far worse.

Paddy’s differing views from Martin may have been due to the fact that he had a version with six extra chapters about socialism. This version heralds itself  as the uncensored version that Sinclair was forced to suppress in order to get his beloved book published. However, others argue that this copy is actually the unedited version, and that Sinclair is able to get his political message through perfectly adequately without the extra chapters. Why not read both and make up your mind!

Nicky and I both found it as grim as The Road with its relentless portrayal of horrors, although as Nicky pointed out, The Road is fantasy, whereas the events in this book have been people’s reality. Daniel found the relentless style of the book very effective in conveying its message. The Jungle also led to a change in legislation due to its depiction of the practice of food adulteration. Ann liked it better than The Road at the point she was at, finding it interesting how the author jumped between tenses and manipulated language playfully. Paddy felt that the switches between narrative and report style helped to provide a rationale for what was happening in the story. I felt that the style of the book was very much of its time, redolent of authors like Dickens and Zola, who were very much the product of industrialisng nations. I don’t think a book could be written in this style now.

This book is a definite recommendation as we all really enjoyed it. Unfortunately I don’t think we’re going to hear the author’s viewpoint this month as Mr Sinclair is no longer with us, but as always comments are welcomed!