You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.67 AVERAGE
3.67 AVERAGE
2.5 STARS
CW: death (including of loved ones), violence
I'm so glad I'm done with this now. As usual, I can appreciate this for certain interesting narrative strategies and a few instances that I really liked regarding themes and representation of the story. But generally, I just have to say that I do not enjoy naturalist writing... It bores me and so did this book for large spans.
Basically, the first half of this book was not interesting or appealing to me at all. There were so many characters, I did not care for any of them for the first 300 pages and I really felt bored because nothing was happening. This changed slightly in the second half when I was familiar with the characters and they had gone through a bit of development, and this is the reason the book got 2.5 stars instead of one.
Regarding what was happening, I enjoyed the sequence of the hare hunt and the shoot out most (unsurprisingly) but structurally, I liked the final chapter and end of the book. It really rounded out the work for me. Never would have picked this up had it not been for class and I definitely would have DNFed it if I had.
CW: death (including of loved ones), violence
I'm so glad I'm done with this now. As usual, I can appreciate this for certain interesting narrative strategies and a few instances that I really liked regarding themes and representation of the story. But generally, I just have to say that I do not enjoy naturalist writing... It bores me and so did this book for large spans.
Basically, the first half of this book was not interesting or appealing to me at all. There were so many characters, I did not care for any of them for the first 300 pages and I really felt bored because nothing was happening. This changed slightly in the second half when I was familiar with the characters and they had gone through a bit of development, and this is the reason the book got 2.5 stars instead of one.
Regarding what was happening, I enjoyed the sequence of the hare hunt and the shoot out most (unsurprisingly) but structurally, I liked the final chapter and end of the book. It really rounded out the work for me. Never would have picked this up had it not been for class and I definitely would have DNFed it if I had.
challenging
dark
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
An important novel in the history of work-related fiction. The first 60% of the novel, though, was slow-paced and it was hard to get traction. And then the work picked up and developed a rhythm.
A fascinating view into California at the turn of the century - like Steinbeck before Steinbeck, with some Dickens and Zola thrown in for good measure. Well worth reading.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Reading this it was remarkable to relate it to the modern day publicly-traded power monopoly that has recently raised rates in my community over 100% and announced yet another rate hike next year. The People are powerless (pun intended) to do anything as the State Power Commission approved the obscene hikes, leading to questions of their bribery by the power company monopoly. Shockingly (again pun intended) similar to the railroad here where the regulatory commission, the court, in essence the government is bought by the railroad.
With that real world experience to relate to, this was a phenomenal read. Frank Norris has a very distinct writing style. He loves adjective stacking, describing in threes, triples, tripartite. It is a little distracting at first but quickly becomes a predictable part of the work.
Quite a few characters here but ultimately boils down to the League vs the Railroad with some observers like Presley and Vanamee. Oh man, Vanamee... it's been awhile since I can remember a character so frustratingly annoyingly out of place and detached from the main plot. His story is so irrelevant and distracting from the main it's remarkable. I'm reminded too much of the Kate arc from Vardis Fisher's Mountain Man (1965) that I absolutely detested. Both characters experience loss of a loved one and their absolute inability to cope with the loss and move on. To quote Shawshank Redemption: "Get busy living or get busy dying." Thankfully Vanamee in this work has a much better ending than Kate in Mountain Man , but still his sole decent page at the very end (essentially Tolstoy's paraphrased quote "Trouble is short, life is long") could have been scrapped with the rest of his painstakingly boring story.
Annixter and Hilma reminded me too much of Lassister and Jane in Riders of the Purple Sage by Zane Grey - good Lord that book sucked. A brash male protagonist is changed for the better by his softer female "better half." Even the setting itself and descriptive imagery is very reminiscent of Riders of the Purple Sage. However this was written over ten years earlier so I can assume if one did in fact influence the other, it was Zane Grey's horrible lack-of-action novella that copied this one. The Octopus is everything I wanted Riders of the Purple Sage to be and more.
Speaking of action, Dyke's last main scene with the engine and footrace was one of the best scenes I've read to date. I was honestly shocked by how amazing that was written and then the climax of the main story line (League vs Railroad) was summarized in a single paragraph! What the hell Frank Norris?
If you took Riders of the Purple Sage (1912) and merged it with Upton Sinclair's The Jungle (1906), the offspring would not be too much different than The Octopus (1901). All three stories published within 11 years of each other. The Octopus, as expected has very similar themes to The Jungle, capitalism's abuse of man, but Frank Norris' personal touch is truly harrowing, especially the ending of the Hooven family. I busted up laughing at Presley's emotional outburst after the League vs Railroad climax - when speaking to Caraher, "I've been wrong all the time. The League is wrong. All the world is wrong. You are the only one of us all who is right. I'm with you from now on. By God, I too, I'm a Red!" Not many pages later Norris does reveal Presley see's Caraher's own blatant hypocrisy in Caraher's capitalistic role in the San Joaquin Valley. Each character is really just trying to carve their own little slice of the capitalistic pie (except for painfully irrelevant Vanamee).
I'm still amazed at how well S. Berhman's last scene was - truly a round of applause and it's beyond memorable.
With that real world experience to relate to, this was a phenomenal read. Frank Norris has a very distinct writing style. He loves adjective stacking, describing in threes, triples, tripartite. It is a little distracting at first but quickly becomes a predictable part of the work.
Quite a few characters here but ultimately boils down to the League vs the Railroad with some observers like Presley and Vanamee. Oh man, Vanamee... it's been awhile since I can remember a character so frustratingly annoyingly out of place and detached from the main plot. His story is so irrelevant and distracting from the main it's remarkable. I'm reminded too much of the Kate arc from Vardis Fisher's Mountain Man (1965) that I absolutely detested. Both characters experience loss of a loved one and their absolute inability to cope with the loss and move on. To quote Shawshank Redemption: "Get busy living or get busy dying." Thankfully Vanamee in this work has a much better ending than Kate in Mountain Man , but still his sole decent page at the very end (essentially Tolstoy's paraphrased quote "Trouble is short, life is long") could have been scrapped with the rest of his painstakingly boring story.
Annixter and Hilma reminded me too much of Lassister and Jane in Riders of the Purple Sage by Zane Grey - good Lord that book sucked. A brash male protagonist is changed for the better by his softer female "better half." Even the setting itself and descriptive imagery is very reminiscent of Riders of the Purple Sage. However this was written over ten years earlier so I can assume if one did in fact influence the other, it was Zane Grey's horrible lack-of-action novella that copied this one. The Octopus is everything I wanted Riders of the Purple Sage to be and more.
Speaking of action, Dyke's last main scene with the engine and footrace was one of the best scenes I've read to date. I was honestly shocked by how amazing that was written and then the climax of the main story line (League vs Railroad) was summarized in a single paragraph! What the hell Frank Norris?
If you took Riders of the Purple Sage (1912) and merged it with Upton Sinclair's The Jungle (1906), the offspring would not be too much different than The Octopus (1901). All three stories published within 11 years of each other. The Octopus, as expected has very similar themes to The Jungle, capitalism's abuse of man, but Frank Norris' personal touch is truly harrowing, especially the ending of the Hooven family. I busted up laughing at Presley's emotional outburst after the League vs Railroad climax - when speaking to Caraher, "I've been wrong all the time. The League is wrong. All the world is wrong. You are the only one of us all who is right. I'm with you from now on. By God, I too, I'm a Red!" Not many pages later Norris does reveal Presley see's Caraher's own blatant hypocrisy in Caraher's capitalistic role in the San Joaquin Valley. Each character is really just trying to carve their own little slice of the capitalistic pie (except for painfully irrelevant Vanamee).
I'm still amazed at how well S. Berhman's last scene was - truly a round of applause and it's beyond memorable
Spoiler
railroad tycoon being suffocated in a ship hull full of wheat after dodging death the entire story. The f'n wheat gets him.
An excellent forgotten classic with brilliant character development and a powerful story. One character is a poet who thinks he is a thinker, but spends most of his time brooding. One character is a hard-headed attorney who won't let his emotional guard down, even for a pretty young lady. One character is just trying to do right for his young daughter; another dwells on the memory of his lost love. All are swept up in a battle for their homestead against the corporate overlords of the day--the railroad.
Norris had an incredible gift for storytelling, and it is a shame his books are not more widely read. Likely this is in part because his social views were regressive, and it showed in his books. (Right around page 500, there is a description of hot-blooded, degenerate persons of mixed Spanish blood, which made me put the book down in disgust for a moment.)
But you can't expect an author from 100 years ago to share your views on everything. And for what it's worth, there are several instances where foreigners and non-whites make flattering appearances. There is also a moment when one character talks of when we fought the American Revolution to free ourselves, and we fought the Civil War to free others. Progressive for its time, perhaps.
There is a stronger focus on class struggle, especially as ranchers find themselves at odds with the railroad. But rather than forcefully beat you with Marxist or capitalist ideology, Norris peppers it in with characters seduced by one or the other, offering a reflection of how each is tainted with human folly.
Ultimately Norris sides with the ranchers, and apparently the story was enough inspiration to encourage President Teddy Roosevelt to advocate trust-busting of California railroads.
I'd recommend this book to just about anyone, and I'd recommend it strongly for its use of language, character development, and storytelling. A story like this was not meant to be forgotten. Just be willing to overlook some of the backwards social views, if you can.
Norris had an incredible gift for storytelling, and it is a shame his books are not more widely read. Likely this is in part because his social views were regressive, and it showed in his books. (Right around page 500, there is a description of hot-blooded, degenerate persons of mixed Spanish blood, which made me put the book down in disgust for a moment.)
But you can't expect an author from 100 years ago to share your views on everything. And for what it's worth, there are several instances where foreigners and non-whites make flattering appearances. There is also a moment when one character talks of when we fought the American Revolution to free ourselves, and we fought the Civil War to free others. Progressive for its time, perhaps.
There is a stronger focus on class struggle, especially as ranchers find themselves at odds with the railroad. But rather than forcefully beat you with Marxist or capitalist ideology, Norris peppers it in with characters seduced by one or the other, offering a reflection of how each is tainted with human folly.
Ultimately Norris sides with the ranchers, and apparently the story was enough inspiration to encourage President Teddy Roosevelt to advocate trust-busting of California railroads.
I'd recommend this book to just about anyone, and I'd recommend it strongly for its use of language, character development, and storytelling. A story like this was not meant to be forgotten. Just be willing to overlook some of the backwards social views, if you can.
Many of my students were not all that thrilled with this (they thought it boring) and Norris does take a few hundred pages before the book gains momentum. But he does endings really well (just don't look for a happy ending) and the last few chapters are pretty interesting and fast paced. I'm surprised there has never been a movie version of this book (other than a 1915 silent version that I'm not sure ever really saw the light of day).
Wheat famers. Bakersfield, CA. Railroad. These three factors made me think I was going to hate this book. I was wrong. I could not put this book (all 500+ pages) down. My eyes literally turned red from reading. It's the classic railroad v. farmers story, but written in such a way that it's actually interesting. A lovely surprise.
It can be difficult to read classic novels written in a certain time and milieu without bringing the full judgement of a century of modern thinking to bear upon them. For me, The Octopus proved simplistic, over-written and a tad banal, surprising given the enormous space it was given to develop. While the "good guys" were well developed, the "bad guys" were all archetypes, one sided evil doers out to get the poor rancher. Except that the "poor rancher" in this case is a cast of white guys who refer to Mexicans as greasers, the Portuguese as a separate race with an uncontrollable fiery nature and makes no mention of the indigenous groups these ranchers had to have displaced to work what they consider to be their own land. The unstoppable machine of the railroad is controlled by yet other white men mistreating the heroes of this story. When Norris heatedly wrote this tragic novel, he likely didn't have the available information or awareness to go deeper and make observations about the tragedies that had already occurred long before his own characters could experience their own version.