Jump to content

Menu

x-post Ds13's Critical Response Paper on Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle"


Recommended Posts

I posted this on the K- 8 writing workshop, since he's 8th grade but got tons of views and no critiques. Maybe I'll get some feedback here since it is a high school book.

 

Critical Response for Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle

By ____________________

 

The Jungle was a book by Upton Sinclair, originally printed in serial form. The book tries to show how Socialism is better than Capitalism and why. Over the course of the book, the main character, Jurgis, comes to America and is gradually destroyed by Capitalism. The first two thirds follow the writing style known as Zolaism or Naturalism. This style takes the main character through many hardships and usually a final defeat. The last portion does not follow this style as Jurgis finds hope and salvation from the ‘System’.

 

Thesis

 

Sinclair’s Chicago was not like the Chicago we know today. Sinclair’s Chicago was a dark, grim place not too different from a Dystopian world found in many books. The rich own everything, the poor own nothing, and there is nothing in between. Working conditions are horrible, and death rates are high. Many parts of this were true: The bad food and the poverty, for example. Others were made up or exaggerated: the rat poison in the food vats, along with dead rats, and the death by fertilizer vat. Sinclair also shows the political parties as an evil, to be bought and sold like everything else. This did admittedly happen, but not nearly to that extent, otherwise the reforms that have been law for just a few months over one hundred years would not exist.

 

Sinclair also placed the characters in a cycle of dehumanization, changing them from rational humans into beasts not responsible for anything. God did not design us to be broken, and we are always humans, faults and all. We still all have responsibility for all our actions. This cycle could have been broken by making a simple moral decision at any stage, and if the cycle had progressed, it would still be possible to get back on track in life.

 

Evidence

1. Example A:

 

Connor, Ona’s boss, threatened Ona with starvation if she did not comply with his wishes. He could not have made things as impossible as he had threatened. He could only follow through if they stayed in the city. They could move to another city, and get work there, as Connor’s power ended at the city limits. Florida might be a good place they could go, and this goes to show that business corruption was not as widespread as Sinclair would lead us to believe. Around this time, the Tobacco rolling plants in Florida were very nice and well run. Ybor ran things safely, and paid for a newsreader for the workers. Usually, the workers would have to pay for this themselves. These were also some of the safest factories on the east coast.

 

2. Example B:

 

Throughout the book, Sinclair represents the characters as animals, not truly accountable for their actions. When Jurgis breaks his arm, Sinclair presents him as unable to compete on equal terms with his competitors for jobs. Late in the book, Marija makes a living satisfying animal desires. Sinclair makes her not truly responsible for her decisions. Had she made a more moral choice, Sinclair’s arguments against capitalism would have unraveled. Sinclair shows the ‘System’ as turning people against their will into inhuman animals. The ability to make a choice is not shown in this book: Characters do things, but don’t decide to do them. Sinclair does not show this, but had this been nonfiction, Marija would have been the one main deciding factor in her situation. If she had instead made a few moral decisions, she would not be in that situation. In fact, she may have been making more money by doing a good job.

3. Example C:

 

If nothing else, Jurgis is consistent. He was always a hard worker. However, to cope with it, and his son and wife’s death, he turned to alcohol, one of the more readily available forms of perceived pain deadening. Here and in real life, alcohol is an anesthetic. If you cannot handle your shortfalls and pain, you usually turn to some form of anesthetic, and having your pain dulled can be addictive, as it was here.

4. Example D:

 

A continuation of Example C. Marija turned to drugs as her anesthetic. People still do that today: If you are going to die and return to the nothingness from whence you think came (or maybe come back as something else, still feeling pain), why not spend the days you still have on a high. Sinclair makes this pain out to be a direct result of capitalism grinding people down. The problem is more fundamental. The pain is a result of not having a relationship with God. Nihilism is a philosophy that causes pain: Everything you do turning into dust in the long run, while the planet goes around the sun until the sun goes into supernova, and that doesn’t mean anything in the next infinite number of years. This depressing philosophy is in Communist, Asian and American culture, and is one of the hidden reasons for suicide and drug addiction.

 

Conclusion

 

Sinclair’s theme that capitalism makes people into animals cannot stand. An animal cannot make a decision. If animals cannot make decisions, then we cannot decide to become communists, or to make laws, or to reform. We have made laws to fix those of the problems Sinclair represented that were real, and we have reformed the laws that had been broken and were not doing their jobs. Socialism grinds even more at people, as Russia and now China have demonstrated. People are not allowed to make their own decisions in a socialistic country like Russia, which would place them even closer to animals in capacity. With a capitalistic system, you can make a decision on what job to do, what to buy, what to sell, and how you live. Sinclair’s Jungle exists, but not in the way it does in the book.

 

 

 

The headings are from his outline that he did before writing the paper. I did talk to him about removing those. He is 13. We have never used a writing curriculum but do the Charlotte Mason approach to writing. I am looking for a real critique with suggestions how it can be improved. Also - his original work is indented at the paragraphs. For some reason I cannot get this to indent on the post (I've tried multiple times).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His argument is actually the main struggle I had with giving him feedback on this paper. He still has a 13 year old's black and white view of the world and I think that shows.

 

His main argument is that Upton Sinclair was purposefully placing his characters in a cycle of dehumanization for the purpose of his Socialistic agenda. He is giving a couple of arguments against that:

1. no matter how tough things get, people are not animals and have choices,

2. Sinclair exaggerated and so it was not that bad

 

Do you think that I summarized his argument correctly? Is that argument ok in and of itself?

 

Do you think we need to focus more on logic and rhetoric? He was studying formal logic this year ("The Discovery of Deduction") but had to table it because he was having trouble and I wasn't able to sit down and sort it out so that I could teach it to him directly. I plan to go over the logic on my own this summer and then teach it next year. Once he's done with that book, I have "The Argument Builder" on my shelf for him.

 

Is there a book that gives specifics on how to write different kinds of papers? We did look at samples of critical response papers on the internet but I still had questions about format and content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Jungle was a book by Upton Sinclair, originally printed in serial form. The book tries to show how Socialism is better than Capitalism and why. Over the course of the book, the main character, Jurgis, comes to America and is gradually destroyed by Capitalism.

A book is a physical object which contains the writing, but when talking about the writing itself, he needs to clearly note what type of writing it is, speaking in terms such as novel / poem / play / etc.

 

Also, why the past tense there? It's XYZ, originally printed in serial form.

The first two thirds follow the writing style known as Zolaism or Naturalism. This style takes the main character through many hardships and usually a final defeat.

Don't bring Zola or naturalism into the discussion unless you can handle what must be the consequences of doing so: explaining why Zola, why naturalism, what are the distinct qualities of that type of writing, etc.

Sinclair also placed the characters in a cycle of dehumanization, changing them from rational humans into beasts not responsible for anything. God did not design us to be broken, and we are always humans, faults and all. We still all have responsibility for all our actions. This cycle could have been broken by making a simple moral decision at any stage, and if the cycle had progressed, it would still be possible to get back on track in life.

Two things.

 

One, God needs to go out of the paper unless this paper is in the context of an RE class (rather than Literature) and attempts to specifically address the work from a religious point of view. The work itself does not necessitate bringing up a religious point in a paper about it as it doesn't thematize it, so stay away from it - those are some extremely bold claims, which are fine in the context of discussing one's worldview, but not to be brought up when discussing a piece of literature just for the sake of contextualizing it within your own life and values. That type of remark is fine if we're discussing it over a coffee, but not in a literary analysis paper.

 

Two, the other parts I bolded smell of "moralizing". Nothing surprising for a 13 yo! :) But, I do suggest gently working on eliminating "moralizing" and sententious speech from literary analyses. Not only there are potential factual problems with such statements, but they don't fit the scope of the analysis here.

 

[...]

He goes on to provide specific examples, but the problem is that he doesn't back them up textually: he needs to quote or, if already paraphrasing, also noting textually where those parts are found. The same problem arises in his counter-arguments: he doesn't back them up by anything. I realize it's an ambitious paper for a 13 yo, but some note, of something, should be there, at least an encyclopaedia entry.

Sinclair shows the ‘System’ as turning people against their will into inhuman animals. The ability to make a choice is not shown in this book: Characters do things, but don’t decide to do them.

Okay.

Here and in real life, alcohol is an anesthetic. If you cannot handle your shortfalls and pain, you usually turn to some form of anesthetic, and having your pain dulled can be addictive, as it was here.

Another instance of "moralizing" you have to avoid (and Marija's drug use too). ;)

Sinclair makes this pain out to be a direct result of capitalism grinding people down. The problem is more fundamental. The pain is a result of not having a relationship with God. Nihilism is a philosophy that causes pain: Everything you do turning into dust in the long run, while the planet goes around the sun until the sun goes into supernova, and that doesn’t mean anything in the next infinite number of years. This depressing philosophy is in Communist, Asian and American culture, and is one of the hidden reasons for suicide and drug addiction.

A very problematic passage, on many levels: not only there are potential factual problems with it, but there are also gross generalizations of "Asian culture", for example, then "communist culture" which doesn't exist (communism is first of all a type of philosophy of economy, then everything else, and definitely not any sort of unified organized culture), an oversimplification of the concept of nihilism and more moralizing.

 

This is like Zola above, but a lot more dangerous: don't enter territories you cannot deal with yet - rather keep it simple than enter these cans of worms.

Sinclair’s theme that capitalism makes people into animals cannot stand. An animal cannot make a decision.

Two completely different threads of thought: (i) capitalism turns people into animals and (ii) animals cannot make independent decisions. They're actually not conflicted the way you present them, in other words, he can claim both of them and represent them in the work. You need to deal with (i), rather than (ii) here.

We have made laws to fix those of the problems Sinclair represented that were real, and we have reformed the laws that had been broken and were not doing their jobs.

Who is that "we"? This is "us vs. them" kind of speech - demagogy. Reword it.

Socialism grinds even more at people, as Russia and now China have demonstrated. People are not allowed to make their own decisions in a socialistic country like Russia, which would place them even closer to animals in capacity. With a capitalistic system, you can make a decision on what job to do, what to buy, what to sell, and how you live. Sinclair’s Jungle exists, but not in the way it does in the book.

More problems.

What exactly have Russia and China demonstrated?

Which decisions are people in a socialist Russia not allowed to make? Speak about how do those relate to the economic system, not in generalties. All he claims about the capitalist system actually functions in a socialist system too, since restrictions of the system go in some completely different directions.

 

 

On the whole:

 

1. Decide what type of paper is this.

Are the "lenses" through which you assess it religious / moralist, literary or socio-economic? This is a BIG question, since most of the confusion in the essay stems from mixing the perspectives.

 

2. Don't enter what you can't deal with adequately.

Zola is out of question if you haven't read him, so are comparisons with general "naturalist" writings unless you can elaborate on what you mean, and so are big questions of what types of choice which economic system allows. Stick to more basic things until you get there.

 

3. Check the paper for the UNITY of the idea: what exactly is the topic? This connects to (1.) too.

 

His general argument in and of itself is okay (the question of Sinclair's exaggeration and how), but he needs to back it up, stick to it, organize the whole paper around it and not get lost in rabbit trails of God, morals, choice in economy, etc. He doesn't have too many logic slips for his age, I'm actually pleasantly surprised with regards to that, but the rhetoric of the paper is problematic in some points. His general language use is fine and using a more formal tone is fine. Overall, for a 13 yo, not bad, but you have some points to work on. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Ester Maria. His first draft was even more moralistic:001_huh: but I got him to tone it down quite a bit. I think that Zola and naturalism must have come up in something he had read about Upton Sinclair since we haven't covered it specifically at all.

 

I think part of his confusion on the worldview/moralizing front is that it was labeled a critical response paper. So he was thinking in terms of it being his individual response, which would draw on his worldview. The text which assigned the paper was not specific as to what would be included in such a paper and so we relied quite a bit on trying to find examples on the internet. This is one huge drawback to the fact that I haven't formally taught him to write - we've just written papers as part of science and history and literature without too much concern until now for how those papers should actually look.

 

A question on form - "backing it up textually" in this kind of paper - does that require a footnote, simply a reference ("In _______________, __________ writes. . .) or what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jean, Ester Maria gave an excellent response to your DS's essay. I would hazard a guess at Ester Maria's intention when she wrote,

 

"He goes on to provide specific examples, but the problem is that he doesn't back them up textually: he needs to quote or, if already paraphrasing, also noting textually where those parts are found."

 

She is referring to MLA formatting.

 

I use Write Source frequently when assigning papers. You may find it useful. (My version is for high school. I use it for middle grades, but this link is to Write for College and maybe more appropriate for an 8th grader going into high school.)

 

I think for the paper to be more successful critical response should be defined. What type of critical response?

 

This is a list I've borrowed from my charter school that may help:

 

  1. an analysis of a major character -- flat/round, static/dynamic, internal / external conflicts, dominant traits, significant actions, personal relationships
  2. a comparison / contrast of related characters -- protagonist / antagonist, foils, doubles, stereotypes, stock characters
  3. a discussion of the role(s) played by minor character(s)
  4. an analysis of elements of plot (exposition, narrative hook, rising action, climax / turning point, falling action, resolution) or plot patterns
  5. an analysis of the effect of the author's chosen point of view
  6. an analysis of the effect of setting -- time, place, circumstances
  7. an explanation of symbolism in the story
  8. a discussion of the validity and development of the theme(s)
  9. a discussion of the title's significance
  10. a detailed response to a specific word, phrase, line, sentence, passage, or scene
  11. a very limited or general comparison to another story, song, poem, play, movie
  12. a close analysis of the writer's style -- figurative language, imagery, sentence structure, specific word choices, or connotation and denotation
  13. a re-telling of the story, adding an additional scene, or changing an element, such as the ending, setting, point of view, tone
  14. a transformation of the story to another form, such as a cartoon, a news story, a letter, a play, a commercial, a soap opera, a fable...
  15. an original poem developing in some way from the assigned story
  16. a discussion of the writer's life and its relevance to the story
  17. a statement relating the story to your experience or ideas
  18. an explanation of problems you had in understanding the story
  19. your opinion of the story, good or bad, supported by specific references from the story

 

*****This link from Goshen College has some sample pieces of writing which may be helpful too.

 

 

 

Edited by Wildiris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jean, Ester Maria gave an excellent response to your DS's essay. I would hazard a guess at Ester Maria's intention when she wrote,

 

"He goes on to provide specific examples, but the problem is that he doesn't back them up textually: he needs to quote or, if already paraphrasing, also noting textually where those parts are found."

 

She is referring to MLA formatting.

 

I use Write Source frequently when assigning papers. You may find it useful. (My version is for high school. I use it for middle grades, but this link is to Write for College and maybe more appropriate for an 8th grader going into high school.)

 

I think for the paper to be more successful, critical response should be defined. What type of critical response?

 

This is a list I've borrowed from my charter school that may help:

 

  1. an analysis of a major character -- flat/round, static/dynamic, internal / external conflicts, dominant traits, significant actions, personal relationships

  2. a comparison / contrast of related characters -- protagonist / antagonist, foils, doubles, stereotypes, stock characters

  3. a discussion of the role(s) played by minor character(s)

  4. an analysis of elements of plot (exposition, narrative hook, rising action, climax / turning point, falling action, resolution) or plot patterns

  5. an analysis of the effect of the author's chosen point of view

  6. an analysis of the effect of setting -- time, place, circumstances

  7. an explanation of symbolism in the story

  8. a discussion of the validity and development of the theme(s)

  9. a discussion of the title's significance

  10. a detailed response to a specific word, phrase, line, sentence, passage, or scene

  11. a very limited or general comparison to another story, song, poem, play, movie

  12. a close analysis of the writer's style -- figurative language, imagery, sentence structure, specific word choices, or connotation and denotation

  13. a re-telling of the story, adding an additional scene, or changing an element, such as the ending, setting, point of view, tone

  14. a transformation of the story to another form, such as a cartoon, a news story, a letter, a play, a commercial, a soap opera, a fable...

  15. an original poem developing in some way from the assigned story

  16. a discussion of the writer's life and its relevance to the story

  17. a statement relating the story to your experience or ideas

  18. an explanation of problems you had in understanding the story

  19. your opinion of the story, good or bad, supported by specific references from the story

 

*****This link from Goshen College has some sample pieces of writing which may be helpful too.

 

 

 

 

Thank you for posting this. It is going into my writing notebook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...