Scan barcode
roulan's review against another edition
4.0
Interesting style, formed as a discovered manuscript 700 years in the future with footnotes added as though in annotation. I read this. Didn't listen to the librivox edition.
loumi93's review against another edition
inspiring
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.0
thesquishyfrog's review
challenging
dark
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.25
Holy cow, that was a lot anti- capitalist messages. Not saying anything against it, but wow that was a lot. The first half was very hard to read because there wasn’t much plot happening besides Ernest talking for, you know, fifteen chapters straight. The second half on the other hand, was great. There was action, turmoil, and yet the message was still there. And, you know, Avis and Anna girlbossing their way through life.
If you’re cool with monologues, then this is a book for you.
If you’re cool with monologues, then this is a book for you.
j_k_nelson's review against another edition
5.0
We often forget what the American laborer was up against; the low wages, dangerous working conditions and insanely long working ours. Things got better, but I think a lot of people forgot how the average working person got those victories, and with that, with the willful ignorance of our history and turning our back on those who fought for us I fear we will slide back into those days, we are already on our way. An excellent book of fiction, but it's truth, a truth that really pisses me off.
galois's review against another edition
dark
reflective
- Strong character development? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
2.75
Strangely prophetic, many of the horrible things London predicts have come to pass in some form, from the battle of Blair mountain, to the business plot, to the rise of fascism, to the purposeful elevation of a chosen class of workers separated from the common proles.
At the same time, it’s kinda masturbatory about how awesome, and cool, and correct socialism is. To the average socialist: a dreary repetition of mundane ideas; yet to someone not already against capitalism: utterly unconvincing.
I think it’s worth a read for the uniqueness of the piece of literature, if nothing else. (Cited as the first dystopian novel; also has female protagonist written in the first person, uncommon for 1907/8)
At the same time, it’s kinda masturbatory about how awesome, and cool, and correct socialism is. To the average socialist: a dreary repetition of mundane ideas; yet to someone not already against capitalism: utterly unconvincing.
I think it’s worth a read for the uniqueness of the piece of literature, if nothing else. (Cited as the first dystopian novel; also has female protagonist written in the first person, uncommon for 1907/8)
insertsthwitty's review against another edition
1.0
What the FUCK.
I am not sure what propelled Jack London to write a story about a man thinly veiled as himself, called him Ernest Everhard, and made him the man who was never wrong. I have grown up reading Jack London, and now I'm coming to realise he may just have been a bit of an asshole. (And to be fair, I may have grown up to be a bit of an asshole, too. Haven't we all.)
The Iron Heel is often proclaimed as a sort of predecessor of 1984, but that's very much not true, in a way that Jack London's version is depending on the charismatic and ultra-masculine saviour myth and on his own, admittedly hobbling, socialist polemic. In fact it feels more like Jack London has decided to push his own agenda in a book, make his main character ultra-hot, and have everyone agree with him. It's like when you prepare for an argument in your head, play it out and it all turns out perfect, and then you inevitably end up a stuttering idiot in front of everyone. I kinda like to think Jack London was just a loser like me and these books were his solace or something. He was more likely to be an entitled douche, sadly.
The whole idea is flawed, but I would imagine it worked at that time, which again makes me very sad for women who lived at the turn of the last century and had to deal with this douchebaggery. A man - a socialist hero - meets a professor and his daughter, stares at her like a pervert ("You pleased me ... And why should I not fill my eyes with that which pleases me", he explains) and acts like an asshole at dinner by insulting everyone. But it's okay, because he is, quote, "aflame with democracy".
He opens a whole new world of social inequality to his future wife; and this is worth mentioning: the whole book is written from her worshipful perspective, which might have been great but isn't, because Jack London was a bit of a condescending dick to women. He likes to put them on a pedestal in his novels (once having done so literally in The Valley of the Moon).
The whole book is lackluster - the plot would have been interesting, had it not been so transparently engineered; the resistance would have been so exciting but it sacrifices detail for Ernest's praise. So unfortunately I have to give it 1 star, despite the fact that it made me laugh a lot. And even now, I would rather just give it a facepalm emoji.
I am not sure what propelled Jack London to write a story about a man thinly veiled as himself, called him Ernest Everhard, and made him the man who was never wrong. I have grown up reading Jack London, and now I'm coming to realise he may just have been a bit of an asshole. (And to be fair, I may have grown up to be a bit of an asshole, too. Haven't we all.)
The Iron Heel is often proclaimed as a sort of predecessor of 1984, but that's very much not true, in a way that Jack London's version is depending on the charismatic and ultra-masculine saviour myth and on his own, admittedly hobbling, socialist polemic. In fact it feels more like Jack London has decided to push his own agenda in a book, make his main character ultra-hot, and have everyone agree with him. It's like when you prepare for an argument in your head, play it out and it all turns out perfect, and then you inevitably end up a stuttering idiot in front of everyone. I kinda like to think Jack London was just a loser like me and these books were his solace or something. He was more likely to be an entitled douche, sadly.
The whole idea is flawed, but I would imagine it worked at that time, which again makes me very sad for women who lived at the turn of the last century and had to deal with this douchebaggery. A man - a socialist hero - meets a professor and his daughter, stares at her like a pervert ("You pleased me ... And why should I not fill my eyes with that which pleases me", he explains) and acts like an asshole at dinner by insulting everyone. But it's okay, because he is, quote, "aflame with democracy".
He opens a whole new world of social inequality to his future wife; and this is worth mentioning: the whole book is written from her worshipful perspective, which might have been great but isn't, because Jack London was a bit of a condescending dick to women. He likes to put them on a pedestal in his novels (once having done so literally in The Valley of the Moon).
The whole book is lackluster - the plot would have been interesting, had it not been so transparently engineered; the resistance would have been so exciting but it sacrifices detail for Ernest's praise. So unfortunately I have to give it 1 star, despite the fact that it made me laugh a lot. And even now, I would rather just give it a facepalm emoji.
steveatwaywords's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
dark
inspiring
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.0
Reading London's dystopian novel that champions socialism against tyranny and oligarchy is to first step into its premise knowing what you're in for: more a socialist manifesto than a dramatic thriller. Though London tries to do both (even with an interesting framework of relating it as an historic document examined by a socialist utopia future), he is not successful. The "story" of The Iron Heel is not his point, so if you are looking for a thriller that will reveal a traditional plotline, this is not it. The book literally ends before the story is finished as the main character never completes her journaling.
So why read it? I enjoyed the read simply for its melodrama which, despite the frequent dithyrambic speeches by its all-knowing protagonist, offers some prediction both in the working ideologies behind contemporary politics and economic machinations, but more importantly how even most of the practices by oppressors are unexamined by them: they themselves do not understand what they are doing, but they know only that they must protect what they have in a system where the deck is already stacked. London sees much of this larger picture which--while true enough in the early 20th century--has all the basic tenets of what might be true today, if in hybridized forms.
This is not a successful novel. Other reviewers are right, I think, to compare to Ayn Rand. The novel is merely the vehicle for the political idealogue. Even so, at that level, entertaining, foreboding, and a too-likely forecast of power unchecked.
So why read it? I enjoyed the read simply for its melodrama which, despite the frequent dithyrambic speeches by its all-knowing protagonist, offers some prediction both in the working ideologies behind contemporary politics and economic machinations, but more importantly how even most of the practices by oppressors are unexamined by them: they themselves do not understand what they are doing, but they know only that they must protect what they have in a system where the deck is already stacked. London sees much of this larger picture which--while true enough in the early 20th century--has all the basic tenets of what might be true today, if in hybridized forms.
This is not a successful novel. Other reviewers are right, I think, to compare to Ayn Rand. The novel is merely the vehicle for the political idealogue. Even so, at that level, entertaining, foreboding, and a too-likely forecast of power unchecked.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Death, Gun violence, and War
jaynecm's review against another edition
3.5
I do enjoy the technique of writing the story as though it is a manuscript from the past, including footnotes. We are looking at the beginning of the twentieth century from many centuries in the future.
London tells the story of Ernest Everhard and the revolutionists fight for justice for the common labourer. It is about the class struggle and conflict of interest between labour and capital.
The extremely abrupt ending is frustrating but also ensures that the reader will continue to ponder the story well after finishing it in an attempt to create their own ending.
London tells the story of Ernest Everhard and the revolutionists fight for justice for the common labourer. It is about the class struggle and conflict of interest between labour and capital.
The extremely abrupt ending is frustrating but also ensures that the reader will continue to ponder the story well after finishing it in an attempt to create their own ending.
an_awakened_plant's review against another edition
dark
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.0