After reading both Maggie: A Girl of the Streets, and The Jungle, it seems that different authors respond to agency in radically different ways. I would argue that in both of these novels, the main characters are essentially without agency. Maggie is driven down by the circumstances of living in the Bowery, unable to climb out of the filth and crime around her. Likewise the immigrant family in the Jungle, while initially optimistic about their chances in a new place, are brought down, killed, and essentially dismantled as a family by the life they are forced into. Because the main characters in both of these stories are without agency, this clearly represents a naturalistic point of view, which says that people are products of their environment.
What is interesting is how the authors respond to within this almost forced naturalistic tone. Sinclair responds with a tone that is almost defeatist. He writes in a very anti-sentimentalist manner. He includes little to no moralizing of his own, and only succinctly describes the situation around him. He is almost like a news reporter covering a story, he may comment that the character involved are emotional, but his own emotions are kept hidden, whatever they are. Stephen Crane, on the other hand, writes in a very sentimentalist and emotional manner. He describes scenes with vivid detail and romantic imagery. In Maggie's death scene, the final man she confronts is described as "greasy,: and is compared to "a dead jelly fish," and in the final paragraph Maggie confronts a river with a "deathly black hue."
It may be that Sinclair was less inclined to romantic imagery, or that he wanted to appear neutral before making his socialist claims at the end of his novel. Perhaps exigence played a more key role than agency in determining these author's writing styles. Either way, they responded to similar naturalistic situations with radically different styles.
I thought that this was really interesting too! Another thing I thought was interesting was my own reaction to reading the two stories. At the end of Maggie I felt sorry for her above everything, however, while reading The Jungle I felt more anger toward the horrible situation the character were put in. I think that by romanticizing Maggie Crane wants the reader to pity Maggie and make the story into more tragic. In contrast I think that Sinclair uses a lack of moralizing to invoke anger in the reader and promote change.
ReplyDeleteThat's a good point. I hadn't considered that Crane might have wanted a more individual focus versus Sinclair's more general focus.
ReplyDeleteIs it not the author who portrays agency and the reader who responds to it? Changing mode from this idea: yes we are presented with agency in Crane's novel and Sinclair's novel, but we are also presented with aloof narration. We are presented with facts, facts that we as the reader respond to. Both novels are of naturalism, it begs reader response to objectivity.
ReplyDeleteNow, more on agency:
I think that really, we are presented with two, if not more, agencies. One for narration, two for character(s).