The traditional, scholarly approach toward literary analysis focuses solely on the structure of a literary work in order to determine both its worth and its meaning. This school of literary analysis is known as New Criticism. New Critics focus on the written work isolated from everything else because, they believe that, by closely examining the way the author uses language, one is eventually able to establish the true meaning of the work. A series of close readings focusing on the author's ability to use words is the means of appreciating and valuing works; therefore, New Critics focus on the aesthetics of literature when making an evaluation.
The aesthetics of a novel include the way an author uses elements of style, such as imagery, irony, and paradox, to enhance characters, plot, and theme. From this perspective, The Jungle is not considered quality literature. New Critics argue that Sinclair uses the form of the novel to promote his political agenda at the expense of his art. Lack of character development, inconsistency in tone and voice, and the loss of narrative at the end are just a few of the criticisms raised against The Jungle.
This lack of aesthetics mixed with an unpopular message resulted in a lack of respect for The Jungle in literary circles. Throughout most of the twentieth century, most critics considered Sinclair's book as either propaganda or muckraking — no more and no less. Most critics considered the majority of Sinclair's works of fiction in this manner; therefore, his reputation as a serious novelist was not high. However, as literary theory and critics advanced and changed, so too did the perception of The Jungle.
