Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.53 AVERAGE
3.53 AVERAGE
dark
informative
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
I don’t know whether this was actually incredibly dull or if I’m simply out of practice reading books from pre mid 20th century
adventurous
dark
inspiring
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
challenging
dark
informative
reflective
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
Basically one of the first major political dystopias written in the modern sense. It's super cool too, basically the book is an old manuscript about an attempted socialist revolution, before the world was taken over by oligarchic tyrannical capitalists. There's basically two stories being told, one in the socialist narrative itself occurring in the past, and one in the footnotes, showing glimmers of some of the capitalist horrors that occurred in the decades/centuries after this manuscript. Super neat way to tell a story.
It's definitely not without its faults. It's super heavy handed, and I would maybe call it similar to a socialist version of an Ayn Rand dystopia, like Anthem, but you know... Actually good. And thematically opposite to any coherent thought Ayn Rand tried to impart onto her readers.
The pacing is also a bit rough at times. The first half is interesting, but very little action. The last quarter of the book is ridiculously intense, with absolutely no reprieve, until the book ends abruptly mid sentence.
It's definitely not without its faults. It's super heavy handed, and I would maybe call it similar to a socialist version of an Ayn Rand dystopia, like Anthem, but you know... Actually good. And thematically opposite to any coherent thought Ayn Rand tried to impart onto her readers.
The pacing is also a bit rough at times. The first half is interesting, but very little action. The last quarter of the book is ridiculously intense, with absolutely no reprieve, until the book ends abruptly mid sentence.
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.
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.
challenging
dark
emotional
sad
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Diverse cast of characters:
No
As a piece of early dystopian literature, it's fascinating to see what London, writing in 1907, thought the trajectory of a socialist revolution might look like. It lacks the futurism of later famous entries in the genre that follow (Brave New World, 1984), but it does the thing Handmaid's Tale does where it purports to be a discovered manuscript that a future enlightened society later unearths and makes academic commentary on. The footnotes are the best part! In fact, the whole thing is very proto-Handmaid's Tale, being also from a woman's POV.
That being said, there are a wash of random characters identified only by their last names that it was impossible to keep track of, Everhard is annoyingly smarmy and the narrative gushes over him too much, and generally there was really no one I wanted to root for, because the socialists spend the entire book talking about how glorious the revolution will be and then beef it so badly that the Oligarchy takes over for three hundred years before some actually competent socialists pull it off. And I found it depressing to read about a sudden hostile takeover of America by the hyper-rich 1% that eerily read like my real-time Bluesky feed. UGH.
That being said, there are a wash of random characters identified only by their last names that it was impossible to keep track of, Everhard is annoyingly smarmy and the narrative gushes over him too much, and generally there was really no one I wanted to root for, because the socialists spend the entire book talking about how glorious the revolution will be and then beef it so badly that the Oligarchy takes over for three hundred years before some actually competent socialists pull it off. And I found it depressing to read about a sudden hostile takeover of America by the hyper-rich 1% that eerily read like my real-time Bluesky feed. UGH.
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.
dark
tense
slow-paced
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.
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.
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.