From the link: "History remembers Upton Sinclair's The Jungle as a vivid exposé on literal and figurative sausage making, a piece that shocked the nation and led to the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act. But all that happens in the first half of the novel, no one remembers the second half. And that is probably for the best. Rereading The Jungle recently, I again found the second half almost unbearable, especially the later chapters which devolve into clumsy, thinly-veiled socialist propaganda."
This appears to be precisely the reaction to The Jungle which Upton Sinclair complained about; he wrote the book to illustrate the harshness and exploitation of poverty, but everyone got hung up on the descriptions of meatpacking instead. Not on the conditions of the meatpackers, mind you, but on the conditions of the meat ("Oh no, not my food!")! As Sinclair said, "I aimed at the public's heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach."
This work conclusively demonstrates an inverse correlation
between exclamation points density and quality of The Jungle.
And from the introduction:
Rereading The Jungle recently, I again found the second half
almost unbearable, especially the later chapters which devolve
into clumsy, thinly-veiled socialist propaganda.
To "conclusively demonstrate an inverse correlation between exclamation points density and quality", I believe one should find a better measure of quality than the occurence of socialist motifs.
I think the conclusion is self-evident to any avid reader of literature. I can't think of a single good author who abuses exclamation marks. And that's because someone who abuses exclamation marks in this way is a pretty poor writer by definition.
Or, less snarkily, I don't think it's self-evident that a writer who uses exclamation marks a lot is a bad writer (although I can't think of a counterexample). What leads you to say that?
(also I'd argue that "abusing" exclamation marks follows from your judgement of "bad writer". Any good writers would be using exclamation marks, not abusing them)
There well may be correlation but in this article, the only objective measure of fact is that of the number of exclamation points.
The main assumption, that the book gets worse over time, is completely subjective and dependent on that particular reader's personal preferences (is it just style? is it the subject matter?, it is the plot? the dialogues?).
It's a dangerous game to play: you can easily persuade yourself that you are reaching some objective truth when in fact you're just measuring your own personal bias and hiding it behind the veneer of a scientific methodology.
This appears to be precisely the reaction to The Jungle which Upton Sinclair complained about; he wrote the book to illustrate the harshness and exploitation of poverty, but everyone got hung up on the descriptions of meatpacking instead. Not on the conditions of the meatpackers, mind you, but on the conditions of the meat ("Oh no, not my food!")! As Sinclair said, "I aimed at the public's heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach."