The JungleThis section of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle is very rich in many different rhetorical techniques. The section begins with character ethics which establishes that the characters are very aware of the horrors the author will describe. Because Sinclair wants to delve into the terrible conditions of meatpacking, he correctly sets up characters who are experts in the horrors he will describe. By creating experts, it establishes its credibility and thus gains the public's trust. After this sentence, Sinclair uses a more formal-sounding sentence to make his point, describes the meat with more formal diction (instead of rotten he says "spoiled"), and blends it with more informal diction and shorter words like "chop". This creates a mechanical and disgusting feeling with the reader. Before moving into a more vivid and pathos-filled section, Sinclair uses another established character, Jonas, to provide greater insight into the horrific conditions. He then uses a phrase repeated earlier in the text that he will repeat many more times about the horrible conditions. This sentence is clever and cynical and uses the simple language of the working class of the time. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Jonas, the previously established expert, then uses many short, simple words like “sour,” “minced,” and “smell” to talk about how meatpackers can turn rancid meat into “edible meat.” It is very vivid and creates a mental image that disgusts the reader with this diction. Also, Sinclair uses asyndeton to put all these horrible things into one list and without using conjunctions, it's almost as if they're being carried out like an assault. It feels almost mechanical but crude at the same time, which I think is what Sinclair wanted. In the next sentence, Sinclair then proceeds to use some meatpacking jargon (or special terms for a field) and uses more formal diction. He does this because he wants us to see him in a more sophisticated light and continue to see that he is downright vile, which the reader rightly will. Sinclair then describes the process of making rancid meat "good" again and uses very vivid pathos in describing the smell, the pickling process, the heating of the bones of the meat, and many other aspects of the process. It's completely descriptive and revolting. Sinclair subsequently describes many commercially known products and, using the slang of the time, describes what these products that the general public eat really are. In this way, he gives his audience quite a stomach ache. Sinclair then delves into the process of making the sausage using more vivid pathos, supported by jargon ("leaflets") and more formal descriptive words about the process. Sinclair also uses, in this sentence and the next, the polysyndeton to describe the horrible trials in their disgusting order. He goes further to describe the storage conditions and the mouse droppings that often encrust the sausages, more pathos, and uses periodic phrases that keep the reader going forward to see how much it gets worse. Things almost always get worse by supporting Sinclair's points. These sentences all happen at the same time or could happen, and this parallel creates a sense of disgust that so many things could go wrong at the same time. His use of polysyndeton in the next sentence creates this horrible feeling again and it could be argued that this is also parallelism again. Sinclair then makes a comparison to fairy tales and culture and, by doing so and stating it as a fact, sets a more serious tone and makes the reader understand how serious it is.