What do you think?
Rate this book
The Iron Heel
Generally considered to be "the earliest of the modern Dystopian," it chronicles the rise of an oligarchic tyranny in the United States. It is arguably the novel in which Jack London's socialist views are most explicitly on display. A forerunner of soft science fiction novels and stories of the 1960s and 1970s, the book stresses future changes in society and politics while paying much less attention to technological changes. Table of MY EAGLE CHALLENGES JOHNSON'S ARM SLAVES OF THE MACHINE THE PHILOMATHS ADUMBRATIONS THE BISHOP'S VISION THE MACHINE BREAKERS THE MATHEMATICS OF A DREAM THE VORTEX THE GREAT ADVENTURE THE BISHOP THE GENERAL STRIKE THE BEGINNING OF THE END LAST DAYS THE END THE SCARLET LIVERY IN THE SHADOW OF SONOMA TRANSFORMATION THE LAST OLIGARCH THE ROARING ABYSMAL BEAST THE CHICAGO COMMUNE THE PEOPLE OF THE ABYSS NIGHTMARE THE TERRORISTS' to 'Set in the future, "The Iron Heel" describes a world in which the division between the classes has deepened, creating a powerful Oligarchy that retains control through terror. A manuscript by rebel Avis Everhard is recovered in an even more distant future, and analyzed by scholar Anthony Meredith. Published in 1908, Jack London's multi-layered narrative is an early example of the dystopian novel, and its vision of the future proved to be eerily prescient of the violence and fascism that marked the initial half of the 20th century.
8 pages, Audiobook
First published January 1, 1908
About the author
Jack London
5,803 books6,853 followersJohn Griffith Chaney (1876-1916), better known as Jack London, was an American novelist, journalist, and social activist. A pioneer of commercial fiction and American magazines, he was one of the first American authors to become an international celebrity and earn a large fortune from writing. He was also an innovator in the genre that would later become known as science fiction.
His most famous works include The Call of the Wild and White Fang, both set in the Klondike Gold Rush, as well as the short stories, "To Build a Fire", "An Odyssey of the North", and "Love of Life". He also wrote about the South Pacific in stories such as "The Pearls of Parlay", and "The Heathen".
London was part of the radical literary group, "The Crowd," in San Francisco and a passionate advocate of unionization, workers' rights, and socialism. He wrote several works dealing with these topics, such as his dystopian novel, The Iron Heel, his non-fiction exposé The People of the Abyss, War of the Classes, and Before Adam.
London died November 22, 1916, in a sleeping porch in a cottage on his ranch. London's ashes were buried on his property, not far from the Wolf House. The grave is marked by a mossy boulder. The buildings and property were later preserved as Jack London State Historic Park, in Glen Ellen, California.
His most famous works include The Call of the Wild and White Fang, both set in the Klondike Gold Rush, as well as the short stories, "To Build a Fire", "An Odyssey of the North", and "Love of Life". He also wrote about the South Pacific in stories such as "The Pearls of Parlay", and "The Heathen".
London was part of the radical literary group, "The Crowd," in San Francisco and a passionate advocate of unionization, workers' rights, and socialism. He wrote several works dealing with these topics, such as his dystopian novel, The Iron Heel, his non-fiction exposé The People of the Abyss, War of the Classes, and Before Adam.
London died November 22, 1916, in a sleeping porch in a cottage on his ranch. London's ashes were buried on his property, not far from the Wolf House. The grave is marked by a mossy boulder. The buildings and property were later preserved as Jack London State Historic Park, in Glen Ellen, California.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 897 reviews
May 13, 2022
(Book 762 from 1001 books) - The Iron Heel, Jack London
The Iron Heel is a dystopian novel by American writer Jack London, first published in 1908, A dystopian novel about the terrible operations of an American oligarchy at the beginning of the Twentieth Century, and the struggles of a socialist revolutionary movement. The Iron Heel describes a world in which the division between the classes has deepened, creating a powerful Oligarchy that retains control through terror. A manuscript by rebel Avis Ever-hard is recovered in an even more distant future, and analyzed by scholar Anthony Meredith. Published in 1908, Jack London’s multi-layered narrative is an early example of the dystopian novel, and its vision of the future proved to be eerily prescient of the violence and fascism that marked the initial half of the 20th century.
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز هشتم ماه جولای سال1972میلادی
عنوان: پاشنه آهنین: با سه مقدمه از: آناتول فرانس، ب‍ل وای‍ان ک‍وت‍وری‍ه، ف‍ران‍س‍ی‍س ژوردن؛ نویسنده: جک لندن، مترجم محمد صبحدم؛ تهران، فرخ، سال1331، در318ص؛ چاپ دیگر تهران، نشر کتاب، سال1362؛ سال1363، در318ص؛ موضوع: داستانهای نویسندگان ایالات متحده آمریکا - سده20م
پاشنه آهنین اثر «جک لندن» نویسنده ی «ایالات متحده آمریکا» است؛ این رمان نخستین بار در سال1908میلادی در «ایالات متحده آمریکا» منتشر شد؛ «جک لندن» در این رمان جامعه ی خیالی آینده در «ایالات متحده آمریکا» را، تصویر می‌کنند، که در آن گروه‌های سلطه گر مالی، به کنترل همگی امور جامعه و جهان می‌پردازند، و برای تأمین سلطه ی خود، از جنگ و کشتار و جنایت، رویگردان نیستند؛ «جک لندن» در «پاشنه آهنین»، اندیشه های سوسیالیستی و اجتماعی خود را، طرح می‌کنند؛ نویسندگانی همانند «جرج اورول»، و «سینکلر لوئیس»، از این کتاب تأثیر گرفته اند، و «تروتسکی» و «آناتول فرانس» آن را ستوده اند
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 20/05/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 22/02/1401هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
The Iron Heel is a dystopian novel by American writer Jack London, first published in 1908, A dystopian novel about the terrible operations of an American oligarchy at the beginning of the Twentieth Century, and the struggles of a socialist revolutionary movement. The Iron Heel describes a world in which the division between the classes has deepened, creating a powerful Oligarchy that retains control through terror. A manuscript by rebel Avis Ever-hard is recovered in an even more distant future, and analyzed by scholar Anthony Meredith. Published in 1908, Jack London’s multi-layered narrative is an early example of the dystopian novel, and its vision of the future proved to be eerily prescient of the violence and fascism that marked the initial half of the 20th century.
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز هشتم ماه جولای سال1972میلادی
عنوان: پاشنه آهنین: با سه مقدمه از: آناتول فرانس، ب‍ل وای‍ان ک‍وت‍وری‍ه، ف‍ران‍س‍ی‍س ژوردن؛ نویسنده: جک لندن، مترجم محمد صبحدم؛ تهران، فرخ، سال1331، در318ص؛ چاپ دیگر تهران، نشر کتاب، سال1362؛ سال1363، در318ص؛ موضوع: داستانهای نویسندگان ایالات متحده آمریکا - سده20م
پاشنه آهنین اثر «جک لندن» نویسنده ی «ایالات متحده آمریکا» است؛ این رمان نخستین بار در سال1908میلادی در «ایالات متحده آمریکا» منتشر شد؛ «جک لندن» در این رمان جامعه ی خیالی آینده در «ایالات متحده آمریکا» را، تصویر می‌کنند، که در آن گروه‌های سلطه گر مالی، به کنترل همگی امور جامعه و جهان می‌پردازند، و برای تأمین سلطه ی خود، از جنگ و کشتار و جنایت، رویگردان نیستند؛ «جک لندن» در «پاشنه آهنین»، اندیشه های سوسیالیستی و اجتماعی خود را، طرح می‌کنند؛ نویسندگانی همانند «جرج اورول»، و «سینکلر لوئیس»، از این کتاب تأثیر گرفته اند، و «تروتسکی» و «آناتول فرانس» آن را ستوده اند
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 20/05/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 22/02/1401هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
December 22, 2019
The Iron Heel by Jack London is Upton Sinclair meets Wolf Larson.
Described by many as the first of the modern dystopian novels, this one takes a strongly socialist stance, clearly espousing this ideology in lengthy diatribes. While reading this work I frequently compared to Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, but in contrast. Both novels ambitiously seek a prophetic tone, but both ultimately wind up as monological propaganda with straw man arguments propped up in opposition.
The Iron Heel does have the good taste to not run over 1,000 pages. Another of London’s works, the short story The Mexican espouses London's feelings as well, deeply sympathetic to socialist causes and centers around romantic heroism of its champions.
One aspect of the Iron Heel that was amazing, and truly prophetic was London’s uncanny ability to forecast power plays of government, especially the rise of Hitler’s Germany, some thirty years after the release of The Iron Heel. Social and political critics of modern day capitalism could also look to this 1908 publication to show how the rich get richer and labor unions have been bought out and find themselves underpowered to react.
Described by many as the first of the modern dystopian novels, this one takes a strongly socialist stance, clearly espousing this ideology in lengthy diatribes. While reading this work I frequently compared to Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, but in contrast. Both novels ambitiously seek a prophetic tone, but both ultimately wind up as monological propaganda with straw man arguments propped up in opposition.
The Iron Heel does have the good taste to not run over 1,000 pages. Another of London’s works, the short story The Mexican espouses London's feelings as well, deeply sympathetic to socialist causes and centers around romantic heroism of its champions.
One aspect of the Iron Heel that was amazing, and truly prophetic was London’s uncanny ability to forecast power plays of government, especially the rise of Hitler’s Germany, some thirty years after the release of The Iron Heel. Social and political critics of modern day capitalism could also look to this 1908 publication to show how the rich get richer and labor unions have been bought out and find themselves underpowered to react.
November 9, 2016
to-read-before-it-gets-banned
This is an important book. It's so important that the editors of the German Wiktionary site decided to use a quote from the book for the entry IMPORTANT. I think I never used the phrase must read for a book in any one of my reviews. And I'm still not doing it here. But I'd answer YES! if you ask “Should I read this book?”
Those of you who read other works by Jack London and think that this is some adventure story set in Alaska or on a ship at sea or something? Forget it. It's a Dystopian of pure breed: The everlasting struggle between good and evil. The good guys here are the ordinary people, i.e. us, and the evil one is the caste of oligarchs running the country along with their puppet show of politicians and the judicial branch, working in their favor.
Avis Cunningham gets to know young Ernest Everhard in her father's house in 1912. Everhard is an educated member of the working class, a genuine socialist, and impresses the young woman with his knowledge of the conditions of inequality in their country. The two fall in love and eventually marry. Their battle is henceforth the class enemy, the oligarchs upper class, called the Iron Heel by Everhard. At the beginning of the 1930s it comes to the inevitable bloody revolt against the oppressors. The revolt fails. Everhard, like thousands of others, is executed. The fight, however, continues. The events of the turbulent period from 1912 until the Revolution in 1932 is written down by Avis Everhard in the so-called Everhard Manuscript and is the content of this novel.
You might say that I spoiled the ending, however, all this information is readily available in the foreword, which is an important part of the novel, and must be read in any case (I know that some GR users like to skip forewords). The foreword and explanatory footnotes in the text have been written by a man, Anthony Meredith, 700 years later, when the manuscript was discovered. At that time (by the year 2600) the tyrannical Iron Heel is only history and we're in the era called “Brotherhood of Man”, a true utopia, an era the working class hero Everhard unfortunately could not live to see.
A couple of things are remarkable about this novel: There's a strong female first person narrator in a book written by a man, which was quite unusual at the time the novel was written. The author makes no bones about his own political views as a socialist; he obviously didn't care much about readers being offended. I also find Jack London's foresight in this book amazing. He obviously learned a lot from his time in the slums of London (see The People of the Abyss). Unfortunately you have to say that the social structures have not changed decisively in the 100+ years since the publication. The oligarchic tyranny is more powerful than ever, politicians are no more for the people, and the oppression of the masses has become even more strongly. All that is missing is a revolution to make this novel become totally true.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
August 30, 2016
Jack London wrote a dystopia! Did you know that? I didn't! It is terrible.
The first 75% is pure political screed. And not very well scrode, either; it's hysterically and ineptly scridden. Jack London was a socialist, and this book makes socialism look bad through its sheer incompetence. (By the way, that Lincoln quote didn't happen.) The fact that I happen to agree with the basic ideas here doesn't make the book any less boring.
When the plot finally does kick in, it's...well, who cares what it is? Without discussion*, if it hasn't kicked in by the halfway mark, it's too late and it's a shite book.
* Isn't that annoying, when I say "Without discussion"? It feels bossy and obnoxious, right? The very words make you want to argue, even if my point is perfectly agreeable. Well, London uses that phrase like ten times in this book.
What I was going to say is, just when the plot is about to get going, 150 pages too late (no plot spoilers here but still, minor)...
Iron Heel feels like a political pamphlet, with the outline for an interesting novel jotted in the margins. Without discussion, the book London didn't write would have been better than the one he did.
The first 75% is pure political screed. And not very well scrode, either; it's hysterically and ineptly scridden. Jack London was a socialist, and this book makes socialism look bad through its sheer incompetence. (By the way, that Lincoln quote didn't happen.) The fact that I happen to agree with the basic ideas here doesn't make the book any less boring.
When the plot finally does kick in, it's...well, who cares what it is? Without discussion*, if it hasn't kicked in by the halfway mark, it's too late and it's a shite book.
* Isn't that annoying, when I say "Without discussion"? It feels bossy and obnoxious, right? The very words make you want to argue, even if my point is perfectly agreeable. Well, London uses that phrase like ten times in this book.
What I was going to say is, just when the plot is about to get going, 150 pages too late (no plot spoilers here but still, minor)...
Iron Heel feels like a political pamphlet, with the outline for an interesting novel jotted in the margins. Without discussion, the book London didn't write would have been better than the one he did.
Read
April 15, 2018Abandono a 100 páginas de terminarlo porque DIOS MÍO QUE ABURRIMIENTO.
Esto no es una distopía, no es una novela, es un puñetero discurso anticapitalista de 300 páginas, a quien pueda interesar, ya sabe...
Esto no es una distopía, no es una novela, es un puñetero discurso anticapitalista de 300 páginas, a quien pueda interesar, ya sabe...
January 9, 2022
To be fair, The Iron Heel is a novel comprised of pro-Socialism propaganda, but it’s still filled with truth because London had so much truth to work with. London did not need to invent stories of workers losing their limbs while working for subsistence wages. London did not need to invent stories of children working for pennies in factories where they rarely enjoyed the light of day. He did not need to create Capitalists that profited from all this and professed that they were the source of joy and success in society. So yes, label The Iron Heel for what it is, propaganda, but do not think that in doing so, you've somehow disproven the truths that this book contains.
The propaganda aspect of the book stems from London’s overt effort to instill greed on the part of Capitalism while maintaining complete silence regarding this basic human condition on the part of Socialism. Throughout the book, the benefactors of Capitalism are identified as people who knowingly or unknowingly enjoy rich lives paid for by the blood of workers and the souls of children. This is contrasted brightly by the intelligent and wise leaders of the Socialist movement searching for justice for all. In reality, greed is a human condition that transcends every form of societal organization including Socialism.
The second point of the book brings to life the plausible way in which the governance of the United States could digress into a government of the wealthy. It highlights the methods that the wealthy would use to control the vast population of lower classes. In this part of the book, London illuminates his Iron Heel. He presents a process where the governing institutions of the US are changed into the tools of a small number of rich authoritarians: the oligarchy. In doing so, he hits upon multiple parallels that will appear in authoritarian governments of London’s future, from Hitler’s Germany to present-day Trumpism in America. London also brings to life the mass carnage of warfare that the world will eventually see in both world wars.
The continued relevance of The Iron Heel stems from its truths and its visions. The book could have been better if London had recognized and addressed the shortcomings of his own beliefs. But as it is, for what it is, the Iron Heel still withstands a lot of scrutiny over a hundred years after its original publication.
---Bonus Material
---Comments on the Claimed Failures of Socialism
First off, there has never been a purely Socialist state in modern times. There has never been a country where production and proceeds have been owned and shared by all inhabitants equally. There has never been a Brotherhood-of-Man, as Jack London would label such a system. Therefore, to hold up Socialism as a failure is to hold up a political system that is indeed a mixture of Capitalism and Socialism, cherry pick the failures, and label them as Socialism. The claim that Socialism leads to failure is erroneous from the initial inception of that claim.
But to carry the argument further, even though Socialism is as erroneously labeled as it is, there are a select number of countries that are held up as examples of the failures of Socialism. Countries such as Brazil, Cuba, the Soviet Union, etc.. These countries are put forth by zealots of Capitalism (erroneously labeled as it is) as proof that Socialism is the all-inclusive word that completely suffices in explaining the failure of these states. Such assertions not only fail to recognize the similarities between the political systems of the failures and the successes but they also stop short at arriving at the true cause of such failures.
The true problem with any form of social organization is greed that leads to corruption. I think if one were to objectively look at every failed societal organization that ever existed, one would find that corruption was the key to its demise, far more so than any political philosophy that those societies were trying to emulate. Greed must be recognized and even harnessed at levels that allow societies to prosper, but controlled to levels that prevent (or weed out) corruption. Greed cannot be eliminated and it certainly cannot be ignored.
The manner in which greed can be regulated and thus, corruption minimized, is to form a government where corruption will not be tolerated. It’s actually not that difficult. Greed is common and it’s easy to understand. People know greed when they see it, but they are tolerant of its presence. A government where checks and balances exist is a necessary component, and placing people in government with high moral standards is also a necessity. In the United States, we have the former, but we recently experimented with avoiding the latter. Let us hope that we have learned from our mistakes.
The propaganda aspect of the book stems from London’s overt effort to instill greed on the part of Capitalism while maintaining complete silence regarding this basic human condition on the part of Socialism. Throughout the book, the benefactors of Capitalism are identified as people who knowingly or unknowingly enjoy rich lives paid for by the blood of workers and the souls of children. This is contrasted brightly by the intelligent and wise leaders of the Socialist movement searching for justice for all. In reality, greed is a human condition that transcends every form of societal organization including Socialism.
The second point of the book brings to life the plausible way in which the governance of the United States could digress into a government of the wealthy. It highlights the methods that the wealthy would use to control the vast population of lower classes. In this part of the book, London illuminates his Iron Heel. He presents a process where the governing institutions of the US are changed into the tools of a small number of rich authoritarians: the oligarchy. In doing so, he hits upon multiple parallels that will appear in authoritarian governments of London’s future, from Hitler’s Germany to present-day Trumpism in America. London also brings to life the mass carnage of warfare that the world will eventually see in both world wars.
The continued relevance of The Iron Heel stems from its truths and its visions. The book could have been better if London had recognized and addressed the shortcomings of his own beliefs. But as it is, for what it is, the Iron Heel still withstands a lot of scrutiny over a hundred years after its original publication.
---Bonus Material
---Comments on the Claimed Failures of Socialism
First off, there has never been a purely Socialist state in modern times. There has never been a country where production and proceeds have been owned and shared by all inhabitants equally. There has never been a Brotherhood-of-Man, as Jack London would label such a system. Therefore, to hold up Socialism as a failure is to hold up a political system that is indeed a mixture of Capitalism and Socialism, cherry pick the failures, and label them as Socialism. The claim that Socialism leads to failure is erroneous from the initial inception of that claim.
But to carry the argument further, even though Socialism is as erroneously labeled as it is, there are a select number of countries that are held up as examples of the failures of Socialism. Countries such as Brazil, Cuba, the Soviet Union, etc.. These countries are put forth by zealots of Capitalism (erroneously labeled as it is) as proof that Socialism is the all-inclusive word that completely suffices in explaining the failure of these states. Such assertions not only fail to recognize the similarities between the political systems of the failures and the successes but they also stop short at arriving at the true cause of such failures.
The true problem with any form of social organization is greed that leads to corruption. I think if one were to objectively look at every failed societal organization that ever existed, one would find that corruption was the key to its demise, far more so than any political philosophy that those societies were trying to emulate. Greed must be recognized and even harnessed at levels that allow societies to prosper, but controlled to levels that prevent (or weed out) corruption. Greed cannot be eliminated and it certainly cannot be ignored.
The manner in which greed can be regulated and thus, corruption minimized, is to form a government where corruption will not be tolerated. It’s actually not that difficult. Greed is common and it’s easy to understand. People know greed when they see it, but they are tolerant of its presence. A government where checks and balances exist is a necessary component, and placing people in government with high moral standards is also a necessity. In the United States, we have the former, but we recently experimented with avoiding the latter. Let us hope that we have learned from our mistakes.
February 9, 2017
My father loved Jack London. When I was a child, in his library, the little room under the stairs, there were faded copies of 'White Fang' and 'Call of the Wild' that had both seen better days. I wish Dad had got beyond the boy's own adventure output that made London famous; I think it would have helped to explain some things that troubled him throughout his life.
For 'The Iron Heel' is a fine socialist text but it is not just this. Certainly the book influenced George Orwell and a stream of thought that would eventually become 1984. A dystopian novel, a love story, a tale of courage and prescience and sacrifice and failure. The life and work of Ernest Everhard as recounted by his wife, Avis, but presented as history, her words scarred with asterisks that lead to footnotes added seven centuries in the future, in B.O.M. (Brotherhood of Man) time. The historian, Anthony Meredith, adds insight regarding the times in which Ernest and Avis lived but also explains the myriad of generations of change that separate him from them. It is a compelling format that gives the work dimension, adding to the tragedy of Ernest and Avis, that is also that of the masses.
The Iron Heel is a mighty boot that walks on the faces of the workers. It is the power of a small majority, the Oligarchy. It is a representation of the wealth of the few (the 1%?) while, by design, the masses are made to suffer in squalor. The middle classes are destroyed and vast corporations have their fingers in a sumptuous array of pies. Like many dystopian novels, it isn't far removed from the truth. Fascism or societal control or capitalism or whatever you want to call it is identified as something at first discreet, the thing that is spoken of in conspiracy theories and generally disbelieved. Then it is the all-pervading system that loops Man in chains.
For 'The Iron Heel' is a fine socialist text but it is not just this. Certainly the book influenced George Orwell and a stream of thought that would eventually become 1984. A dystopian novel, a love story, a tale of courage and prescience and sacrifice and failure. The life and work of Ernest Everhard as recounted by his wife, Avis, but presented as history, her words scarred with asterisks that lead to footnotes added seven centuries in the future, in B.O.M. (Brotherhood of Man) time. The historian, Anthony Meredith, adds insight regarding the times in which Ernest and Avis lived but also explains the myriad of generations of change that separate him from them. It is a compelling format that gives the work dimension, adding to the tragedy of Ernest and Avis, that is also that of the masses.
The Iron Heel is a mighty boot that walks on the faces of the workers. It is the power of a small majority, the Oligarchy. It is a representation of the wealth of the few (the 1%?) while, by design, the masses are made to suffer in squalor. The middle classes are destroyed and vast corporations have their fingers in a sumptuous array of pies. Like many dystopian novels, it isn't far removed from the truth. Fascism or societal control or capitalism or whatever you want to call it is identified as something at first discreet, the thing that is spoken of in conspiracy theories and generally disbelieved. Then it is the all-pervading system that loops Man in chains.
March 18, 2020
So...apparently Jack London was a witch who could see into the future. A well written and thoughtful book, who's anti capatilist message is really needed in our times of terribleness. But I'll be honest, it was so close to reality I found it a little depressing.
April 14, 2011
The Iron Heel is said to have been a great influence on later dystopian fiction, but London's book is completely lacking the subtlety and skill of Orwell, Huxley, or Burgess. Where the latter authors tell carefully crafted fables, London relies on heavy handed, exhausting, and apparently plagiarized polemics. Although they are almost ideological antonyms, this book is much more akin to Rand's Atlas Shrugged than Orwell's 1984. At least Rand's tome managed to engage the reader before embarking on endless and monotone pontifications. London doesn't bother here. The first hundred pages of this novels are exclusively avenues for London's sermonizing. London also writes about his hero in the same rapturous, heavy breathed way that Rand does, like a thirteen year old girl writing bad Twilight fan fiction.
The Iron Heel is structured as a manuscript written by a soon to be martyred heroine about her recently martyred husband. The 'manuscript' describes events taking place between 1912 and 1932 and is annotated by an editor writing several hundred years in the future. This whole premise is laid out in an introduction by the 'editor,' introducing the reader to a brutal oligarchy which came to power during the events of the book and had been only recently overthrown by a Socialist Brotherhood. I give London credit for creating an innovative and intriguing structure that gives the book a sense of momentum from the start. Unfortunately, London proceeds to squander this momentum by boring the bejesus out of the reader with several polemics. The first one serves to introduce the reader to London's hero, his views, the issues of the day, etc. But then London has his character deliver another one, and another one, and another one. It would be one thing if these speeches and dialogues were compelling or well-crafted. They are not. Instead, they are tedious, unvaried and repetitive. Interspersed with this are 'annotations' provided by the editor of the future, which manage to be both obnoxious and cringe-worthy.
Now, I must be honest. I did not finish this book. I was intrigued by the introduction, but was beginning to be wary by the first chapters. I read several more chapters and quickly found myself ringing the one star alarm. I decided to give it another try the next day, but today my reaction was no better. I read around half of this thing and I was dreading the second half. Looking at the wikipedia summary, apparently London becomes less devoted to speechifying and starts to describe the onset of the oligarchy, the "Iron Heel." The wiki page provides a timeline, and there appears to be quite a bit of actions. But I read half of this thing, and there was absolutely no plot movement. The half I read convinced me that I wasn't missing much by skipping the second half and reading a wikipedia summary. London is hardly a great writer of prose, and I hardly trust him to instill a sense of nuance into his plot. What I expect follows is a dry, heavy handed, and dull recitation of events. I should be clear that I don't hate this book for London's politics.This is the first book since Atlas Shrugged that I've abandoned permanently before completing, but I feel no shame in doing so. The Iron Heel may be an influential work, but it is better remembered for being influential than for its own merits. On it's own merits, it can only be considered a poorly-written piece of polemical propaganda.
The Iron Heel is structured as a manuscript written by a soon to be martyred heroine about her recently martyred husband. The 'manuscript' describes events taking place between 1912 and 1932 and is annotated by an editor writing several hundred years in the future. This whole premise is laid out in an introduction by the 'editor,' introducing the reader to a brutal oligarchy which came to power during the events of the book and had been only recently overthrown by a Socialist Brotherhood. I give London credit for creating an innovative and intriguing structure that gives the book a sense of momentum from the start. Unfortunately, London proceeds to squander this momentum by boring the bejesus out of the reader with several polemics. The first one serves to introduce the reader to London's hero, his views, the issues of the day, etc. But then London has his character deliver another one, and another one, and another one. It would be one thing if these speeches and dialogues were compelling or well-crafted. They are not. Instead, they are tedious, unvaried and repetitive. Interspersed with this are 'annotations' provided by the editor of the future, which manage to be both obnoxious and cringe-worthy.
Now, I must be honest. I did not finish this book. I was intrigued by the introduction, but was beginning to be wary by the first chapters. I read several more chapters and quickly found myself ringing the one star alarm. I decided to give it another try the next day, but today my reaction was no better. I read around half of this thing and I was dreading the second half. Looking at the wikipedia summary, apparently London becomes less devoted to speechifying and starts to describe the onset of the oligarchy, the "Iron Heel." The wiki page provides a timeline, and there appears to be quite a bit of actions. But I read half of this thing, and there was absolutely no plot movement. The half I read convinced me that I wasn't missing much by skipping the second half and reading a wikipedia summary. London is hardly a great writer of prose, and I hardly trust him to instill a sense of nuance into his plot. What I expect follows is a dry, heavy handed, and dull recitation of events. I should be clear that I don't hate this book for London's politics.This is the first book since Atlas Shrugged that I've abandoned permanently before completing, but I feel no shame in doing so. The Iron Heel may be an influential work, but it is better remembered for being influential than for its own merits. On it's own merits, it can only be considered a poorly-written piece of polemical propaganda.
November 11, 2019
It would be going too far to say that it does for capitalism what 1984 does for communusm but it is the closest a book I have read has gone to deserve that claim. Not very typical work of Jack London, the first part of the book introspective rather than full of action and is quite intellectual. The first half in particular sees protagonists breaking the arguments of philooshers, religion and capitalism as he takes away the curtain that hides the ugliness of capitalists from those enjoying their benifits. Except for a few compassionate and bravely honest souls, the capitalists reply by use of power they have gained through money.
While the historian called communism an unnecessary step backwards, the book itself presents is full of criticisms on capitalism. I wonder what kind of society existed in imagined future of London's worldm
While the historian called communism an unnecessary step backwards, the book itself presents is full of criticisms on capitalism. I wonder what kind of society existed in imagined future of London's worldm
December 14, 2008
In the Iron Heel London lays out something right in step with reality, past present and almost certainly the future. Jack London was a guy that had hobnobbed and interacted with the well to do (he was even a member of Bohemian Grove) but he had also seen the hard side of life, working on fishing boats and in various brutal exploitive labor jobs, doing time in jail, etc. So he had an insight that not many people have.
In this work he really lays out through fictional characters how many segments of society that claim to represent the downtrodden are bought and owned by the exploitive "oligarchs", especially the Christian church, the fantasy world of academia, and the crooked labor unions who often sell out the workers. Also your hypocritical well to do armchair liberals who like to pat themselves on the back for any charitable deed, but also (often unwittingly) have blood on their hands and almost always embrace and support the system when they feel their comfortable lifestyle may be threatened or they may have to make a stand.
He also shows how the big Capitalists destroy small and mid level business operators, how they run smear campaigns through the media against anybody within the system that speaks out against them, and the out and out brutality that they use against people that resist them. Its pretty easy to find multitudes of real examples of all these things, whether 100 years ago or in the here and now.
As far as how the revolutionary struggle is portrayed in The Iron Heel there are elements to it that I could see going down if a underground movement to topple the current oligarchs ever occured but there are also elements that I couldn't see working or even happening in a million years. Besides that at this point in time I don't think there are enough people out there with the fighting spirit or intelligence to see how they are being screwed over by the system for any mass movement of resistance. Just so long as people can stuff their face with junk food, watch tv, play video games, take mind control drugs like prozac, etc, the new world order doesn't have much to worry about.
One thing London doesn't do well in The Iron Heel is differentiate between the Oligarch controlled Orwellian branch of international socialism and national, localized or dare I say it, racial socialism, which the later three were much more what London was in tune to, not the globalist type of Fabian Socialism that people like H.G Wells promoted.
In this work he really lays out through fictional characters how many segments of society that claim to represent the downtrodden are bought and owned by the exploitive "oligarchs", especially the Christian church, the fantasy world of academia, and the crooked labor unions who often sell out the workers. Also your hypocritical well to do armchair liberals who like to pat themselves on the back for any charitable deed, but also (often unwittingly) have blood on their hands and almost always embrace and support the system when they feel their comfortable lifestyle may be threatened or they may have to make a stand.
He also shows how the big Capitalists destroy small and mid level business operators, how they run smear campaigns through the media against anybody within the system that speaks out against them, and the out and out brutality that they use against people that resist them. Its pretty easy to find multitudes of real examples of all these things, whether 100 years ago or in the here and now.
As far as how the revolutionary struggle is portrayed in The Iron Heel there are elements to it that I could see going down if a underground movement to topple the current oligarchs ever occured but there are also elements that I couldn't see working or even happening in a million years. Besides that at this point in time I don't think there are enough people out there with the fighting spirit or intelligence to see how they are being screwed over by the system for any mass movement of resistance. Just so long as people can stuff their face with junk food, watch tv, play video games, take mind control drugs like prozac, etc, the new world order doesn't have much to worry about.
One thing London doesn't do well in The Iron Heel is differentiate between the Oligarch controlled Orwellian branch of international socialism and national, localized or dare I say it, racial socialism, which the later three were much more what London was in tune to, not the globalist type of Fabian Socialism that people like H.G Wells promoted.
September 9, 2022
Wow...
Wow....
OK, ok....First off...this is not your regular Jack London stuff, hell I didn't even know he was a socialist till reading this.
This is a dystopian novel, an odd book, supposedly a manuscript dug up around the year 2700, this manuscript chronicles events that take place in the early 20th century as capitalism develops into a sort of oligarchy.
The reader is given footnotes by a historian from 2700 who is trying to explain the strangeness of some of our history to his contemporaries living in an enlightened socialist world. The dialog looks similar to that of people today who would look back at the brutality of the past for what it was, i.e. how most people of today speak about Slavery and are even somewhat confused by the possibility of its former existence.
What I found most striking in this novel were the predictions which London makes about the future of America (and the world) under capitalism. Being written in 1905 he predicts the creation of the FBI, WW1, J Edgar Hoover, Big labor sellouts, and the creation of early socialist states that would not be able to survive and would be forced to revert to capitalism, despite their eventual turning back to socialism with the rest of the world. (ok, so this last part might not have happened yet, but that doesn't mean that it wont, VIVA REVOLUTION)...
One thing he didn't predict (no one is timeless) was the woman's liberation movement....sure he gives woman more important skills then many authors of the time, the 'author' is even a lady, but she is writing about her husband the 'actor', the leader...
So this makes me want to go back and investigate some of Jack London's other work. I just found a quote here on goodreads that is very similar to my favorite Kerouac quote (roman candles exploding quote)...makes me wonder about London's influence on Kerouac...
London's Quote---->"I would rather be ashes than dust! I would rather that my spark should burn out in a brilliant blaze than it should be stifled by dry-rot. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. The function of man is to live, not to exist. I shall not waste my days trying to prolong them. I shall use my time."
Kerouacs Quote ---->"yes, the only people for me, too are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn, like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars..."
Wow....
OK, ok....First off...this is not your regular Jack London stuff, hell I didn't even know he was a socialist till reading this.
This is a dystopian novel, an odd book, supposedly a manuscript dug up around the year 2700, this manuscript chronicles events that take place in the early 20th century as capitalism develops into a sort of oligarchy.
The reader is given footnotes by a historian from 2700 who is trying to explain the strangeness of some of our history to his contemporaries living in an enlightened socialist world. The dialog looks similar to that of people today who would look back at the brutality of the past for what it was, i.e. how most people of today speak about Slavery and are even somewhat confused by the possibility of its former existence.
What I found most striking in this novel were the predictions which London makes about the future of America (and the world) under capitalism. Being written in 1905 he predicts the creation of the FBI, WW1, J Edgar Hoover, Big labor sellouts, and the creation of early socialist states that would not be able to survive and would be forced to revert to capitalism, despite their eventual turning back to socialism with the rest of the world. (ok, so this last part might not have happened yet, but that doesn't mean that it wont, VIVA REVOLUTION)...
One thing he didn't predict (no one is timeless) was the woman's liberation movement....sure he gives woman more important skills then many authors of the time, the 'author' is even a lady, but she is writing about her husband the 'actor', the leader...
So this makes me want to go back and investigate some of Jack London's other work. I just found a quote here on goodreads that is very similar to my favorite Kerouac quote (roman candles exploding quote)...makes me wonder about London's influence on Kerouac...
London's Quote---->"I would rather be ashes than dust! I would rather that my spark should burn out in a brilliant blaze than it should be stifled by dry-rot. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. The function of man is to live, not to exist. I shall not waste my days trying to prolong them. I shall use my time."
Kerouacs Quote ---->"yes, the only people for me, too are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn, like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars..."
February 22, 2017
Eser kadar önsöz'ü de güzel olan eserlerden birisini bitirdim.
İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları'ndan okudum, gerçekten önsöz ve sayfaların altındaki açıklamalar mükemmel, esere bambaşka bir tat katıyor. İşin garibi eser aslında bir bilimkurgu(distopya) ama açıklamalar ile birlikte tarihten bir kesit okuyormuş tadı alıyorsunuz. Hatta 2000'li tarihleri görünce zihnimde gerçek ile distopyanın iç içe girdiği bölümler oldu :)
Eserin konusun kapitalizmin toplum üzerindeki etkisi ve sosyalizm ile savaşı olduğunu bilmeyenleri dövüyorlarmış :)
Tarihsel bir dil ile sevgili London, Avis Everhard 'ın gözünden, sosyalizmin ve onun en önde giden savaşçılarından Avis Everhard'ın eşi olan Ernest Everhard çok güzel anlatmış.
Bazı noktalarda bence gerçek dışı tepkiler vardı(özellikle Ernest konuşurken insanların verdiği tepkiler oldukça hafifti bana göre) ama o kadar kusur kadı kızında da olur diyerek eseri tavsiye ediyorum...
İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları'ndan okudum, gerçekten önsöz ve sayfaların altındaki açıklamalar mükemmel, esere bambaşka bir tat katıyor. İşin garibi eser aslında bir bilimkurgu(distopya) ama açıklamalar ile birlikte tarihten bir kesit okuyormuş tadı alıyorsunuz. Hatta 2000'li tarihleri görünce zihnimde gerçek ile distopyanın iç içe girdiği bölümler oldu :)
Eserin konusun kapitalizmin toplum üzerindeki etkisi ve sosyalizm ile savaşı olduğunu bilmeyenleri dövüyorlarmış :)
Tarihsel bir dil ile sevgili London, Avis Everhard 'ın gözünden, sosyalizmin ve onun en önde giden savaşçılarından Avis Everhard'ın eşi olan Ernest Everhard çok güzel anlatmış.
Bazı noktalarda bence gerçek dışı tepkiler vardı(özellikle Ernest konuşurken insanların verdiği tepkiler oldukça hafifti bana göre) ama o kadar kusur kadı kızında da olur diyerek eseri tavsiye ediyorum...
May 13, 2022
Se cercate una lettura carica di azione e di avvenimenti questo libro non fa per voi.
Se cercate un distopico ansiogeno ambientato in un futuro super tecnologico fatto di intelligenza artificiale e umani quasi perfetti, questo libro non fa per voi.
Se siete però interessati all’universo politico, sociale ed economico del nostro mondo, se volete scoprire di più sulle idee di Jack London, se non lo considerate semplicemente solo come l’autore di Zanna Bianca, ancora erroneamente pensato da una grossa fetta di lettori come un classico libro per ragazzi, se volete leggere in maniera minuziosa il manifesto politico del nostro vivere quotidiano, se tifate per il popolo degli abissi, se fremete di rabbia ogni volta che la notizia di una qualsiasi ingiustizia raggiunge il vostro orecchio, allora si, questa lettura è caldamente raccomandata.
A me resta una consapevolezza: Jack London entra sempre di più nel mio cuore e nel gotha dei miei scrittori preferiti di sempre.
Con questo libro ha saputo emozionarmi tantissimo, più per un mio sentire profondamente personale, che per un intrinseco valore della storia, che davvero è per un buon 85% un manifesto politico rosso, molto rosso.
La distopia si riconosce solo dalle note a margine, contrariamente si può tranquillamente pensare di leggere una storia attuale più che mai.
Resta sospeso in aria il mio stupore riguardo la profezia Londoniana che ha fatto sì che qualche decennio dopo il suo personaggio cartaceo, Ernest Everhard, abbia preso forme e sembianze umane in un modo che nemmeno lo stesso autore avrebbe mai potuto minimamente immaginare.
Ernesto ha letto i libri di London e lo amava molto, probabilmente si è lasciato anche ispirare da quelle pagine. Chiudo con una certezza: Se Jack avesse conosciuto Ernesto lo avrebbe amato alla follia e avrebbe esultato al trionfo della rivoluzione cubana. Anche se Cuba ha rappresentato e continua a rappresentare un enorme grattacapo per il suo paese, gli Stati Uniti.
Qualcuno ci ha provato davvero Jack, ed è riuscito anche a sconfiggerla, la bestia.
✊🏻🇨🇺
Se cercate un distopico ansiogeno ambientato in un futuro super tecnologico fatto di intelligenza artificiale e umani quasi perfetti, questo libro non fa per voi.
Se siete però interessati all’universo politico, sociale ed economico del nostro mondo, se volete scoprire di più sulle idee di Jack London, se non lo considerate semplicemente solo come l’autore di Zanna Bianca, ancora erroneamente pensato da una grossa fetta di lettori come un classico libro per ragazzi, se volete leggere in maniera minuziosa il manifesto politico del nostro vivere quotidiano, se tifate per il popolo degli abissi, se fremete di rabbia ogni volta che la notizia di una qualsiasi ingiustizia raggiunge il vostro orecchio, allora si, questa lettura è caldamente raccomandata.
A me resta una consapevolezza: Jack London entra sempre di più nel mio cuore e nel gotha dei miei scrittori preferiti di sempre.
Con questo libro ha saputo emozionarmi tantissimo, più per un mio sentire profondamente personale, che per un intrinseco valore della storia, che davvero è per un buon 85% un manifesto politico rosso, molto rosso.
La distopia si riconosce solo dalle note a margine, contrariamente si può tranquillamente pensare di leggere una storia attuale più che mai.
Resta sospeso in aria il mio stupore riguardo la profezia Londoniana che ha fatto sì che qualche decennio dopo il suo personaggio cartaceo, Ernest Everhard, abbia preso forme e sembianze umane in un modo che nemmeno lo stesso autore avrebbe mai potuto minimamente immaginare.
Ernesto ha letto i libri di London e lo amava molto, probabilmente si è lasciato anche ispirare da quelle pagine. Chiudo con una certezza: Se Jack avesse conosciuto Ernesto lo avrebbe amato alla follia e avrebbe esultato al trionfo della rivoluzione cubana. Anche se Cuba ha rappresentato e continua a rappresentare un enorme grattacapo per il suo paese, gli Stati Uniti.
Qualcuno ci ha provato davvero Jack, ed è riuscito anche a sconfiggerla, la bestia.
✊🏻🇨🇺
May 14, 2022
Demir Ökçe, bir Kapitalizm sövgüsü ve Sosyalizm yüceltimi olduğu kadar 'distopik roman' türünün de en erken örneği olarak biliniyor. London alışılmış ateşli karakterleri üzerinden Kapitalizm ve Sosyalizme dair yaptığı saptamalarla romana bir karakter verdiği halde kanımca onun yumuşak karnını da meydana getiriyor.
19. yy. sonları, 20. yy. başları gibi insanın maksimum çıktı-minimum girdi ilkesine tabi tutularak bir 'makina' olarak görüldüğü, yani kâr maksimizasyonuna ulaşma adına terinin son damlasına kadar sömürüldüğü, en önemlisi bu durumun bir ahlaki ve sistematik çerçeveye oturtulmaya başlandığı zamanlarda bu romanın kaleme alındığını göz önüne almak gerekiyor. London, bugün belki sadece kabuğunu gördüğümüz Kapitalizmin iç yüzünü en primitif yönüyle göstermekle kalmıyor, onun ileriki zamanlarda nasıl evrileceğini de ürkütücü bir kesinlikle saptıyor.
Örneğin, önce serbest piyasa ile küçük bir azınlığın nasıl temel kaynakların çoğunu denetim altına alacağını ve Oligarşiyi (Demir Ökçe) meydana getireceğini, sonra Oligarşinin para, makam ve gerekirse tehdit gibi yöntemlerle yargı, yasama, medya, ordu ve kiliseyi nasıl tarafına çekeceğini, akabinde sistemi tehdit eden unsurlara karşı santaj, tehdit, provokasyon aygıtlarını nasıl devreye sokarak sonunda faşizme evrileceğini açıklıyor. Ayrıca yine üretilen üretim fazlasının toplumun alt tabakalarına dağıtılması yerine Oligarşinin 'yeni pazar arayışlarının' (yeni sömürgeler) sebebi olacağından, böylece ülkeler arası pazar savaşlarının patlak vereceğinden bahsediyor. Kısaca 20. yy.'a baktığımızda London'ın eserdeki kapitalist sisteme ait kehanetlerinin çoğunun gerçekleştiğini görebiliyoruz.
Ne var ki London'ın Sosyalizme pirüpak bir nitelik atfetmesi romanın zayıf yanını oluşturuyor. London, yarattığı karizmatik sosyalist Ernest Everhard'ın ağzından başta dile getirdiği 'ortalama insanın bencil olduğu' gerçeğinin devrim gerçekleştiğinde değişmeyeceğinden bahsetmiyor ve kendisiyle çelişiyor. Yani geçtiğimiz asırda gördüğümüz gibi Sosyalizmin de insan bencilliğine tabi olduğunu, onun kendi Oligarşisini ve tiranlığını yaratabileceğini, güçsüzü elimine edebileceğini göremiyor. Hakikaten romanda Devrim uğruna' yem edilen 'uçurum insanları' denen düşkün halk kitlelerinin trajedisini ve bu binlerce canın devrimcilerin bir aygıtı olarak ölüme gidişini görüyoruz. Belki de Ernest'in (London'ın) bilimsel çizgiyi esas aldığını iddia ettiği davasına adeta iman etmiş olması bu gerçeği görmesine engel oluyor. Zira, karısı Avis'in ağzından da bu itirafı duyuyoruz:
"Devrim, bir tür din haline gelmişti. Özgürlüğün mabedi olan Devrim tapınağına tapınıyorduk. İlahi bir esin yaşıyorduk. ..yeni doğan bebeklerin eskiden Tanrı'ya adanması gibi onları şimdi de Dava'ya adıyorduk."
Kitabın başlarında Ernest'i diğer karakterleriyle tartıştıran London, onları metafizikçilikle suçlarken farketmeden kendisini en az onlar kadar bağnaz bir noktada buluveriyor. London'ın bu coşkulu ve duygusal olduğu kadar çelişkili inancına paralel olarak romanını bir Distopya değil, aksine bir Ütopyanın üzerine bina ettiğini de farkediyoruz. Zira London, bir anlatıcı karakter üzerinden bize yedi asır önceki olayları aktarırken aslında Devrimin artık gerçekleştiği ve 'her şeyin mükemmel' olduğu bir zamandan sesleniyor. Mesela 'sahte', 'blöf' gibi olumsuz kavramların dahi artık mevcut olmadığını, bunların ne anlama geldiğini anlatıcının dipnotlarından öğreniyoruz.
19. yy. sonları, 20. yy. başları gibi insanın maksimum çıktı-minimum girdi ilkesine tabi tutularak bir 'makina' olarak görüldüğü, yani kâr maksimizasyonuna ulaşma adına terinin son damlasına kadar sömürüldüğü, en önemlisi bu durumun bir ahlaki ve sistematik çerçeveye oturtulmaya başlandığı zamanlarda bu romanın kaleme alındığını göz önüne almak gerekiyor. London, bugün belki sadece kabuğunu gördüğümüz Kapitalizmin iç yüzünü en primitif yönüyle göstermekle kalmıyor, onun ileriki zamanlarda nasıl evrileceğini de ürkütücü bir kesinlikle saptıyor.
Örneğin, önce serbest piyasa ile küçük bir azınlığın nasıl temel kaynakların çoğunu denetim altına alacağını ve Oligarşiyi (Demir Ökçe) meydana getireceğini, sonra Oligarşinin para, makam ve gerekirse tehdit gibi yöntemlerle yargı, yasama, medya, ordu ve kiliseyi nasıl tarafına çekeceğini, akabinde sistemi tehdit eden unsurlara karşı santaj, tehdit, provokasyon aygıtlarını nasıl devreye sokarak sonunda faşizme evrileceğini açıklıyor. Ayrıca yine üretilen üretim fazlasının toplumun alt tabakalarına dağıtılması yerine Oligarşinin 'yeni pazar arayışlarının' (yeni sömürgeler) sebebi olacağından, böylece ülkeler arası pazar savaşlarının patlak vereceğinden bahsediyor. Kısaca 20. yy.'a baktığımızda London'ın eserdeki kapitalist sisteme ait kehanetlerinin çoğunun gerçekleştiğini görebiliyoruz.
Ne var ki London'ın Sosyalizme pirüpak bir nitelik atfetmesi romanın zayıf yanını oluşturuyor. London, yarattığı karizmatik sosyalist Ernest Everhard'ın ağzından başta dile getirdiği 'ortalama insanın bencil olduğu' gerçeğinin devrim gerçekleştiğinde değişmeyeceğinden bahsetmiyor ve kendisiyle çelişiyor. Yani geçtiğimiz asırda gördüğümüz gibi Sosyalizmin de insan bencilliğine tabi olduğunu, onun kendi Oligarşisini ve tiranlığını yaratabileceğini, güçsüzü elimine edebileceğini göremiyor. Hakikaten romanda Devrim uğruna' yem edilen 'uçurum insanları' denen düşkün halk kitlelerinin trajedisini ve bu binlerce canın devrimcilerin bir aygıtı olarak ölüme gidişini görüyoruz. Belki de Ernest'in (London'ın) bilimsel çizgiyi esas aldığını iddia ettiği davasına adeta iman etmiş olması bu gerçeği görmesine engel oluyor. Zira, karısı Avis'in ağzından da bu itirafı duyuyoruz:
"Devrim, bir tür din haline gelmişti. Özgürlüğün mabedi olan Devrim tapınağına tapınıyorduk. İlahi bir esin yaşıyorduk. ..yeni doğan bebeklerin eskiden Tanrı'ya adanması gibi onları şimdi de Dava'ya adıyorduk."
Kitabın başlarında Ernest'i diğer karakterleriyle tartıştıran London, onları metafizikçilikle suçlarken farketmeden kendisini en az onlar kadar bağnaz bir noktada buluveriyor. London'ın bu coşkulu ve duygusal olduğu kadar çelişkili inancına paralel olarak romanını bir Distopya değil, aksine bir Ütopyanın üzerine bina ettiğini de farkediyoruz. Zira London, bir anlatıcı karakter üzerinden bize yedi asır önceki olayları aktarırken aslında Devrimin artık gerçekleştiği ve 'her şeyin mükemmel' olduğu bir zamandan sesleniyor. Mesela 'sahte', 'blöf' gibi olumsuz kavramların dahi artık mevcut olmadığını, bunların ne anlama geldiğini anlatıcının dipnotlarından öğreniyoruz.
December 29, 2017
This book illustrates that just because you like some of a writers work it doesn't mean you'll like it all.
What we have here is an attempt at selling an ideology inside a sort of doomed romance story...and take that as I wrote it. Not only is the romance doomed, so is the story. Any story in this volume (which I skimmed as an attempt to read London's tortured attempt to make universal socialism logical is painful at best) Any story in this book (and there isn't much) is completely overwhelmed by London's preachy attempt to sell us on Marxist style socialism. He sees it as a noble struggle that will be attacked by the (by now familiar) evil capitalist industrial complex. Oddly in truth, socialism has come so far that it could be argued that shoes are on exactly the opposite feet than those London (and of course others picture).
It never fails to amaze me when people use the freedoms guaranteed by our form of government to espouse a form of government that would deny them that freedom. London, a writer of the outdoors and wildlife was an outspoken socialist. A lot of it had to do with some of the failings in his own life though while he was trying to run a 1,000 acre ranch where he built an $80,000 mansion, it was destroyed by fire before he could move in.
This book is (in my opinion) London's poorest work and is purely an attempt at political propaganda. It is I suppose from it's point of view a science fiction or fantasy as it's fictional pre-history...for us it sort of alternate history though it's supposed to be from the point of view of around 2600 AD (or 419 BOM, Brotherhood Of Man). The attempt at Avis's and Ernest's love story is a failure and in my case never touched my interest.
Look, I don't care for the book, if you do that's fine. I suspect that those who do like it will because it espouses a point of view they like and want to see espoused, not because of it's story or the writing. London is capable of fine writing and I like some of his work. This book however puts me in mind of one of my favorite quotes: "A Communist is someone who has read Marx...an Anti-communist is someone who understands Marx."
Sadly one star.
What we have here is an attempt at selling an ideology inside a sort of doomed romance story...and take that as I wrote it. Not only is the romance doomed, so is the story. Any story in this volume (which I skimmed as an attempt to read London's tortured attempt to make universal socialism logical is painful at best) Any story in this book (and there isn't much) is completely overwhelmed by London's preachy attempt to sell us on Marxist style socialism. He sees it as a noble struggle that will be attacked by the (by now familiar) evil capitalist industrial complex. Oddly in truth, socialism has come so far that it could be argued that shoes are on exactly the opposite feet than those London (and of course others picture).
It never fails to amaze me when people use the freedoms guaranteed by our form of government to espouse a form of government that would deny them that freedom. London, a writer of the outdoors and wildlife was an outspoken socialist. A lot of it had to do with some of the failings in his own life though while he was trying to run a 1,000 acre ranch where he built an $80,000 mansion, it was destroyed by fire before he could move in.
This book is (in my opinion) London's poorest work and is purely an attempt at political propaganda. It is I suppose from it's point of view a science fiction or fantasy as it's fictional pre-history...for us it sort of alternate history though it's supposed to be from the point of view of around 2600 AD (or 419 BOM, Brotherhood Of Man). The attempt at Avis's and Ernest's love story is a failure and in my case never touched my interest.
Look, I don't care for the book, if you do that's fine. I suspect that those who do like it will because it espouses a point of view they like and want to see espoused, not because of it's story or the writing. London is capable of fine writing and I like some of his work. This book however puts me in mind of one of my favorite quotes: "A Communist is someone who has read Marx...an Anti-communist is someone who understands Marx."
Sadly one star.
November 29, 2016
'The Iron Heel' is an interestingly inconsistent book, not so much in ideology as in style. It is presented as a hagiography of an unsuccessful revolutionary, written by his wife. The first few chapters include her slightly tiresome habit of breathlessly praising everything he does or says. The account becomes more compelling when the wife herself becomes an active revolutionary and is separated from her husband. At this point, though, events very violent and the book culminates in the horrible bloodbath of an unsuccessful uprising against the titular 'Iron Heel'. The narrator's voice is also significant, however, when she actually comes into contact with the proletariat that the revolution claims to serve. The revolutionaries themselves seem mostly bourgeois and Avis (whose name I love, incidentally) sometimes comes off as patronising and condescending.
Given that this book was first published in 1908, I can see why it was so influential. I was particularly struck by the role of women as revolutionaries in situations of extreme peril, which called to mind resistance fighters during the Second World War. I also noted the account of a war between the US and Germany being halted by a general strike. I have read elsewhere ('Children of the Revolution' by Robert Gildea) that on the eve of the First World War simultaneous general strikes were planned in France and Germany with the aim of preventing war. These did not succeed due apparently to chance circumstances, such as the untimely death of a lead organiser. It makes you wonder whether the world would be different if they had.
Jack London's vision of the future seems overly aggressive and simplistic to my eyes, but nonetheless still strikes a chord. His descriptions of the plutocracy/oligarchy look astonishingly similar to the 1%, as we term them today. The ways in which politicians and the media serve the dominant economic ideology seem scarcely to have changed in over a century. However, London's apparent message that violent conflict is the only possible way forward seems depressing. Moreover, current experience of the Arab Spring appears to suggest that sudden violent uprising can result in ongoing destructive civil war. Perhaps reading this book a hundred years after it was written, knowing about the horror of the world wars, short-term violence to achieve a long term utopia no longer seems acceptable. Quite apart from the fact that the term socialism has been tainted by the totalitarian regimes that used that label. I wonder if Jack London would appreciate the irony that possibly the most effective, thriving oligarchic regime in the world still proclaims itself to the be socialist. (I refer of course to China.) This book has relatively little to say about countries outside the US and Europe; the references to Japan seem overtly racist now.
I think 'The Iron Heel' is definitely still worth reading today, apart from anything else to marvel at how little macroeconomics has moved on. I didn't take from it an incitement to revolution so much as a chilling illustration of how a movement seeking to defeat a foe can end up becoming just as bad. At one point Avis comments that followers of the Iron Heel and of the revolution both treat their ideology as a religion, using it to justify torture and killing. This is a very important point, which begs the question, how does one get from the wretched situation described by Avis to the stable utopia stated to be in place hundreds of years later? Unfortunately that is not a question which the book can answer.
Given that this book was first published in 1908, I can see why it was so influential. I was particularly struck by the role of women as revolutionaries in situations of extreme peril, which called to mind resistance fighters during the Second World War. I also noted the account of a war between the US and Germany being halted by a general strike. I have read elsewhere ('Children of the Revolution' by Robert Gildea) that on the eve of the First World War simultaneous general strikes were planned in France and Germany with the aim of preventing war. These did not succeed due apparently to chance circumstances, such as the untimely death of a lead organiser. It makes you wonder whether the world would be different if they had.
Jack London's vision of the future seems overly aggressive and simplistic to my eyes, but nonetheless still strikes a chord. His descriptions of the plutocracy/oligarchy look astonishingly similar to the 1%, as we term them today. The ways in which politicians and the media serve the dominant economic ideology seem scarcely to have changed in over a century. However, London's apparent message that violent conflict is the only possible way forward seems depressing. Moreover, current experience of the Arab Spring appears to suggest that sudden violent uprising can result in ongoing destructive civil war. Perhaps reading this book a hundred years after it was written, knowing about the horror of the world wars, short-term violence to achieve a long term utopia no longer seems acceptable. Quite apart from the fact that the term socialism has been tainted by the totalitarian regimes that used that label. I wonder if Jack London would appreciate the irony that possibly the most effective, thriving oligarchic regime in the world still proclaims itself to the be socialist. (I refer of course to China.) This book has relatively little to say about countries outside the US and Europe; the references to Japan seem overtly racist now.
I think 'The Iron Heel' is definitely still worth reading today, apart from anything else to marvel at how little macroeconomics has moved on. I didn't take from it an incitement to revolution so much as a chilling illustration of how a movement seeking to defeat a foe can end up becoming just as bad. At one point Avis comments that followers of the Iron Heel and of the revolution both treat their ideology as a religion, using it to justify torture and killing. This is a very important point, which begs the question, how does one get from the wretched situation described by Avis to the stable utopia stated to be in place hundreds of years later? Unfortunately that is not a question which the book can answer.
August 4, 2017
[Prima e dopo la Rivoluzione]
Ci sono talmente tante cose da dire su questo libro che non saprei nemmeno da dove cominciare.
Mi metterò a fare un commento autobiografico come sono quasi sempre solito fare, ché tanto il buon Jack non se la prenderà, visto che la sua opera, come quella di tanti altri grandi autori, è in buonissima parte autobiografica; e ne aveva ben donde, sia chiaro: non raccontare una vita come la sua sarebbe stato un affronto alla vita stessa.
Ma veniamo al “Tallone di Ferro”, anzi a “The Iron Heel”, che ho letto in inglese e dunque un po' devo vantarmene. Ci ho messo più del normale a finirlo e per lo stesso motivo credo di aver impiegato un tempo ancor maggiore per rielaborarlo; non tanto perché ho avuto modo di apprezzare in tutto il suo splendore la mitica prosa londoniana, che ho amato in traduzione e quindi figuriamoci se non l'ho adorata in lingua madre, maremma cane, quanto perché l'ho trovato un romanzo assai denso e stratificato; soprattutto, significativo all’interno del corpus dello scrittore americano, nonché importante tassello per il filone distopico-politico, se proprio vogliamo piazzarlo lì, come eccellente antesignano della social sci-fi.
Per mezzo dell'espediente del manoscritto ritrovato - in questo caso in un futuro abbastanza lontano -, classicissimo ma che qui calza alla perfezione, come il cacio con le pere, leggiamo il diario di Avis, ragazza di famiglia benestante che s’innamora del rivoluzionario socialista Ernest, lavoratore e uomo della strada ma anche filosofo, persona istruita e dalla singolare eloquenza.
L’effetto che l’uomo ha su di lei è un po’ lo stesso che Martin Eden ha sulla borghesissima Ruth, solo che qui il punto di vista è quello della donna, anzi è proprio lei la narratrice, mentre nel capolavoro di London il narratore esterno faceva il bello e il cattivo tempo. Inoltre, qui sarà lei a protendersi verso la sua sfera, non viceversa.
Ernest, assieme a lei vero protagonista del racconto, è infatti un vero trascinatore, per il quale la ragazza lascerà la sua condizione agiata, come farà prima di lei il padre, perseguito per le sue posizioni politiche.
Avis sposerà Ernest, e con lui abbraccerà la causa socialista, che porterà in breve alla Rivoluzione.
È chiaro che il riferimento principe di London sia il nascente Partito Socialista statunitense, esperienza alla quale prese parte.
Non mi competono qui discorsi sullo schieramento politico dell’autore, abbastanza evidente sia a una lettura rapida della sua vicenda personale sia a una conoscenza anche parziale dei suoi libri: m’interessa più che altro rimarcare quanto il suo sguardo e la finzione letteraria lo abbiano portato lontano.
Il romanzo è del 1908, la Rivoluzione d’ottobre è del 1917: basti questo dato per spiegare quanto ci abbia visto lungo col Tallone. Ma non è solo questo, sono gli esiti e il rovesciamento della Rivoluzione stessa qui descritti a essere a loro modo stupefacenti, e non solo funzionali da un punto di vista narrativo.
Il trionfo della Plutocrazia proietta The Iron Heel nell’empireo della narrativa fantapolitica, e nel contempo designa Jack London quale autentico visionario, fine conoscitore dei meccanismi bassi ed alti delle dinamiche socio-politico-culturali, nonché, cosa non secondaria, abile indagatore dell’animo umano.
Cosa vuol dire dunque l’autore di Zanna Bianca al lettore?
Signori miei... no, meglio di no.
Ragazzi, state attenti ché le rivoluzioni son cosa buona e giusta, ebbene sì, ma bisogna maneggiarle con cura, specie quando le cose si fanno complicate, ché è lì che il tallone di ferro comincia a giocar duro, per la madonna.
E l’essere umano non è poi tutto ‘sto granché: non sono tutti degli Ernest Everhard, eh; non esistono solo il bianco e il nero, c’è anche il grigio.
Ci sarebbe pure il rosso che, va be’, stringi stringi in questo mondo di ladri e in questo mondo di eroi il rosso non lo vuole nessuno, e quando arriva c’è sempre uno che se ne approfitta e butta tutto all'aria.
Poi ecco, c’è chi preferisce il nero, il quale ciclicamente si ripropone; la puzza di merda si fa pesa e tetra, quindi c’è da tapparsi il naso e votarsi all’azzurrino tenue tenue, che sta un po’ di qua ma pure di là: ci attacchiamo al ca... al grigio, diciamo così!
Ma basta così, mi sto infrenando.
Leggetelo: è bello.
Ci sono talmente tante cose da dire su questo libro che non saprei nemmeno da dove cominciare.
Mi metterò a fare un commento autobiografico come sono quasi sempre solito fare, ché tanto il buon Jack non se la prenderà, visto che la sua opera, come quella di tanti altri grandi autori, è in buonissima parte autobiografica; e ne aveva ben donde, sia chiaro: non raccontare una vita come la sua sarebbe stato un affronto alla vita stessa.
Ma veniamo al “Tallone di Ferro”, anzi a “The Iron Heel”, che ho letto in inglese e dunque un po' devo vantarmene. Ci ho messo più del normale a finirlo e per lo stesso motivo credo di aver impiegato un tempo ancor maggiore per rielaborarlo; non tanto perché ho avuto modo di apprezzare in tutto il suo splendore la mitica prosa londoniana, che ho amato in traduzione e quindi figuriamoci se non l'ho adorata in lingua madre, maremma cane, quanto perché l'ho trovato un romanzo assai denso e stratificato; soprattutto, significativo all’interno del corpus dello scrittore americano, nonché importante tassello per il filone distopico-politico, se proprio vogliamo piazzarlo lì, come eccellente antesignano della social sci-fi.
Per mezzo dell'espediente del manoscritto ritrovato - in questo caso in un futuro abbastanza lontano -, classicissimo ma che qui calza alla perfezione, come il cacio con le pere, leggiamo il diario di Avis, ragazza di famiglia benestante che s’innamora del rivoluzionario socialista Ernest, lavoratore e uomo della strada ma anche filosofo, persona istruita e dalla singolare eloquenza.
L’effetto che l’uomo ha su di lei è un po’ lo stesso che Martin Eden ha sulla borghesissima Ruth, solo che qui il punto di vista è quello della donna, anzi è proprio lei la narratrice, mentre nel capolavoro di London il narratore esterno faceva il bello e il cattivo tempo. Inoltre, qui sarà lei a protendersi verso la sua sfera, non viceversa.
Ernest, assieme a lei vero protagonista del racconto, è infatti un vero trascinatore, per il quale la ragazza lascerà la sua condizione agiata, come farà prima di lei il padre, perseguito per le sue posizioni politiche.
Avis sposerà Ernest, e con lui abbraccerà la causa socialista, che porterà in breve alla Rivoluzione.
È chiaro che il riferimento principe di London sia il nascente Partito Socialista statunitense, esperienza alla quale prese parte.
Non mi competono qui discorsi sullo schieramento politico dell’autore, abbastanza evidente sia a una lettura rapida della sua vicenda personale sia a una conoscenza anche parziale dei suoi libri: m’interessa più che altro rimarcare quanto il suo sguardo e la finzione letteraria lo abbiano portato lontano.
Il romanzo è del 1908, la Rivoluzione d’ottobre è del 1917: basti questo dato per spiegare quanto ci abbia visto lungo col Tallone. Ma non è solo questo, sono gli esiti e il rovesciamento della Rivoluzione stessa qui descritti a essere a loro modo stupefacenti, e non solo funzionali da un punto di vista narrativo.
Il trionfo della Plutocrazia proietta The Iron Heel nell’empireo della narrativa fantapolitica, e nel contempo designa Jack London quale autentico visionario, fine conoscitore dei meccanismi bassi ed alti delle dinamiche socio-politico-culturali, nonché, cosa non secondaria, abile indagatore dell’animo umano.
Cosa vuol dire dunque l’autore di Zanna Bianca al lettore?
Signori miei... no, meglio di no.
Ragazzi, state attenti ché le rivoluzioni son cosa buona e giusta, ebbene sì, ma bisogna maneggiarle con cura, specie quando le cose si fanno complicate, ché è lì che il tallone di ferro comincia a giocar duro, per la madonna.
E l’essere umano non è poi tutto ‘sto granché: non sono tutti degli Ernest Everhard, eh; non esistono solo il bianco e il nero, c’è anche il grigio.
Ci sarebbe pure il rosso che, va be’, stringi stringi in questo mondo di ladri e in questo mondo di eroi il rosso non lo vuole nessuno, e quando arriva c’è sempre uno che se ne approfitta e butta tutto all'aria.
Poi ecco, c’è chi preferisce il nero, il quale ciclicamente si ripropone; la puzza di merda si fa pesa e tetra, quindi c’è da tapparsi il naso e votarsi all’azzurrino tenue tenue, che sta un po’ di qua ma pure di là: ci attacchiamo al ca... al grigio, diciamo così!
Ma basta così, mi sto infrenando.
Leggetelo: è bello.
May 20, 2018
“En cesur, en vuruşkan ve fedakâr arkadaşlarımız savaş bölüklerimize giriyorlardı; on yıl sonra Ernest, savaş bölükleri şeflerinin ona vermiş oldukları istatistiklere dayanarak hesap etti ki, savaş bölüklerine giren bir erkek veya kadının ortalama ömrü beş yıldan fazla sürmüyor. Bütün savaş bölüklerindeki arkadaşlar kahramanlardan ibaretti ve garibi şudur ki, hepsi öldürmeye karşıydı. Tabiatlarına aykırı hareket ediyorlardı, fakat hürriyeti pek seviyorlardı ve bu hürriyet uğruna hiçbir kurbanı çoğumsamıyorlardı.”(s.176)
March 5, 2018
It’s like reading a left-wing Ayn Rand and in no way is that a good thing. As much as I take issue with London’s politics, I’m even more disappointed with the poor writing. I love Martin Eden and I enjoy his adventure stories, but this is truly terrible. Wooden characters, ridiculous dialogue, a terrible plot... this is one of only three books that I hurled across the room after I finished reading because I was so disgusted. I’m baffled that it has any good reviews. Every second spent reading this was a waste of my life.
May 19, 2023
In our world’s american timeline, 5 conglomerates known as the Trusts controlled almost every facet of that country during the early years of the 20th century.
These monopolies were eventually broken up due to a series of narrow and unlikely events including the assassination of a US president and a 5 to 4 vote in the supreme court.
I’m currently watching ‘Teddy Roosevelt the Trustbuster’ on youtube’s (speaking of monopolies ;) ) Extra History channel to learn more.
In any case this work is a dystopia in which the Oligarchy behind the Trusts comes to power. Our heroes are actually socialists but don’t worry if your not a fan of that political ideology as they never get to do literally anything with their beliefs due to.. you know.. the dystopia nightmare they’re living in.
Structure-wise this tale is a manuscript found and edited several hundred years in the future in some sort of socialist utopia. However since we learn absolutely nothing about what that future looks like it could be anything from 1984 to Star-Trek TNG.
This is not particularly well written, being in the usual dry 19th century style of many utopian books of the period, at least for the first 2/3’s. The last sections are more action oriented and exciting.
There are also many footnotes by the future editor and while these mostly critique supposedly historical inaccuracies in the manuscript rather than the style.. it still to me helped mitigate some of the poor prose by almost making it feel like it was being done on purpose.
Anyway there are so many interesting facets to this one from its descriptions of the spy vs spy cold war sort of espionage to the brutality of street-fighting, to the somewhat suspect views expressed near the end by the main character, towards the proletariat they are supposedly fighting for.
This is also one of the only dystopias i’ve seen which comes about through entirely democratic methods. While also having more in common with the Hand-Maids Tale than say We or 1984, specifically in that society here goes from what was considered normal at the start of the 20th century to full on dystopia in a matter of years.
In closing, i outlined this review dozens of times in my head and everytime it descended into some socio-political diatribe better suited to a college bar than this type of forum, suffice to say that this one gave me a LOT to think about (most of which i’d have rather not thought about).
Not well written but certainly worth a look.
Made available by the Merril Collection. However i don’t recommend that version as it isn’t compressed like their other E-Books, luckily this is also available on gutenberg.
These monopolies were eventually broken up due to a series of narrow and unlikely events including the assassination of a US president and a 5 to 4 vote in the supreme court.
I’m currently watching ‘Teddy Roosevelt the Trustbuster’ on youtube’s (speaking of monopolies ;) ) Extra History channel to learn more.
In any case this work is a dystopia in which the Oligarchy behind the Trusts comes to power. Our heroes are actually socialists but don’t worry if your not a fan of that political ideology as they never get to do literally anything with their beliefs due to.. you know.. the dystopia nightmare they’re living in.
Structure-wise this tale is a manuscript found and edited several hundred years in the future in some sort of socialist utopia. However since we learn absolutely nothing about what that future looks like it could be anything from 1984 to Star-Trek TNG.
This is not particularly well written, being in the usual dry 19th century style of many utopian books of the period, at least for the first 2/3’s. The last sections are more action oriented and exciting.
There are also many footnotes by the future editor and while these mostly critique supposedly historical inaccuracies in the manuscript rather than the style.. it still to me helped mitigate some of the poor prose by almost making it feel like it was being done on purpose.
Anyway there are so many interesting facets to this one from its descriptions of the spy vs spy cold war sort of espionage to the brutality of street-fighting, to the somewhat suspect views expressed near the end by the main character, towards the proletariat they are supposedly fighting for.
This is also one of the only dystopias i’ve seen which comes about through entirely democratic methods. While also having more in common with the Hand-Maids Tale than say We or 1984, specifically in that society here goes from what was considered normal at the start of the 20th century to full on dystopia in a matter of years.
In closing, i outlined this review dozens of times in my head and everytime it descended into some socio-political diatribe better suited to a college bar than this type of forum, suffice to say that this one gave me a LOT to think about (most of which i’d have rather not thought about).
Not well written but certainly worth a look.
Made available by the Merril Collection. However i don’t recommend that version as it isn’t compressed like their other E-Books, luckily this is also available on gutenberg.
October 5, 2021
Līdz šim likās, ka briesmīgākais un nebaudāmākais komunismu slavinošs soods, ko esmu lasījis, ir Viļa Lāča "Uz jauno krastu". Izrādās, ka var būt vēl sliktāk. Mani pat māc šaubas, ka šis tulkojums ir tīrs Londons, jo, lai kādu mēslu tu raksti, tomēr ir kāda kvalitātes latiņa, par kuru zemāk īsts meistars diezin vai tīri tehniski spēj nolaisties. Kaut vai tas pats Lācis, un Londons, manuprāt, nav sliktāks. Šeit pirmās 2/3 ir kā slikta padomju laika avīze, kur tiek atgremoti padomju laiku propagandas murgi par to, kā sliktie kapitālisti cenšas nīdēt proletariātu (Jo galvenais jau kapitālistam nav peļņa, bet gan, lai viņa vergs dzīvotu pusbadā, slimotu un nespētu nest viņam peļņu ar savu darbu. Aha, kā tad.). Nenoliedzami, strādnieku darba un dzīves apstākļi daudz kur tajā laikā bija zem katras kritikas, un Londons noteikti par to runāja, bet nu tas tulkojuma stils a la "Cīņas" pirmās lappuses raksti... Tas nav īlens no maisa, tas ir baļķis no avosjkas, tik ļoti redzama tulkotāju/redaktoru āža kāja. Šis bija jālasa oriģinālā, lai varētu spriest simtprocentīgi droši, tā ka patiesībā es šoreiz grēkoju. (Taisnību sakot, arī liela daļa angļu valodā runājošie saka, ka tas ir sliktākais Londona darbs, tiesa gan - nevar īsti zināt, vai tikai pausto ideju dēļ, vai tomēr tāpēc, ka tas romāns ir vēl sliktāks, nekā es pats sev mēģinu iestāstīt).
April 19, 2021
Kötü bir çeviriyle okuduğum için üzgünüm. Başka bir zaman, daha iyi bir çeviriyle tekrar buluşacağız Demir Ökçe ile.
October 13, 2016
Bir devrim kitabı.
Devrim for beginners ya da Devrim for nondevrimers diyebiliriz.
Tabi devrim için gerekli olan tek şey, distopya.
Gerçek dünyada devrim gerçekleşemeyeceğine gore, London gitmiş bir distopya yaratmış ve devrimini orada gerçekleştirmiş.
Kitabı sevgili Avis Everhead 'in ağzından dinliyoruz. Avis, Ernest'in eşi.
Ernest ise Amerika'da ki önemli solculardan, devrimcilerden. Avis bize kocasını ve yaşadıklarını anlatıyor.
Avis, Ernest 'le tanışmadan once dünyadan habersiz bir aristocrat kızıydı. Yıl o zamanlar 1900'lerin başı.
Dünya da sanayi devrimi gerçekleşmiş, makineler her yerde. Çok fazla işsiz var ve üstelik işsiz olmak nerdeyse işli olmakla aynı, çünkü iş bulabilecek kadar şanslı(!) olanlar da diğerleri gibi sürünüyor. Açlıktan ölmeseler bile makinaların arasında ölüyorlar. (Fakirler ölsün Porsche'den selamlar:))Ernest ise bu duruma tüm gücüyle baş kaldıranlardan.
Önüne gelen herkese tek tek, tane tane durumun vahametini anlatyor ve bu yolla devrime çok fazla insan kazandırıyor. Tabi arada Avis'i de böylece tavlamış oluyor.:)
Şimdi bu noktada London bize biraz "kapitalizmden" bahsediyor. (Anamalcılık) Şöyle;
İş veren ortaya para koyar, işçi ise emeğini. Şirket kurulur ve çalışır. Böylece bir birikim oluşmaya başlar. Oluşan bu birikimin yarısını emekçi alır, kalan yarısını ise işveren.(Yarı yarıya değildir ya aslında hadi öyle olsun diyelim.)
Emekçi kazandığı bu parayı hemen harcar. Zira hayatını başka şekilde idame ettiremez.
Ancak işveren bu parayı harcamaz. İstesede harcayamaz. Napacak o kadar parayı? Oturup yemesi mümkün değil. Gidicek başkalarına borç verecek. sonra kazandıkça başkalarına borç verecek. Sonra da başkalarına. Ortada çok fazla para var ve bu para başkalarını köleleştirmek için kullanılıyor. Üstelik biraz para kazanan hemen tekelleşiyor ve ilk iş olarak sektörün küçük balıklarını yok etmeye başlıyor. Bu gidişe bir dur demek lazım.
Kitabın son bölümünde ise tüm dünya karışıyor. Başta Chicago olmak üzere müthiş bir devrim kopuyor. Bütün dünyada işçi ayaklanmaları başlıyor. Bir dünya savaşı bu. Ama iç savaş. Irk, millet yok. Oligarklar ve işçiler var.
Binlerce insan ölüyor. Ortalık kan gölüne dönüyor.
Kim kazanıyor?
Kitap okumak lazım.
Devrim for beginners ya da Devrim for nondevrimers diyebiliriz.
Tabi devrim için gerekli olan tek şey, distopya.
Gerçek dünyada devrim gerçekleşemeyeceğine gore, London gitmiş bir distopya yaratmış ve devrimini orada gerçekleştirmiş.
Kitabı sevgili Avis Everhead 'in ağzından dinliyoruz. Avis, Ernest'in eşi.
Ernest ise Amerika'da ki önemli solculardan, devrimcilerden. Avis bize kocasını ve yaşadıklarını anlatıyor.
Avis, Ernest 'le tanışmadan once dünyadan habersiz bir aristocrat kızıydı. Yıl o zamanlar 1900'lerin başı.
Dünya da sanayi devrimi gerçekleşmiş, makineler her yerde. Çok fazla işsiz var ve üstelik işsiz olmak nerdeyse işli olmakla aynı, çünkü iş bulabilecek kadar şanslı(!) olanlar da diğerleri gibi sürünüyor. Açlıktan ölmeseler bile makinaların arasında ölüyorlar. (Fakirler ölsün Porsche'den selamlar:))Ernest ise bu duruma tüm gücüyle baş kaldıranlardan.
Önüne gelen herkese tek tek, tane tane durumun vahametini anlatyor ve bu yolla devrime çok fazla insan kazandırıyor. Tabi arada Avis'i de böylece tavlamış oluyor.:)
Şimdi bu noktada London bize biraz "kapitalizmden" bahsediyor. (Anamalcılık) Şöyle;
İş veren ortaya para koyar, işçi ise emeğini. Şirket kurulur ve çalışır. Böylece bir birikim oluşmaya başlar. Oluşan bu birikimin yarısını emekçi alır, kalan yarısını ise işveren.(Yarı yarıya değildir ya aslında hadi öyle olsun diyelim.)
Emekçi kazandığı bu parayı hemen harcar. Zira hayatını başka şekilde idame ettiremez.
Ancak işveren bu parayı harcamaz. İstesede harcayamaz. Napacak o kadar parayı? Oturup yemesi mümkün değil. Gidicek başkalarına borç verecek. sonra kazandıkça başkalarına borç verecek. Sonra da başkalarına. Ortada çok fazla para var ve bu para başkalarını köleleştirmek için kullanılıyor. Üstelik biraz para kazanan hemen tekelleşiyor ve ilk iş olarak sektörün küçük balıklarını yok etmeye başlıyor. Bu gidişe bir dur demek lazım.
Kitabın son bölümünde ise tüm dünya karışıyor. Başta Chicago olmak üzere müthiş bir devrim kopuyor. Bütün dünyada işçi ayaklanmaları başlıyor. Bir dünya savaşı bu. Ama iç savaş. Irk, millet yok. Oligarklar ve işçiler var.
Binlerce insan ölüyor. Ortalık kan gölüne dönüyor.
Kim kazanıyor?
Kitap okumak lazım.
September 17, 2012
Revolutionary! I have read some of Jack London’s works but The Iron Heel came as a complete surprise. Published in 1908, it proved both intuitive and fatalistic. Written before the World War I and the Russian Revolution, it suggested their passing. The book is written as a manuscript written around the start of World War I and found hundreds of years later. The document describes the coming revolution and it inevitability. The industrial revolution and capitalism has run amuck and the oppressed masses are forced to revolt. It rationally illustrates the initial cruelties and injustices of a preliminary capitalistic system but sells the American constitutional system short. Although I don’t agree with some of the views and conclusions I do feel the Constitution should protect anyone believing in them. The socialist views expressed would have had Jack London tarred and feathered (at the very least) if it would have appeared in the post-World War II McCarthy Era (one of the blackest times in U.S. history). As I read this book, visions of the multitudes of Twentieth Century atrocities came vividly to mind. The fact that it was written before most of them were committed makes them all the more shocking. The book could be compared to George Orwell’s 1984 but I found it even more plausible and horrifying. My only question is why this controversial book isn’t more widely known and read. I would recommend it to every thinking and feeling person with a true passion for literature and the way the world was and what (God forbid) could have been.
October 17, 2021
Take the journal style of Atwood's 'The Handmaid's Tale', the social outrage found in Orwell's nonfiction writing, and Ayn Rand's use of long-running dialogue to get across political ideology and you have 'The Iron Heel.' First published in 1907, it's hard to imagine this book wasn't influential to each of those authors. It's also hard to believe I didn't even know about the book until another GR member referred me to it.
The Oligarchy in 'The Iron Heel' aims to crush its citizens, just as Oceania does in '1984', except instead of using violence, they crush everyone via financial means. The basis of this dystopian is that a few rich men use their wealth to control every aspect of society, which is frighteningly realistic to today's world. And that's probably why this book has fallen by the wayside. It is simply too real and too plausible for most people to enjoy. Whereas books like '1984' are easy to digest because of their science fiction element, this book has no science fiction at all, mentions real people and places, etc., forcing the reader to see just how true-to-life this dystopian could be.
I loved everything about this book except the footnotes (if you don't read them you feel like you're missing something, but if you do read them they bring the story to a crashing halt). After reading this, you see that the often used term "Orwellian government" could easily be replaced by "Londonian government."
The Oligarchy in 'The Iron Heel' aims to crush its citizens, just as Oceania does in '1984', except instead of using violence, they crush everyone via financial means. The basis of this dystopian is that a few rich men use their wealth to control every aspect of society, which is frighteningly realistic to today's world. And that's probably why this book has fallen by the wayside. It is simply too real and too plausible for most people to enjoy. Whereas books like '1984' are easy to digest because of their science fiction element, this book has no science fiction at all, mentions real people and places, etc., forcing the reader to see just how true-to-life this dystopian could be.
I loved everything about this book except the footnotes (if you don't read them you feel like you're missing something, but if you do read them they bring the story to a crashing halt). After reading this, you see that the often used term "Orwellian government" could easily be replaced by "Londonian government."
October 7, 2017
4.5
' Kim ki rekabetçidir, yok olacaktır.' sf:122
' Servetten daha büyük bir güç daha vardır. Daha güçlüdür çünkü kimse onu sizden alamaz. Bizim gücümüz, proletaryanın gücü kaslarımızdadır, oyları veren ellerimizdedir, tetiği çeken parmaklarımızdadır. Kimse bunu bizden alamaz. Asıl kuvvet budur işte, hayatın kuvvetidir, servetten de güçlü olan ve zenginliğin elimizden alamayacağı kuvvettir.' sf:142
' Kim ki rekabetçidir, yok olacaktır.' sf:122
' Servetten daha büyük bir güç daha vardır. Daha güçlüdür çünkü kimse onu sizden alamaz. Bizim gücümüz, proletaryanın gücü kaslarımızdadır, oyları veren ellerimizdedir, tetiği çeken parmaklarımızdadır. Kimse bunu bizden alamaz. Asıl kuvvet budur işte, hayatın kuvvetidir, servetten de güçlü olan ve zenginliğin elimizden alamayacağı kuvvettir.' sf:142
May 31, 2017
This was a major piece of dystopian fiction. I am surprised it is not as well known as London's other works.
I would suggest reading this along with Orwell's "Animal Farm".
I would suggest reading this along with Orwell's "Animal Farm".
December 26, 2020
رواية القدم الحديدية
للكاتب الأمريكى جاك لندن
ترجمت للعربية عام 1966
لم أجدغلاف أ��ضل من النسخة الانجليزية
للكاتب الأمريكى جاك لندن
ترجمت للعربية عام 1966
لم أجدغلاف أ��ضل من النسخة الانجليزية
May 23, 2012
Now, before we go on, here’s a suggestion; check your personal political views in at the door. In ‘The Iron Heel’ Jack London openly displays his early twentieth century socialist leanings but the book itself is much more than the sum of its political and economic parts. Don’t believe me? Well try this for size - “Under the oligarchs will flourish, not a priest class, but an artist class.”
A bold assertion I think you’ll agree, and one which few writers have ever chosen to ascribe to an imaginary fascist government. But then up until Jack London penned this much neglected 1908 classic there were precious few fiction writers bringing together the great economic and social themes that would so disastrously dominate the twentieth century.
‘The Iron Heel’ is a pioneer in the dystopian genre and is credited with influencing Orwell when he came to write his great masterpiece 1984. Indeed by the time you’ve finished reading it you’ll be seeing its influence everywhere - from H.G. Wells’ ‘The Shape of Things to come’ (1933) to Margaret Atwood’s superb dystopian creation ‘The Handmaids Tale’ (1985).
The novel purports to be the lost manuscript of one Avis Evehard, wife to a socialist revolutionary called Ernest Evehard. The manuscript itself has been lost to the world for several centuries, and upon its rediscovery in a more enlightened era it has been edited, abridged and heavily annotated by an academic called Anthony Meredith (see what I mean about ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’?)
It chronicles the rise of an all-powerful Oligarchy of robber barons in America, who in the first few decades of the twentieth century gradually consolidate their economic and political hold over the country. The middle classes are squeezed into a new form of economic serfdom and the agricultural population into an altogether older form. Meanwhile the workers are set up to fight against one another and brutally repressed if they challenge the new order.
But challenge they do, through both the ballot box and the organisation of labour. Revolution breaks out and the Oligarchs resolve to ruthlessly crush all resistance to their rule, both foreign and domestic. The brutal nature of this repression leads to their dictatorship being characterised as ‘The Iron Heel’.
Despite this being London’s great hymn to the solidarity of international labour he manages to evoke empathy in the reader; you find yourself caring about what happens to the people in the novel, even if you might not always agree with their individual or collective viewpoints. And despite the gender reversal (how many other male writers were writing from a female perspective at this time?) and the unashamed use of the character to propagate a Marxist dialectic, the voice of Avis is oddly authentic. Yes it’s a mixture of romanticism, dogma and hypocrisy but isn’t that precisely how a daughter of privilege, who has fallen in love with both the party and the strongman of the party, would sound?
In its description of modern political repression ‘The Iron Heel’ is eerily prescient in ways London himself could not have foreseen and probably wouldn’t have approved off. Many of the tactics used by the imaginary fascist government would go on to be used far more effectively in real life by the dictatorships of the left; tactics such as the imprisonment of intellectual dissidents in mental hospitals.
It is a great irony that London’s warning about the dangers of monopoly capitalism, and the subsequent decent into a repressive corporate state, were successfully tackled in the decades following the publication of his cautionary tale, by successive democratically elected governments. However, if he were still with us the rise and rise of the today’s global corporate giants and the challenge their power presents to the rights of the individual, would I believe, have Jack penning a new warning to us all.
Now … don’t forget to collect your political views at the door before you go, and enjoy the book.
A bold assertion I think you’ll agree, and one which few writers have ever chosen to ascribe to an imaginary fascist government. But then up until Jack London penned this much neglected 1908 classic there were precious few fiction writers bringing together the great economic and social themes that would so disastrously dominate the twentieth century.
‘The Iron Heel’ is a pioneer in the dystopian genre and is credited with influencing Orwell when he came to write his great masterpiece 1984. Indeed by the time you’ve finished reading it you’ll be seeing its influence everywhere - from H.G. Wells’ ‘The Shape of Things to come’ (1933) to Margaret Atwood’s superb dystopian creation ‘The Handmaids Tale’ (1985).
The novel purports to be the lost manuscript of one Avis Evehard, wife to a socialist revolutionary called Ernest Evehard. The manuscript itself has been lost to the world for several centuries, and upon its rediscovery in a more enlightened era it has been edited, abridged and heavily annotated by an academic called Anthony Meredith (see what I mean about ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’?)
It chronicles the rise of an all-powerful Oligarchy of robber barons in America, who in the first few decades of the twentieth century gradually consolidate their economic and political hold over the country. The middle classes are squeezed into a new form of economic serfdom and the agricultural population into an altogether older form. Meanwhile the workers are set up to fight against one another and brutally repressed if they challenge the new order.
But challenge they do, through both the ballot box and the organisation of labour. Revolution breaks out and the Oligarchs resolve to ruthlessly crush all resistance to their rule, both foreign and domestic. The brutal nature of this repression leads to their dictatorship being characterised as ‘The Iron Heel’.
Despite this being London’s great hymn to the solidarity of international labour he manages to evoke empathy in the reader; you find yourself caring about what happens to the people in the novel, even if you might not always agree with their individual or collective viewpoints. And despite the gender reversal (how many other male writers were writing from a female perspective at this time?) and the unashamed use of the character to propagate a Marxist dialectic, the voice of Avis is oddly authentic. Yes it’s a mixture of romanticism, dogma and hypocrisy but isn’t that precisely how a daughter of privilege, who has fallen in love with both the party and the strongman of the party, would sound?
In its description of modern political repression ‘The Iron Heel’ is eerily prescient in ways London himself could not have foreseen and probably wouldn’t have approved off. Many of the tactics used by the imaginary fascist government would go on to be used far more effectively in real life by the dictatorships of the left; tactics such as the imprisonment of intellectual dissidents in mental hospitals.
It is a great irony that London’s warning about the dangers of monopoly capitalism, and the subsequent decent into a repressive corporate state, were successfully tackled in the decades following the publication of his cautionary tale, by successive democratically elected governments. However, if he were still with us the rise and rise of the today’s global corporate giants and the challenge their power presents to the rights of the individual, would I believe, have Jack penning a new warning to us all.
Now … don’t forget to collect your political views at the door before you go, and enjoy the book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 897 reviews