-
Generally entertaining Oct 16, 2002 (115 of 129 found this helpful)
Unlike Sinclair's best-known novel, "The Jungle," with its bleak story and gloomy characters, "Oil!" is a fast-paced, lively and colorful story. Although Sinclair uses it to preach his political views, it is nevertheless a good piece of literature and an interesting historical testimony to the era in which it was written. Another striking thing is how Sinclair's descriptions of corporate manipulations tend to mirror very recent events. Interesting also is that Sinclair uses one of the oldest cliches in American literature, the coming-of-age story, as the vehicle for this epic; at the same time, there are indications that Sinclair seems to mock this manner of story-telling - from the main character's rather silly nick-name, "Bunny" to his perennial inability to make up his mind about where he wants to go with his life, i.e. he never really 'comes of age.' Other reviewers have noted Sinclair's apparently naive promotion of socialism/communism/the Bolsheviks, which is a valid criticism, although to me it seemed more a case of the author throwing out ideas to provoke readers into thinking rather than an attempt to persuade them. In this sense, his use of the family of a wealthy California oil baron as the main protagonists is quite telling: although Sinclair does take the opportunity to highlight the hypocrisy and greed of the moneyed classes, he also makes a genuine attempt to portray them as real people rather than just grotesque caricatures. I also noticed that many of his characterizations of the working class/poor are often less than flattering. Regardless, this is a really entertaining novel, probably Sinclair's best.
-
A rotten business Aug 18, 2005 (53 of 58 found this helpful)
When Warren G. Harding died suddenly in California in 1923, he was one of the most beloved President's ever. It wasn't long, however, before that opinion changed, so that today he is considered among the worst. The revelation after his death of the Teapot Dome scandal that occurred during his administration was paramount in destroying his reputation. And it involved oil (the naval oil reserves in Wyoming were being sold off by corrupt politicians close to Harding). Sinclair based this novel on Teapot Dome. It basically shows how a decent man and his son Bunny Ross are up against insurmountable odds in the oil business, what with corruption all around. Sinclair's solution was dramatic: for him socialism was the answer; capitalism was too corrupt. A big, brawling novel, not particularly memorable for its style; but its muscular approach and willingness to tackle important issues make it worth reading.
-
Oil!....a timely tale Aug 23, 2003 (54 of 61 found this helpful)
Anyone who wants a vivid, first-hand account of Southern California life in the 1920's will love this novel. It captures the go-go energy of the times, peppered with jazz-era slang, which perhaps was so fresh at the time this novel was written that Sinclair chose to put these terms in quotations. (Modern readers will be surprised that most of this slang is in common use today). Of course, one can't ignore the larger political, social and cultural themes that explode upon these pages. The oil boom that grips everyone in Southern California is just the tip of the iceberg. The weirder aspect is how little has changed in the past 75 years, We are still grappling with the same issues of political corruption, wage inequality, excesses of capitalism, cult of celebrity, and lest we forget, the youth and car culture. Even more disturbing are the passing references to American oil interests in the middle east. There's some laugh out loud passages; one of the most memorable concerns an Oklahoma oil man who lays on the down-home drawl to intimadate European diplomats. Hmmmm, now that sounds familiar....
-
An enthralling, epic piece of muckraking literature Mar 26, 2008 (13 of 14 found this helpful)
I came to "Oil!" for two reasons. One, I had recently read "The Jungle," and became enamored with Sinclair's wit and prose; two, I had watched "There Will Be Blood," and found it such a thought-provoking film that I had better read the book that inspired it. (This tactic worked recently for me, with "Blood's" ideological counterpart "No Country Old Men", which got me hooked on the writing of Cormac McCarthy.)
I hesitate to throw out a disclaimer, but I must assume that many potential readers will come to this book through the movie, so I have to say it: The book is nothing like the film (which directer Paul Thomas Anderson has stated); the movie gets its start from the first few pages of "Oil!"; which means, since there's over 500 pages left, that there's quite a bit of story yet to tell.
I say this simply as a disclaimer. By all means, buy the book and read it. Upton Sinclair was known for his Socialist sympathies ("Oil!", like "The Jungle," reads like a Socialist manifesto), but what interests me about his writing is how his prose is still poetic and witty. Yes, there are some political points that, now having experienced WWII and the Cold War, seem dated; but in 1927, Sinclair was a borderline-revolutionary, and his Socialist sympathies put him in danger. He managed to convey that fear to "Oil!", which details an oil tycoon's son, as he slips into the Socialist world and ends up fighting the industry that made his dad a success. I wouldn't say "Oil!" is as cutting-edge as "The Jungle" was, but it certainly is a social commentary/satire that cuts straight to the bone of American capitalism. Written eighty years ago, it still holds power today; if that isn't a sign of great literature, then I just don't know what is.
-
A GOOD MUCKRAKING YARN Mar 2, 2008 (19 of 22 found this helpful)
THERE'S NO BUSINESS LIKE THE OIL BUSINESS, LIKE NO BUSINESS YOU'LL KNOW.
A bit different from the movie, "Oil" is a story written from the third person narrative of Bunny Arnold Ross Jr, son of oil tycoon, Arnold Ross. The story follows Arnold Ross from scroungy wildcatter to oil tycoon.
"Oil" was written at the turn of the century by "muckraker" Upton Sinclair. I've read a lot of Sinclair novels and have come to own many of his first editions, but his appeal to me was not immediate. The Jungle, for example, was written about the Chicago meatpacking industry. It's publication-first as a special edition for members of the Communist Party- provoked the government to pass the meat inspecting standards that we now have-"USDA Inspected". Sinclair novels often lack denouement and the plots are thinly disguised vehicles for presenting a litany of horrors perpetrated against the poor by greedy capitalists. The list of horrors can be shocking-workers lost limbs in vats of meat and production was not stopped to recover the limb or help the dying man-but even lists of horrors need to be presented with strong plots.
What is present in "Oil" the novel that is not present in "There Will Be Blood" is that Bunny argues fervently with his father on behalf of his father's oil workers. In the movie, we see Daniel Day Lewis stopping work for a day when an oil worker is crushed at the bottom of a well. In a Sinclair novel, the worker would have been left at the bottom of the well as long as he wasn't clogging flow. Or you see Daniel Day Lewis tenderly adopt the orphaned child of a friend. In a Sinclair novel, an orphaned child that needed feeding and couldn't work would have been left to die in the desert. Sinclair presented the difference between capitalists and socialists starkly. Capitalists were always and completely without humanity.
The novel actually explains a lot of holes in the movie. The parting of Arnold and his son when Arnold is grown didn't make a lot of sense to me in the film. Arnold writes off his adopted son indifferently and there isn't anything in the movie which predicates that kind of reaction. We see Arnold grooming his son, sending him to a special school after his eyes are burned, yearning for him when he is gone. Writing him off when he's 20 seems to make no sense at all. But in the book Bunny and Arnold have spent a lifetime arguing the socialist agenda and Arnold feels that a man with Bunny's convictions can't be his son and lets him go. What is also missing in the film but explained in the book is the sudden and unexplained disappearance of Arnold's best friend. I guess the film didn't want to risk appearing socialist but I'm not sure the script makes sense without the presence of socialist ideals in it.
No socialist portrayal of the world would be complete without running down the opiate of the masses, religion. Sinclair's novel depicts religion as hoodwinking the oppressed rather than helping them. Arnold's struggle in the movie isn't just against the socialists who have claimed his son, but against religion which is threatening to claim existence.
Sinclair novels are historically important if not always the greatest page turning reads. In a day and age when the media is manipulated by corporate sponsors and free speech is suppressed by the government, it's interesting to read novels from 70 years ago that changed the course of American life. Novels like these will make you yearn for honest publishers who were willing to take a chance on something that might change the world. But be prepared to shift your expectations when you go from modern literature to a Sinclair novel. Read it from the point of view of someone that lived a hundred years ago and you'll appreciate it. If you compare it to your page turning novels of today, you'll be disappointed.