We can describe Anti Sentimentalism as an emotional
detachment and providing analytic insight into the elusiveness of moral feeling
without unnecessary detail by stressing reason over emotional attachment. By
the literature stressing logic and reason over emotion it leaves room for the
reader to create their own emotions based on the data their given. However this
data is greatly persuaded by the choice of information and how Sinclair uses
text to control or steer the reader to feeling a certain way.
On page 30 it says, “Meantime, heedless of all these things,
the men upon the floor were going about their work. Neither squeals of pigs nor
tears of visitors made any difference to them; but one by one they hooked up
the pigs, and one by one with a swift stroke they slit their throats” (p 30). This
quote shows that although visitors were crying and pigs were squealing, the men
worked on unaffected by the harsh conditions and animal treatment going on
around them. We can look at not only why Sinclair shows us this quote supporting
an anti-sentimental nature but why Sinclair chooses to leave emotional response
to that of the reader.
I found the quote that you used interesting. It does show an anti-sentimentalist view, and illustrates how the workers did not react much to the environment around them. I think the reason Sinclair used it was to cause the reader to question why the workers did not react emotionally to the scene. This question in the reader's mind causes the reader to look for the answer in the later chapters, in which it is shown that the workers simply have to get used to it if they want to survive, and that their own hardships in attempting to support families may be what causes them to lose the ability to sympathize with the animals they slaughter, because they simply cannot afford to do so if they want to survive themselves. While the characters in the book, as a result, have little emotional response to the scene, the reader has an emotional response not only because of the scene itself, but because of the reasons why the workers have lost theirs.
ReplyDeleteThe quote that you mentioned also applies to the title and how the author chose to name the book "The Jungle" because the environment in which Jurgis and his family live in actually resembles aspects of a jungle. As they are slitting the throats of the pigs, they are emotionless. The only thing that is making the workers continue is the fact that they know they are going to get payed. They need to do what they need to do in order to survive, hence the fact that they do not care about the animals or the other workers as long as they are able to support their families, they will do whatever it takes.
ReplyDeleteHowever, another point that i wanted to bring up was the fact that there is undoubtably anti-sentimentalism within the characters in Sinclairs novel but not necessarily in the book as a whole. The author states that "somehow the most matter-of-fact person could not help thinking of the pigs; they were so innocent, they came so very trustingly and they were so very human in their protests-- and so perfectly within their rights! They had done nothing to deserve it; and it was adding insult to injury as the thing was done here-- swinging them up in this cold-blooded, impersonal way, without a pretense at apology, without the homage of a tear" (Sinclair 30). This passage clearly shows how the workers in the book feel no sympathy for the pigs, they just continue to slaughter them with no guilt, hence showing the lack of emotion. However, by introducing this personification of the pigs the author is trying to address the emotions of the reader, by reading this quote I automatically felt bad for the pigs. Therefore, it cannot be said that The Jungle is completely anti-sentimentalist because there are definitely aspects of emotion found throughout the novel.