The (Passive) Jungle

The use of pathos is extremely relevant in the infamous novel The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. As many people should know, the publishing of this book caused the United states government to create stricter rules for running a healthy and clean meat factory. Why? It was Sinclair's obvious appeal to make the readers feel emotion. In the historical story, Jurgis has just immigrated to Chicago with his family of twelve. Work is hard to find among the thousands of homeless people during this age. Yet, Jurgis is still full of energy, strength, and youth when he first arrives at the slaughter houses and therefore, easily finds an unskilled job as a day laborer with cheap wages. Before landing this "wonderful" job, Jurgis takes a tour of the meat factory- this is where the pathos argumentation appears. Sinclair's use of loaded images such as "The meat would be shoveled into carts, and the man who did the shoveling would not trouble to lift out a rat even when he saw one—there were things that went into the sausage in comparison with which a poisoned rat was a tidbit." This inhumane and gruesome description is only a minuscule activity compared to the rest of the detailed explanation of the working conditions at the Chicago meat factory. Doesn't this statement just make one want to barf? The fact that rats are the least toxic thing being blended in with the meat, is a troublesome worry. Who knows what worse objects land in the mixture- poison? Lard? Pieces of human flesh? The list of possible bulk of contamination is infinite and just outright disgusting. There is seriously no surprise why the government had to create a healthier environment for the workers and for the production of meat. Personally, if I wasn't already a vegetarian, I would definitely become one after this. Even if I didn't buy from this specific Chicago meat market, what makes any of the other production markets any better? Especially considering the meat monopolies are competing with the top firms in the nation and must make a larger quantity for an increased profit. Sinclair's use of pathos in the novel is definitely a perfect case of argumentation that upturned my already bad view on meat production. So I'm sure these images had a profound affect on other citizens in the United States who have read the novel. Thus, this is truly a fundamental pathos work of literature.

What is Wrong with Society?

I just finished reading the famous short story called A Rose for Emily by William Faulkner. Even though it was written and based in the 1930s, one can see all of the hypocrital gossip that is still in the modern world. Except, during this past decade, it is not nearly as bad as the current times. During this short story, the reader receives all of the information through the mouths of the neighbors: "Emily did this" *speculate* "Oh crap! She did this!" *speculate*. Yet, their imaginative educated guesses were never correct. Want to know why? Because they never heard from Emily's own mouth what was happening in EMILY's world. (Ironically, Faulkner's dry sense of humor shows up at the end of the story with an amusing cliffhanger.) Either way, the endless chattering of the noisy neighbors that kept inquiring about Emily's exclusive life, relentlessly annoyed me the entire eight pages. Probably because I find it very relative on a personal level. When I first transferred to St. Mark's in the middle of sophomore year, I did not expect this type of social atmosphere. See, I have always gone to public school since kindergarten, so at the time, a "Catholic" education was beyond my level of comprehension. As a transfer, I didn't have many friends at first, so I just sat around and listened to the conversations going on around me. Man, I was so disgusted. The nerve some of the kids had at this school, just put me into disbelief. They called themselves Christians, yet they did so many unholy things, that it became totally hypocritical. As I have just now realized, even though I might have thought they were the contradictions in the beginning, I was really the hypocrite at the end. I didn't know these strangers on any personal level; they might have misbehaved this way because they were going through their own troubling times. Who am I to judge? This is the epiphany I wished Emily's neighbors would have come to realize. Obviously, Emily knew they were slandering her actions, but she had the right mind to not saying anything. And for this, I respect her strong character. I just dislike the neighbors that didn't mind their own business. If I learned how to be more open-minded and not judge the kids at St. Mark's during this modern world, the neighbors from a century ago, could have grown up a little bit too.

Literature Worthy

After reading The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky over Christmas break, I have realized why I had the urge to read this teenage story instead of As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner. This is because I can relate to the plot way better. Also, because the diction was much simpler to understand. I am not saying that it was a child's book, but compared to Faulkner, it could be considered that way. The modern plot in TPOBW consisted of a high school freshmen's encounter with drugs, sex, making new friends, having a psychological problem, etc. As a high school student myself, I found it much more exciting to read than Faulkner's story about a traveling family in the early 1900s whose mother just died. But then again, a different reader's view might find my opinion unintelligible. More than likely, it would probably be because the other reader thinks diction and literary devices make a book seem more appealing and award worthy than a book based more on the physical actions that a character decides on. Which comes to my question: what makes a book more literature worthy, plot or diction? Personally, plot creates a spell of enchantment over the reader that only lasts in the short run. How many other modernist plots do you know today that have also written about the same subjects such as sex and drugs? Tons. Yet, diction makes the book more memorable. Trust me, I will never forget my frustration when I first started reading AILD and had no clue what the narrator(s) were discussing. And that is exactly the reason why I will always remember the fifteen contrasting narrators that Faulkner entered into his novel. These specific reasons may be why Faulkner is considered to have wrote many classics such as AILD or A Rose for Emily and why Chbosky is on the New York Times Best Sellers List for writing TPOBW. Even their bragging rights are from a different era. Who knows, maybe Chbosky might be considered a classic author one day, but in reality, he will probably be a nobody after a year or so. These modern books that go through fads, do not have elaborate enough material to make them deserving of endless praise. So even though I thoroughly enjoyed The Perks of Being a Wallflower and stayed up until the edges of dawn reading it, Faulkner will always have a more everlasting impression. Therefore, Faulkner wins.