3.5 stars. Let me preface this review by stating that I really wanted to love this work. It has sat on my to-read shelf a little too long, but when I finally decided to read it I did not find anything particularly fantastic about the work. While I have other Sinclair Lewis books on my to-read shelf (among them Babbitt, Arrowsmith and Main Street, I'm not sure that my first encounter with Lewis' writing style makes me particularly eager to read any of those other classics. Much like when I read H.G. Wells' The Invisible Man (my first encounter with Wells), from what I knew of Wells as a person and a writer, I expected to enjoy his work immensely, but found myself very much underwhelmed. Such was also the case with my initial taste of Sinclair Lewis. I found the story readable, but not absorbing. I found the prose weak throughout when compared with other works that I adore, and it fell apart more and more as the story neared its end (which, Mark Schorer writes in the afterword, reflects the unraveling of Lewis' own life as he neared the novel's end -- marital troubles, alcoholism, etc.). Perhaps what I disliked most about the work was the character of Elmer Gantry himself, a loathsome, hypocritical preacher who uses religion to advance his reputation, at the same time that he ruins the lives of those around him. He leaves a trail of destruction behind him everywhere he goes, with no sense of responsibility for his actions; a character without a conscience. He is the anti-hero of the work and (*spoiler alert*) he emerges the victor at the end. It is perhaps a very real (and sad) portrayal of American religion, very anthropological and sociological in nature. As a reader, I know that in reality the "bad guy" often wins, and part of the things I enjoy about literature is sharing the characters' joy and sadness, their triumphs and struggles. When reading Steinbeck, I have a vested interest in the lives of the Joads or the Trasks and Hamiltons. When reading Flaubert, one gets a sense of connectedness with the struggles of Charles and Emma Bovary, even if unable to really empathize with the characters, because they come across as complex humans, with faults, virtues and complex emotions. But with this work, Elmer Gantry comes across as just a despicable, one-dimensional character. He preaches monogamy, but cheats on his wife; he preaches prohibition, but drinks like a fish; he is more than willing to stab in the back anyone who stands in his way. He is narcissistic, greedy and all-in-all just an awful person. And yet, with how much I detest Gantry (something that made it a struggle for me to continue reading the work) despite an otherwise fairly good plotline, I wonder if I shouldn't rate the book higher. There is something to be said, after all, for Lewis' ability to create such a real and vile character. In the afterword to the work, Mark Schorer of UC Berkeley writes, "The forces of social good and enlightenment as presented in Elmer Gantry are not strong enough to offer any real resistance to the forces of social evil and banality. Most novels operate through a conflict, dramatized in a plot, of social and individual interest, and the more sustained the pressures of the plot, the more likely is the individual to be forced into a position of new self awareness. . . . What is most characteristic of the novels of Sinclair Lewis, and above all of Elmer Gantry, is that there are no such dynamics of social action." And it is this, which (in a way) sets Lewis apart as a writer, that hindered me from enjoying his work more, and which inhibits me from reading more of his works. Will I still give his other novels a chance? Yes. I think each work should be judged on its own merits. But I also think I've digested enough Lewis for the time being to last me a while.
Less than ten pages into this novel, I was hooked. I honestly felt as though Sinclair Lewis was capable of time travel, transported himself forward in time so he could sit next to me during worship services at multiple churches, then transported himself back to the 1920s so he could write about it. Seriously, it feels as though little has changed in the world of American Evangelicalism. This movement still has its rising celebrities with more ambition than humility, and more demonstrated passion than grace. It still claims relevance through its waging of a "culture war," which demonizes secular education and behavior. Elmer Gantry never died; he just reincarnated generation after generation, and cloned himself into thousands of self-absorbed worship leaders.Still as a social commentary, Lewis's work has its strong and weak points. I loved his writing style; I have a few other books on my reading list for the summer, but I would like to explore Babbitt and Arrowsmith, eventually. He writes with a sense of humor and flamboyance that serves as the perfect paintbrush for this narrative of a flamboyant, arrogant preacher who covers his sinful, degenerate self with only the thinnest layer of faux-holiness. There were moments during this read in which I laughed out loud (best point: a conversation Gantry has with a minister, who derides Sinclair Lewis--best instance of self-deprecation ever), and moments of deep poignancy.That being said, I wish Lewis wasn't so dedicated to Elmer Gantry's success in the final third of the novel (the first narrates Gantry's rise and fall at the seminary, the second narrates his rise and fall as a traveling evangelist with Sharon Falconer; the final, his emergence as a Billy Sunday-type evangelist with global acclaim). By that final third, Gantry seemed to excel at being slime, so well that plot points that Lewis should have used to bring him down did not, not even a little. Granted, I'm not looking for happy endings, but that final story arc feels like it has no arc; it just ascends and ascends, with reminders along the way of the lives he ruins. It by no means detracts from the greatness of this novel; I just feel that Lewis' goal of demonstrating that, in American Evangelicalism, sometimes bad guys win, trumped the potential for a real character arc.Don't let that stop you from reading this novel, however. Every Christian, every nonbeliever--everyone--should read it. You'll see our religious institutions reflected in this book, a mirror that hasn't lost it's shine in almost 80 years.
What do You think about Elmer Gantry (1998)?
"His possessions were not very consistent. He had a beautiful new morning coat, three excellent lounge suits, patent leather shoes, a noble derby, a flourishing top hat, but he had only two suits of underclothes, both ragged. His socks were of black silk, out at the toes. For breast-pocket display, he had silk handkerchiefs; but for use, only cotton rags torn at the hem. He owned perfume, hair-oil, talcum powder; his cuff links were of solid gold; but for dressing-gown he used his overcoat; his slippers were a frowsy pulp; and the watch which he carried on a gold and platinum chain was a one-dollar alarm clock."This innocuous description, buried halfway through Elmer Gantry, perfectly characterizes Elmer. The contrast of his outer appearance and inward state reflects the glaring hypocrisy of his actions and doctrines. But simply characterizing Elmer Gantry as a hypocrite doesn't capture the infuriating aspect of his personality. Yes, he's a hypocrite, but what's disturbing is his lack of self-awareness. He understands that his womanizing, drinking, and exploitation are wrong, but he justifies these actions by saying things like "no one is perfect" and "I'm just a man, after all." It's sickening. Although the novel focuses primarily on Elmer and bears his name, it's misguiding to say that the novel is primarily about the his rise to prominence. The story is really about specific events along Elmer's journey--specifically, the characters and that he encounters as he grows older. The novel with the most similar structure would be, ironically, John Bunyun's Pilgrim's Progress, which follows Christian's journey from sin to salvation. Elmer is the perfect foil for Christian's earnest quest for holiness.The effect of this episodic organization is intentional: The characters change as a result of their encounters and trials, but the focus of the novel becomes the incidental characters and the ideas that they represent. While Pilgrim's Progress is allegorical, illuminating the trails of life and the Christian's pursuit of holiness in the grimness of the world, Elmer Gantry is strictly satirical. By using the same method of organization, Sinclair expertly creates caricatures that represent different aspects of the protestant clergy and laity in early 20th century America. He encounters preachers, elders, deacons, bishops, politicians, lawyers, bartenders, sinners, saints, students, professors, and choirgirls that seem uncomfortably familiar. Like the pharisees that Jesus criticized, Elmer and his cronies are "whitewashed tombs" who "look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean" (Mt 23:27). Elmer Gantry remains a prophetic warning concerning the corruptibility of the human heart and misguided ambition.• • •Also, Chapter 17 was one of the most convicting chapters that I've ever read.
—Chad
A truly classic satirical novel that documents the American evangelical movement of the 1920's. The book skewers the relationship of Big Money and Organized Religion, and one can easily see why the novel created such a public furor. Sinclair Lewis added to the controversy when he defied God from the pulpit, giving God 15 minutes to strike him dead.The novel is chock full of dozens of well-written fictional characters and 'Sharon Falconer' character is based on elements of the Canadian born evangelical career of Aimee Semple McPherson. I can't recommend this one engough!!
—Ken
A truly delightful novel. Lewis takes obvious pleasure from poking fun at religion – and he takes on the various church denominations and destroys them with attacks from multiple positions. He exposes hypocrisy through Elmer Gantry – who supposedly is a protector of morality while enhancing his career by vapid publicity, name-calling and disdaining the women who fall in love with him. He also ignores his family while pursuing his goals.This book exposes the lust for power behind the evangelical movements and more traditional churches. It is also about the cult of personality – in this case Elmer Gantry. This is even more abundantly clear with the Sharon Falconer episode. Actually the book looses some of the momentum, I feel, after the sudden death (dubious at that) of Sharon midway through the story. Nevertheless what follows is Elmer’s continuing journey through the religion business. Elmer switches convictions whenever there is opportunity for his advancement. There are a host of colourful characters. Most of the religious ones are portrayed as extremely flawed. It is interesting that towards the end of the book Elmer’s crusade has the look of an attack on liberalism – against the teaching of science in schools, for prohibition – the keeping of “moral values”.
—Mikey B.
