Sinclair Lewis for the Masses!

Sinclair Lewis is regarded as one of the most influential American authors of the 20th century, yet he seems to be unknown/unread by most people. So I have sort of 3 general purposes for starting this thread.

1 - If anyone had read Lewis, and would like to give their impressions of the book they read by him, please do so

2 - Perhaps discuss why he is fairly unknown, and why many of his novels are now out of print. (I had to hunt up some of his novels on eBay, in hardcover, becasue there aren't even any paperbacks of them)

3 - For anyone who has not read him - I'd like to give a loud recommendation for doing so! If you like Steinbeck, Scott Fitzgerald, or other authors who write about common Americans, Lewis is great. I'd particularly recommend Babbit, The Prodigal Parents, Kingsblood Royal, and Arrowsmith.


Lewis has a rich, sometimes humorous writing style, and a talent for depicting the everyday person and the challenges that they face. He truly is one of my favorite writers. His books are realistic, personal, and they get under your skin in the best way. He was the first American to receive the Nobel Prize in Literature, yet in conversations about great American authors, I doubt you will hear him mentioned with the likes of Steinbeck, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, or Faulkner. I think he deserves to be - and I wonder if there are others out there that agree!

I always wondered, having not read him myself, if he doesn't have the following that he once had because his works didn't stand the test of time as others have. Not to say any specific thing about them, but that they don't ring with the same relevance that Faulkner and Fitzgerald have in modern audiences. Anyway, I will probably pick up something of his sometime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Modest Proposal

I always wondered, having not read him myself, if he doesn't have the following that he once had because his works didn't stand the test of time as others have. Not to say any specific thing about them, but that they don't ring with the same relevance that Faulkner and Fitzgerald have in modern audiences. Anyway, I will probably pick up something of his sometime.

---

That is why his recent "obscurity" sort of baffles me. I find his novels, especially the better ones, to be very relevant and resonating. I'd rank Babbitt and Elmer Gantry right up there with The Great Gatsby and Of Mice and Men (for example)

I am so glad that I stumbled upon Babbitt in Books a Million a few years ago - which led me to find more stuff by Lewis

There are a couple of reasons for his decline in popularity. One is his topical subject matter is just not understood by younger people and I don't think he rates high with academicia. If you are not introduced to a writer in high school or college, you are not too likely to read him as an adult. Lewis was an iconoclast and he attacked everything within site: Rotarians and Boosters in Babbitt, commercial religion in Elmer Gantry, and small town America in Main Street.

He was also an ironic writer, and if you don't understand the subject, how will you know if the writer is indulging in irony?

His books don't have the universiality that Hemingway's do, but I think every well read person should read the three mentioned above.

When Lewis parodies the poet of the common man, Edgar Guest, with his character Chumm ? in Babbitt, it's not half so funny if you've never read Edgar Guest. As Dorothy Parker said, "I rather flunk my Wasserman Test, Than read a poem by Eddie Guest."

When Carol Kennicut (?) is asked what she thinks of her new home town after marrying the town doctor and moving to Gopher Prarie, MN, she replies, "It's an ash heap." This remark by a fictional character created quite a stir when the novel Main Street was published, but it doesn't carry such an impact today.

It hasn't been too many years ago when Burt Lancaster starred in Elmer Gantry. I think he won the academy award for best actor. But tv has made us so inured toward 'Pray for Pay' preachers that the hard drinking Gantry is not so much of an anomaly today.

These illustrate a few of the reasons Sinclair is not so popular today, but I would still recommend him to the avid reader.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dfloyd

There are a couple of reasons for his decline in popularity. One is his topical subject matter is just not understood by younger people and I don't think he rates high with academicia. If you are not introduced to a writer in high school or college, you are not too likely to read him as an adult. Lewis was an iconoclast and he attacked everything within site: Rotarians and Boosters in Babbitt, commercial religion in Elmer Gantry, and small town America in Main Street.

He was also an ironic writer, and if you don't understand the subject, how will you know if the writer is indulging in irony?

His books don't have the universiality that Hemingway's do, but I think every well read person should read the three mentioned above.

When Lewis parodies the poet of the common man, Edgar Guest, with his character Chumm ? in Babbitt, it's not half so funny if you've never read Edgar Guest. As Dorothy Parker said, "I rather flunk my Wasserman Test, Than read a poem by Eddie Guest."

When Carol Kennicut (?) is asked what she thinks of her new home town after marrying the town doctor and moving to Gopher Prarie, MN, she replies, "It's an ash heap." This remark by a fictional character created quite a stir when the novel Main Street was published, but it doesn't carry such an impact today.

It hasn't been too many years ago when Burt Lancaster starred in Elmer Gantry. I think he won the academy award for best actor. But tv has made us so inured toward 'Pray for Pay' preachers that the hard drinking Gantry is not so much of an anomaly today.

These illustrate a few of the reasons Sinclair is not so popular today, but I would still recommend him to the avid reader.

---

Thanks for the comments. You raise an excellent point about academians and how Lewis is not taught in classes - therefore not introduced to young readers at all.

I'm not sure I agree about Lewis' universality. Steinbeck's body of work focused quite a bit on the common man, or even the socially forgotten man. Yet he is widely read even today. Lewis' work focused quite a bit on the working American and family life - so I think his stuff is nearly as far reaching as Steinbeck's.

Also, what I find timeless about Lewis is his unfettered attack on hypocrisy. And since hypocrisy will never go out of fashion, it still rings true today. Whether it is Lewis attacking racism, or Mark Twain attacking school boards - I will always enjoy reading authors who do this in cutting language and sharp logic.

I think Lewis' themes of losing yourself in the suburban bustle, and his way of exposing the ridiculousness of certain social institutions will always resound with those who are fed-up with today's accepted status-quos


Thanks again for your comments - they made me stand back and re-think my own enthusiasms for Lewis and what they are based on

Could it be perhaps that some of his ideas are TOO "timeless"; i.e. they are so accepted as to have become commonplace. Why I ask, is because living in this day and age, attacking the hypocrisy of Religion or racism or even middleclassism is something most are supplemented with from infancy. I remember before kindergarten learning that racism is bad. I remember books in elementary school dealing with religious intolerance. Is it just that those ideas are so ingrained that authors need to bring a very unique perspective to stay relevant?

Faulkner has a way of talking about these issues that somehow feel more complicated and cutting-edge--if you forgive the term--than many, more modern dealings with the issues.

Like I said, I haven't read the books but from what I can tell if he wasn't a figure whose biography warrants his reading--such as Ralph Ellison speaking of race as a black man--or whose innovative style still alludes acadamians--such as Faulkner--he may be replaced by people who've done similar things... better?

but that his subjects of ridicule are no longer understood. For example, his ironic treatment of Chataquians: no young person would understand what a Chataquian was. His parody of Eddie Guest is another example. Edgar Guest used to have a poem run daily in news papers, but it has been years since this occurred. His truisms like Winners never quit and Quitters never win are not understood as being hackneyed or trite.

I am not saying that Lewis wasn't a good writer, but his irony, allusions, and parodies aren't understood by today's readers.

As for Faulkner, he is the idol of todays professors. As I Lay Dying and Absolam! Absolam! are required reading in many college courses.

Steinbeck is certainly a much more universal author in Grapes of Wrath and East of Eden. Even his novels such as Cannery Row and Tortilla Flat are more easily understood than the peccadillos of George Follonsbee Babbitt.

Arrowsmith can probably be digested by the younger reader more easily than Babbitt or Main Street.

I see what you mean about his topical allusions being outdated. But even these, I think, are overlooked when someone offers something extremely unique in terms of form or ideas.

It reminds me of the very talented John Dryden who is pretty much unread now because, despite his polished and beautiful prose, he didn't offer anything that seems revolutionary now like Shakespeare, Milton and Spenser did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Modest Proposal

Could it be perhaps that some of his ideas are TOO "timeless"; i.e. they are so accepted as to have become commonplace. Why I ask, is because living in this day and age, attacking the hypocrisy of Religion or racism or even middleclassism is something most are supplemented with from infancy. I remember before kindergarten learning that racism is bad. I remember books in elementary school dealing with religious intolerance. Is it just that those ideas are so ingrained that authors need to bring a very unique perspective to stay relevant?

Faulkner has a way of talking about these issues that somehow feel more complicated and cutting-edge--if you forgive the term--than many, more modern dealings with the issues.

Like I said, I haven't read the books but from what I can tell if he wasn't a figure whose biography warrants his reading--such as Ralph Ellison speaking of race as a black man--or whose innovative style still alludes acadamians--such as Faulkner--he may be replaced by people who've done similar things... better?

---

Great question. But nearly every book that I have read by Lewis has resonated as timeless with me. His "just not with my daughter" speech in Kingsblood Royal would still make people howl today (I can't imagine how it was accepted back in the 40's). Elmer Gantry, though it was about a scandalous preacher - was really, and clearly, an attack on charlatanism in all its forms. In short, though there might be a few, scant popular references in some of his novels, his novels all have a timeless quality. Just as The Grapes of Wrath by Steinbeck, though about the Great Depression, is still vitally relevant today.

As far as Lewis' abilities - his writing stacks up with any of the American greats (Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Steinbeck). His prose is superb, and his "voice" as an author is second only to Dostoevsky in my opinion. In other words, he is one of those authors who you can see in his writing - his "voice" seems to shine through into his fiction. Lewis was highly esteemed by many America authors - Steinbeck named him as one of his influences - and even spent some time with him in his later years.

I think, like your example with Faulkner, that Lewis, too, deals with issues in a deeper and more thought-provoking way - ie he goes beyond the common surface. Babbitt is a story of lost freedom in exchange for the typical American family/working life. The Prodigal Parents is essentially about the same themes. Elmer Gantry is a victorious satire of charlatanism. Moths in the Arc Light is a great story of romance in the modern world. Arrowsmith is essentially about one man's struggle for identity through his work. Doddsworth is a great story of a working man. In short, these books engage common themes of humanity - which all great literature does.

And for any inspiring writers, reading some of Lewis' prose would definitely be a benefit.

George Babbitt wss a well-to-do real estate agent who didn't have a thinking bone in his head. Dodsworth was a retired millionair auto exec sadlled with a feather brained wife whom he eventually got rid of. They were excellent choices for Lewis' parody and irony, but they cetainly wren't working men.

George Babbitt was a well-to-do real estate agent who didn't have a thinking bone in his head. Dodsworth was a retired millionaire auto exec sadlled with a feather-brained wife whom he eventually got rid of. They were excellent choices for Lewis' parody and irony, but they cetainly wren't working men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dfloyd

George Babbitt was a well-to-do real estate agent who didn't have a thinking bone in his head. Dodsworth was a retired millionaire auto exec sadlled with a feather-brained wife whom he eventually got rid of. They were excellent choices for Lewis' parody and irony, but they cetainly wren't working men.

---

hmmm - I guess we saw the novels in different ways. I had sympathy for both of those characters (unlike Elmer Gantry). The whole point of Babbitt was his transformation. He started off as the cigar-smoking glad-hander, but by the middle of the novel he was starting to become an outcast among his "well-to-do" cronies, because he was no longer acting like them. And by the end of the novel, the whole conclusion with him letting his son run off and get married (while Babbitt's wife strongly objects to this because she wants their son to fall right into the life that Babbitt has led). In other words, Babbitt does not quite find the courage to shuck the life himself, but he gives his son his blessing to do so.

The same kind of thing happened in Doddsworth. He went from the hypnotized suburbanite cliche, to starting to see the emptiness of it all. That is the whole reason he divorces his wife - because he doesn't want to live out his remaining years in that dull suburban stupor - whereas she does. So, unlike Babbitt, Doddsworth actually does make the break and shuck it all

I found both novels to be effective commentaries on the dangers of slogging through the "American dream" lifestyle of working for empty material gains and not just satirical send-ups of the books' protagonists

I love dystopian literature and therefore keep meaning to read It Can't Happen Here because as far a I know it touches on that theme. I have a copy that I bought years ago and just haven't gotten around to. I don't have any of his other novels and for some reason always get him confused with Upton Sinclair it seems. I almost made a post about the merits of the Jungle and then realized my mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voivod30

I love dystopian literature and therefore keep meaning to read It Can't Happen Here because as far a I know it touches on that theme. I have a copy that I bought years ago and just haven't gotten around to. I don't have any of his other novels and for some reason always get him confused with Upton Sinclair it seems. I almost made a post about the merits of the Jungle and then realized my mistake.

---

Ha – yeah early on I got him and Upton Sinclair mixed up too. But they are miles apart. Upton always let his staunch Socialism get into all of his books. Sinclair Lewis’ writing is much more concerned with common American characters. He has a great way of injecting his books with humor and wit

I tried It Can’t Happen Here and could not even finish it. The structure of it was almost stream of consciousness, whereas the rest of Sinclair Lewis’ stuff is pretty straightforward narrative. I really recommend Arrowsmith or Elmer Gantry – but only if you’re into writers like Steinbeck and Scott Fitzgerald – who tell stories in a straightforward fashion (not a lot of dreamy style and imagery)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keilj

Ha – yeah early on I got him and Upton Sinclair mixed up too. But they are miles apart. Upton always let his staunch Socialism get into all of his books. Sinclair Lewis’ writing is much more concerned with common American characters. He has a great way of injecting his books with humor and wit

I tried It Can’t Happen Here and could not even finish it. The structure of it was almost stream of consciousness, whereas the rest of Sinclair Lewis’ stuff is pretty straightforward narrative. I really recommend Arrowsmith or Elmer Gantry – but only if you’re into writers like Steinbeck and Scott Fitzgerald – who tell stories in a straightforward fashion (not a lot of dreamy style and imagery)

---

The last few visits I made to the bookstore have ended with me almost picking up Arrowsmith but for some reason I have yet to do so. Now that I think about it about two years ago I read a hundred of so pages into It Can't Happen here and I too didn't end up finishing it. At the time with W. as our president I figured it might be an appropriate time although what I did read made me a bit paranoid.

As far as the other two authors you mentioned I did read Great Gatsby several years and I recall that I liked a fair amount. Back in high school (my freshman year about sixteen years ago) I recall reading Animal Farm and liking it a lot. I've read some of the Grapes of Wrath but honestly I find it terribly dull at least the small amount that I've gotten through. I lent it to my sister a few months ago who never reads classic literature figuring that if she liked it I might give it another try but as far as I know she hasn't started it yet. I also have read a small amount of In Dubious Battle but couldn't really get into it too much.

here are a few quotes from some of Lewis' novels:





I must say I'm not very fond of oratory that's so full of energy it hasn't any room for facts


The men leaned back on their heels, put their hands in their trouser-pockets, and proclaimed their views with the booming profundity of a prosperous male repeating a thoroughly hackneyed statement about a matter of which he knows nothing whatever


His entire system of theology was comprised in the Bible, which he never read, and the Methodist Church, which he rarely attended