|
|
In the weeks and months following the publication of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, there were many discussions about this novel. Considered crude and blunt in his naturalistic method, Sinclair was said to over exaggerate the difficulties that Jurgis Rudkus and his extended family faced. Sinclair effectively made his point through the use of his characters, the setting and figurative language. An active advocate of Socialism, Sinclair wrote his novel to expose the horrible conditions in which the working class was forced to live. Constructing characters who were to be defeated was meant to soften the reader’s heart, propaganda for the message of Socialism. Although there was no doubt that the Chicago stockyards or "Packingtown" held a lower standard of life than was considered the American Dream, it was implausible that one family would confront so many hardships. The author describes Chicago as a savage place, a jungle, which is a harsh but accurate depiction of Packingtown in the early twentieth century. Every horror that the family encounters advocates Sinclair's support of Socialism. Taking the reader through the packing plant exposes the unsanitary conditions that were ever prevalent in the stockyards. It is said that The Jungle hit people's stomachs, not their hearts. Sinclair did not mind however as it propelled "the working men of America" into the eye of the public. Descriptions such as the following two that are found on page 96 were likely meant to raise the national consciousness. "It seemed that they must have agencies all over the country, to hunt out old and crippled and diseased cattle to be canned” and “there were cattle which had been fed on whiskey malt, the refuse of the breweries, and had become what men called steerly--which means covered with boils”.
|
