This seems to have started off right where Upton Sinclair's The Jungle (published two years earlier) left off. In the first third, there is way too much ranting and lecturing about socialism to be an engage-able plot. It honestly seems like London read The Jungle and really wanted to write something similar/in support so he cranked this out and slapped his name on it. I was shocked in the differences in writing style, depth of characterization, plot structure and pacing in this compared to London's The Sea Wolf - one of my favorite books.

The premise is essentially how the two male mains are abused by capitalism, revolt despite that abuse and the results of said revolt. The characterization is unfortunately so cliche that the emotional appeal was lost on me. It's hyperbolic to the point of nearly humorous. In classic London fashion there's some terrific one-liners. The last couple chapters and the ending itself were decent, sadly it wasn't enough to save the first 80%.

I really enjoyed Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath, Frank Norris' The Octopus, and up until the last couple chapters that detached from the plot, The Jungle; point is it's not the socialism aspect that's causing the poor rating, it's my perception of poor delivery and plot structure.

Great book that show what socialists want to achieve. This book makes me glad I am not a socialist, the hard working can not get more than the laziest person.

It has crushed my brain with its boringness!

Aiemmin lukemieni Jack Londonin eräkirjojen jälkeen tämä puoli kirjailijasta oli yllätys. Rautakorko muistutti, miten paljon on tapahtunut viimeisen vuosisadan aikana. Se myös vahvisti kiintymystäni pohjoismaiseen hyvinvointivaltioon.

Opettajan ja siten uusien sukupolvien sosialisaatioon osallistuvana suurimman vaikutuksen kirjassa teki ajatus siitä, miten vallassa oleva yhteiskuntaluokka pyrkii aina oikeuttamaan olemassaolonsa ja etuoikeutensa eettisesti ja metafyysisesti.

I like Jack London as a writer. He has a no-nonsense style of writing that is very refreshing, and can even be very attractive when you're reading a story of his. But it couldn't bring me around to liking The Iron Heel enough.

Don't get me wrong, it was a good book. It just wasn't a great book. Or even a really good one. It was just simply good, and almost entirely because of London's style of writing. The Iron Heel suffered from a problem where it would occasionally shift from "story about a Socialist revolution in the United States" to "Socialist manifesto," and that tended to become rather grating after the first couple pages of it. I was impressed with much of London's prediction abilities (based on my knowledge of the Twentieth Century), but that was not enough to carry the book, sadly.

It's worth a read if you're a London fan, but I suspect it's going to be fairly forgettable as far as books are concerned.

The first half of this book really reads as a Socratic dialogue, showcasing various conversations between the main character (a blue collar labor organizer) and members of the upper and middle classes. The second half plays out a dystopian class war in the United States. Thought it was really interesting how the whole book is written as a primary document with footnotes and consistently referenced as a major piece of history from its time as well.

This book is a thinly disguised manifesto of the socialist ideals in vogue at the beginning of the 20th Century. It is only science fiction in the sense that the conceit of the book is that this is the 700-years-in-the-future annotated text of the biography of a key socialist revolutionary.

The interesting thing about the book is how its details of the strife of a hundred years ago is eerily similar to many of the current issues and debates, topics such as income inequality, the aggregation of wealth by a few, the control and corruption of government and the press by powerful business trusts (monopolies), white-collar crime, moral hypocrisy among the wealthy, relief for the unemployed, and worker safety. In other words, not much has changed in over a hundred years. For example, the book states that:

“Of the total number of persons engaged in occupations in the United States, only nine-tenths of one per cent are from the Plutocracy, yet the Plutocracy owns seventy per cent of the total wealth. The middle class owns twenty-four billions. Twenty-nine per cent of those in occupations are from the middle class, and they own twenty-five per cent of the total wealth. Remains the proletariat. It owns four billions. Of all persons in occupations, seventy per cent come from the proletariat; and the proletariat owns four per cent of the total wealth.”

The book assumes that socialism will ultimately replace capitalism:

“Not only is it inevitable that you small capitalists shall pass away, but it is inevitable that the large capitalists, and the trusts also, shall pass away. Remember, the tide of evolution never flows backward. It flows on and on, and it flows from competition to combination, and from little combination to large combination, and from large combination to colossal combination, and it flows on to socialism, which is the most colossal combination of all.”

Despite its polemics, the book is actually quite readable, with a fair amount of action and romance to carry the plot forward. The reader gets to know the revolutionists and is sympathetic towards their plights.