It’s time to kick off the FaceBOOK club for my new history book DREAMERS AND DECEIVERS. (For an overview of what we’re doing, see: glennbeck/2014/11/24/join-the-dreamers-and-deceivers-book-club/). We’re starting with Chapter 6, “The Muckraker: How a Lost Letter Revealed Upton Sinclair’s Deception” since we discussed this story in depth on radio last week. (There are some spoilers below so please read the chapter before continuing.) I recently acquired a first edition of the novel BOSTON and read Sinclair’s preface. Hinting at any future criticism over the book due to its being labeled as a novel, he wrote, “So far as concerns the two individuals, Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, this book is not fiction, but an effort at history.” Obviously we know now that was completely false. So, my questions for you: 1. Given what we now know about the evidence Sinclair had, which option should he have taken? A) Rewritten the book and told the truth (potentially costing him his career and ability to promote socialism); B) Cancelled the book entirely; C) Published the novel the way he did. 2. What do you think motivated Sinclair to later write the letter admitting that he knew Sacco and Vanzetti were likely guilty? Do you think the fact he admitted the truth in private redeems him at all? 3. Does the revelation about the lies in BOSTON make you skeptical about Sinclair’s assertions in his first novel THE JUNGLE? 4. How did BOSTON advance the socialist cause? Do you see any parallels to today in terms of opportunists trying to take advantage of a person or event for their own agenda?
Posted on: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 18:24:35 +0000