Ds13's Critical Response Paper on Sinclair Lewis' The Jungle

[Jean in Newcastle]

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).

Edited March 7, 2011 by Jean in Newcastle
I can't believe I put the wrong author in the title. . .

[Kuovonne]

This essay shows that your son has thought about the book and governments in depth. On the other hand, I had a hard time following his train of thought. While I understand individual sentences, I can't see the big picture. Is your son trying to say that capitalism destroyed the characters, the characters made bad choices, that Sinclair cheated and his story isn't realistic, or something else?

 

Your son could also think more about what his reader (not the reader of Sinclair's book, but the reader of your son's essay) knows. Your son throws out, without any introduction, a lot of terms, characters, and events that his reader might not be familiar with.

[Jean in Newcastle]

This essay shows that your son has thought about the book and governments in depth. On the other hand, I had a hard time following his train of thought. While I understand individual sentences, I can't see the big picture. Is your son trying to say that capitalism destroyed the characters, the characters made bad choices, that Sinclair cheated and his story isn't realistic, or something else?

 

Your son could also think more about what his reader (not the reader of Sinclair's book, but the reader of your son's essay) knows. Your son throws out, without any introduction, a lot of terms, characters, and events that his reader might not be familiar with.

 

Thanks, Kuovonne. He's saying that Sinclair wants us to believe that capitalism destroyed the characters so he did cheat a bit and made some parts unrealistic. Instead, my son thinks that the characters made bad choices.

 

Very good point about the terms, characters and events being without any explanation or introduction.

[Miss Sherry]

Thanks, Kuovonne. He's saying that Sinclair wants us to believe that capitalism destroyed the characters so he did cheat a bit and made some parts unrealistic. Instead, my son thinks that the characters made bad choices.

 

Very good point about the terms, characters and events being without any explanation or introduction.

Jean, what you just said about what your son meant, is exactly what I thought he meant when I read it.

This is beyond other papers I have seen written by 13 year old students.

[Kuovonne]

Thanks, Kuovonne. He's saying that Sinclair wants us to believe that capitalism destroyed the characters so he did cheat a bit and made some parts unrealistic. Instead, my son thinks that the characters made bad choices.

 

I eventually thought that might be what he was saying, but it wasn't clear from the beginning.

 

I think your son did an admirable job considering that he is just 13 years old. (This subform has been very eye-opening in terms of how children of the same age can have widely different abilities.) He has tackled a tough subject, formed advanced ideas, and written a lot. However, he could use work focusing and organizing his writing. It's hard to see the forest for the trees, so to speak.

 

I think this paper would be helped if your son kept an hourglass organization in mind: explain Sinclair's point and give evidence, then turn around and refute that point and give evidence. Root the evidence in specifics from the book. (He does this well in some places, not so well in others.) Keep this same structure (and order) for each point / paragraph and have only one point per paragraph. Include only statements that directly relate to the argument of this paper and save the rest of the social commentary for something else.

 

I hope that you find this advice useful.

[Catherine]

My questions are about his argument, more than his writing, and I expect presenting an argument convincingly to be difficult for any kid this age. He states: "When Jurgis breaks his arm, Sinclair presents him as unable to compete on equal terms with his competitors for jobs." After that, he moves on to a different subject-is he meaning to suggest that Jurgis' choice was to pretend to be disabled by his broken arm when he wasn't disabled? What was the choice? I don't follow him. He also argues that the characters could have chosen to leave Chicago and go elsewhere, where factory working conditions were better. But it's clear (I recently read this book) that they could not do that because they did not read or write English well enough to investigate other options, and they were in debt from the time they arrived in Chicago, so they were trapped by their own sense of honor, which did not allow them to abandon their debts and run away to another place. In other words, if he wants to argue against one of the main premises of the book, that people were victimized by the meatpacking industry at the turn of the century, he has to bring in passages of it and then point by point show how the author's conclusion is wrong.

 

As Kuovonne points out, (and as I do with my 14 yo son!) one thing you are teaching kids this age it how to argue effectively, and simplifying and clarifying the argument is what it's all about. So, have him choose a section he wants to present an argument about, and verbally go over it first, point by point, with supporting or refuting evidence. My ds has a much easier time being clear when we verbally discuss it, and then putting it down on paper is easier.

[Jean in Newcastle]

My questions are about his argument, more than his writing, and I expect presenting an argument convincingly to be difficult for any kid this age. He states: "When Jurgis breaks his arm, Sinclair presents him as unable to compete on equal terms with his competitors for jobs." After that, he moves on to a different subject-is he meaning to suggest that Jurgis' choice was to pretend to be disabled by his broken arm when he wasn't disabled? What was the choice? I don't follow him. He also argues that the characters could have chosen to leave Chicago and go elsewhere, where factory working conditions were better. But it's clear (I recently read this book) that they could not do that because they did not read or write English well enough to investigate other options, and they were in debt from the time they arrived in Chicago, so they were trapped by their own sense of honor, which did not allow them to abandon their debts and run away to another place. In other words, if he wants to argue against one of the main premises of the book, that people were victimized by the meatpacking industry at the turn of the century, he has to bring in passages of it and then point by point show how the author's conclusion is wrong.

 

As Kuovonne points out, (and as I do with my 14 yo son!) one thing you are teaching kids this age it how to argue effectively, and simplifying and clarifying the argument is what it's all about. So, have him choose a section he wants to present an argument about, and verbally go over it first, point by point, with supporting or refuting evidence. My ds has a much easier time being clear when we verbally discuss it, and then putting it down on paper is easier.

 

The problem of 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?

 

I agree that the broken arm does not seem to address either of his arguments.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I eventually thought that might be what he was saying, but it wasn't clear from the beginning.

 

I think your son did an admirable job considering that he is just 13 years old. (This subform has been very eye-opening in terms of how children of the same age can have widely different abilities.) He has tackled a tough subject, formed advanced ideas, and written a lot. However, he could use work focusing and organizing his writing. It's hard to see the forest for the trees, so to speak.

 

I think this paper would be helped if your son kept an hourglass organization in mind: explain Sinclair's point and give evidence, then turn around and refute that point and give evidence. Root the evidence in specifics from the book. (He does this well in some places, not so well in others.) Keep this same structure (and order) for each point / paragraph and have only one point per paragraph. Include only statements that directly relate to the argument of this paper and save the rest of the social commentary for something else.

 

I hope that you find this advice useful.

 

I find it very helpful.

 

When you say "root the evidence in specifics from the book", do you mean the way he did it or does he need to include quotes or page numbers?

[Jean in Newcastle]

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.

[Kuovonne]

When you say "root the evidence in specifics from the book", do you mean the way he did it or does he need to include quotes or page numbers?

 

I mean by giving specifics from the book, as your son has done in some cases, not necessarily with quotes or page numbers. To support his claim that Sinclair made up things, he lists the rat poison and dead rats. When stating that some well run businesses existed, he cites the example of Ybor paying for a newsreader. On the other hand, your son says that Jurgis and Marija turn to drugs and alcohol without identifying evidence from the book. (I haven't read the book, so I don't know what the evidence would be.)

 

Do you think we need to focus more on logic and rhetoric?

 

From the point of view of improving his writing, I think that he should start off with a simpler thesis / topic. Let him focus on one thing at a time. For learning to write and organize a paper, let him use more straightforward arguments, so that he can focus on presenting the argument in writing, and not on the argument itself.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I mean by giving specifics from the book, as your son has done in some cases, not necessarily with quotes or page numbers. To support his claim that Sinclair made up things, he lists the rat poison and dead rats. When stating that some well run businesses existed, he cites the example of Ybor paying for a newsreader. On the other hand, your son says that Jurgis and Marija turn to drugs and alcohol without identifying evidence from the book. (I haven't read the book, so I don't know what the evidence would be.)

 

 

 

From the point of view of improving his writing, I think that he should start off with a simpler thesis / topic. Let him focus on one thing at a time. For learning to write and organize a paper, let him use more straightforward arguments, so that he can focus on presenting the argument in writing, and not on the argument itself.

 

Thank you so much! :001_smile:

[Catherine]

more research to confirm Sinclair exaggerated. I'm not an expert on the topic, certainly, but he could look at a study guide or maybe the wikipedia page on the author or the book to find out if his impression, that Sinclair exaggerated, is correct. OK, here is something from the Wikipedia page:

 

President Theodore Roosevelt considered Sinclair a "crackpot"[5] and wrote to William Allen White, "I have an utter contempt for him. He is hysterical, unbalanced, and untruthful. Three-fourths of the things he said were absolute falsehoods. For some of the remainder there was only a basis of truth."[6] The President was leery of aligning himself with Sinclair's politics and conclusions in The Jungle, so he sent Labor Commissioner Charles P. Neill and social worker James Bronson Reynolds, men whose honesty and reliability he trusted, to Chicago to make surprise visits to meat packing facilities. Despite betrayal of the secret to the meat packers, who worked three shifts a day for three weeks to clean the factories prior to the inspection, Neill and Reynolds were still revolted by the conditions at the factories and at the lack of concern by plant managers. Their oral report to Roosevelt tentatively supported Sinclair, failing only to substantiate the claim of workers falling into rendering vats and being left to be sold as lard.[7] Neill testified before Congress that they had reported only "such things as showed the necessity for legislation" and that he did not think it was also necessary to "praise things where they were worthy of praise."[8] A report by the Bureau of Animal Industry rejected Sinclair's severest allegations, characterizing them as "intentionally misleading and false," "willful and deliberate misrepresentations of fact," and "utter absurdity."[9]

Roosevelt, not in favor of the heavy regulation the public outcry would have caused, did not release the findings of the Neill-Reynolds Report for publication. Instead, he helped the issue by dropping hints from the report, alluding to disgusting conditions and inadequate inspection measures. Public pressure led to the passage of the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which established the Bureau of Chemistry that would become the Food and Drug Administration in 1930.

 

So it sounds like in the end, what Sinclair described was not that far from the reality. It sounds like your son's thesis is that contrary to the world portrayed in the book, people always have a choice. If that is his thesis, then maybe he needs to choose specific instances from the book and refute them, as he was trying to do: what was Jurgis' choice when his arm is broken? He could have run away, committed suicide, gotten someone else to support the family and pay their bills while he recovered, etc. That's the direction I'd take him in.

 

I think this was a very ambitious paper for a 13 yo, not to mention even reading such a challenging and long book. I'm just suggesting ideas for helping him to flesh out his arguments in the future.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Catherine, part of his reason for saying that Sinclair exaggerated came from reading The Story of US (can't remember which volume). He also read a couple of things on the internet on Sinclair. Upton Sinclair did influence needed reforms in the meat packing industry but didn't influence many to turn to Socialism in general. There is a famous quote of his that says, "I aimed for the public's heart and by accident hit it in the stomach."

 

I think Sinclair's exaggeration was more along the lines of having every single bad thing that could and did happen to people happen to one particular family.

 

He told me after he read The Jungle that he hated the book but did learn a lot from it. That's how I felt when I read it too!

 

I do appreciate your input because it is helping me to think through how I need to help him with his arguments.