Category Archives: Classic

This is THE definitive King Arthur story. I’m a serious King Arthur nerd, and a fan of both the historical (Lawhead, Cornwell) and fantastical (Sutcliff, Green) approaches to his influential life. So when I saw “Le Morte d’Arthur” – the seminal Arthurian tome – on a shelf at my local library, I figured now was as good a time as any to read it. Authored by Sir Thomas Malory in 1485, “The Death of Arthur” tells Arthur’s story from birth to death.

For starters, this is a LONG book. Very long. At more than 900 pages, it’s not exactly beach reading. But, length really isn’t that much of a concern…is it? After all, “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix” was more than 850 pages long, and that was still a pretty quick read. How hard can it be…really?

To put it bluntly, “Le Morte d’Arthur” makes Shakespeare or the King James Version look positively modern. Consider the following passage:

“And then the bishop made semblaunt as though he would have gone to the sacring of the mass. And then he took an ubblie which was made in likeness of bread. And at the lifting up there came a figure in likeness of a child, and the visage was as red and as bright as any fire, and smote himself into the bread, so that they all saw it that the bread was formed of a fleshly man; and then he put it into the Holy Vessel again, and then he did that longed to a priest to do to a mass.”

Umm….yeah.

There’s a 500-page chunk in the middle of the book that is dry as dust. There just aren’t that many ways of describing jousts, tournaments, and one-on-one duels. Things get really old, really fast. (This is the part having to do with Sir Tristram after his flight from Cornwall, and his feud with Sir Palomides.) It’s tedious, dull, and probably the most difficult book I’ve ever read.

“Le Morte d’Arthur” is NOT easy reading. But that doesn’t necessarily mean you shouldn’t give it a try.

Fans of Roger Lancelyn Green’s “King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table,” will find much to like here. The stories and characters are classics – King Arthur, Sir Launcelot, Sir Gawaine, Sir Tristram, Sir Galahad, Sir Percivale, and countless others. Virtually every conceivable Arthurian adventure is covered (the only notable omissions being the stories of “Sir Gawaine and the Green Knight” and “Geraint and Enid.”) The climax of the book is definitely the search for the Sangreal (Holy Grail). This adventure makes up for the lengthy boring stretches earlier in the book. It’s exciting, fast-paced, spiritually provocative, and deeply triumphant.

Morally, “Le Morte d’Arthur” is an interesting case. The adulterous love between Sir Tristram and Queen Isoud of Cornwall is held up as a tragic love story in the vein of “Romeo and Juliet.” However, a similar relationship between Sir Launcelot and Queen Guenever is portrayed as dangerous and treasonous. Romantic relationships outside of wedlock are seemingly condoned in some of the early adventures…yet the ideals of purity and chastity are crucial parts of the quest for the Holy Grail.

Character development is handled in an interesting way. Readers almost never get any insight into the inner feelings of the knights of the Round Table, but their moral convictions are developed through their actions. By the end of the book, it’s clear that Launcelot is a temptation-troubled champion, Tristram is a melancholy romantic, Gawaine is a hot-tempered blowhard, Palomides is a vengeful and brooding warrior, and Gareth is a quiet leader. This extends to probably ten or fifteen other knights as well. The only character whose motivations are ambiguous is King Arthur himself. Arthur is a bit of a cardboard character – he doesn’t often leave Camelot, and when he does, he’s inevitably beaten in battle by one of his best knights.

I could go on and on, but I’ll move on to the big question: is it worth reading?

For Arthurian nuts like me: yes. Anyone incensed by the mutilation of the King Arthur story in popular media might also find it interesting.

For everyone else: read Roger Lancelyn Green’s version. It’s shorter, snappier, simpler, and more fun to read.

VERDICT: 7/10

Obtuse? Yes. Difficult? Yes. Rewarding? Yes.

(Originally published June 5, 2009)

Upton Sinclair’s muckraking novel detailing the conditions of laborers in early 1900s Chicago has had a great impact on American thought for more than a century.After seeing Adam’s sharp criticism of this book…I had to read it for myself. Sorry folks…no pictures in this review. 😉

“The Jungle” is primarily concerned with Lithuanian immigrant Jurgis Rudkus, a hardworking man determined to provide for his fiancee and their families. Upon arriving in Chicago after a traumatic transatlantic passage, Jurgis seeks work in “Packingtown” – a low-income district filled with slaughterhouses and meatpackers. He and the other men in his family rapidly find jobs and proceed to purchase a home for themselves.

Unfortunately, the “land of opportunity” turns out to be anything but that. Jurgis quickly realizes that he and his family are being exploited by vicious bosses bent on getting as much as possible out of their workers before discarding them. Taking advantage of their workers’ naivete, the lords of Packingtown arbitrarily hire and fire individuals based on their profit-making capabilities. Suffering under dehumanizing conditions, the Rudkus family begins to slide downhill.

Through a chain of increasingly heart-wrenching events, Jurgis becomes disillusioned with the capitalist ideal of the American Dream. After a string of catastrophic losses, Jurgis becomes an alcoholic drifter, wandering from job to job in search of his next meal. He even goes so far as to enter the criminal underworld of Chicago, struggling to make ends meet, before finally finding solace..

…in the arms of the Communist Party.

That is the moral of “The Jungle” – that capitalism is a perverse, exploitative ideology that will inevitably be overcome by socialism. Sinclair expertly depicts the horrors of life in Packingtown and the workers’ desperate lot, making “The Jungle” a brutal apologetic for Marxism. (Suffice it to say that reading “The Jungle” was almost enough to make me swear off eating sausages forever). Capitalists are unequivocally portrayed as the source of all pain and death in the world, while socialism is depicted as the ideal philosophy that will result in the salvation of humanity.

(It is interesting to note that many of the ideas in “The Jungle” were rebutted in George Orwell’s classic novel “Animal Farm.” Orwell even borrowed Jurgis’ motto “I will work harder!” for the character of Boxer – a devoted socialist horse who eventually becomes a victim of the very philosophy espoused by Sinclair.)

From a purely literary standpoint, “The Jungle” is both horrifying and oddly compelling. It is a well-written story that sinks in its claws and never lets go, dragging readers into the filth and grime of turn-of-the-century Chicago. Depictions of the sufferings of the Rudkis family – including the account of a young woman forced into prostitition to feed her family – are truly agonizing. It is an unforgettable story in this regard…a tale of desperation, degradation, and a fight for survival. Parts of the story are hard to stomach…but it is undeniably important to understand the motivations behind the rise of socialist thought.

But in the face of such horrible atrocities, how can one logically defend capitalism? If capitalism results in such oppression…should not everything possible be done to end it?

A careful reading of “The Jungle” provides some answers.

Capitalism is not the problem. The horrors of “The Jungle” arise through flagrant violations of the laws put in place to protect individual workers. Greed is the ultimate root cause – a cause that will not be eliminated by embracing socialism. As history has demonstrated time and time again, socialism simply changes the identities of the leaders. For the majority of workers, suffering will continue – just under a different name. Greed is an innate human flaw, not something that can be solved by altering our economic ideologies.

Socialism might have been a good idea. Problem was…it didn’t work. It led to injustice, oppression, and the deaths of untold millions. (Incidentally, Ayn Rand pointed out many of these flaws in her novel “Atlas Shrugged” – which is basically the polar opposite of “The Jungle”)

If all the laws mentioned in “The Jungle” were followed and enforced, there would be little or none of the abuse that Sinclair documents. Unfortunately, rich bosses have bribed government officials to overlook violations. That isn’t a problem with capitalism – it’s a problem with enforcement of the laws. Once again, that problem won’t go away by placing different authorities in charge. Greed isn’t going away anytime soon – whether under the banner of capitalism or of communism, it’s something that humans have been experiencing since the dawn of time.

Should you read “The Jungle”? It’s not a particularly pleasant read. Nonetheless, any students of American history, government, or economics would be well served by understanding the motivations behind the 20th century’s most influential philosophy.

VERDICT: 6/10
A linchpin of early socialist thought. Worth reading for a better understanding of socialism.