Showing posts with label Sinclair Lewis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sinclair Lewis. Show all posts

Friday, March 15, 2024

No, Not Upton Sinclair. Sinclair Lewis.

A question for my bookish friends: Has anyone out there read anything by Sinclair Lewis?

I ask because I see a lot of lists of the "Great American Novel," and Lewis is rarely on them. I don't understand that. In reading things like "Babbitt," "Main Street," "Arrowsmith," and "It Can't Happen Here," I see an American who really understood in his time what it meant to be an American, and in reading his books today, I can still see a lot of America reflected in his characters and stories.

He's not a dry writer either. There's a lot of action, and humor, and pathos in his writing.

I mean, he won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1930. . .

I"ll bet this photo prompted a lot of people to want to call him Poindexter. I hope he went with a nickhame with more pizzaz.

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Main Streeted



Most of the commentary I’ve read on Sinclair Lewis’ “Main Street” focuses on the nastiness of small-town life: The parochialism, the gossiping, back-biting, sniping and overall unfriendliness that makes Carol Kennicot’s life in Gopher Prairie, Minnesota, the hell that it is.
I’ve yet to read commentary that focuses on the second theme of the book: Carol’s overall lack of put near anything to feel superior about.
Liberals champion Lewis’ Main Street for focusing on the stifling effects conservatism has on anything progressive. What they miss is that Carol, in her own naïve way, is as uneducated, misinformed, petty, and small as the conservatives most readers love to hate in this book. That’s the reason I love reading this book – because Lewis sincerely presents a balanced look at a town resistant to reform pushed by a woman too uneducated and naïve to reform it.
How can I say Carol is uneducated, her of Blodgett College, her of the library of the metropolis of St. Paul, her of the lofty ideals and strong ambitions? She’s not very good at what she tries to do.
From Vida Sherwin (Page 210) emphasis mine:
If you must know, you’re not a sound reformer at all. You’re an impossiblist. And you give up too easily. You gave up on the new city hall, the anti-fly campaign, club papers, the library-board, the dramatic association – just because we didn’t graduate into Ibsen the very first thing. You want perfection all at once. Do you know what the finest thing you’ve done is – aside from bringing Hugh into the world? It was the help you gave Dr. Will during baby-welfare week. You didn’t demand that each baby be a philosopher and artist before you weighted him, as you do with the rest of us.
And now I’m afraid perhaps I’ll hurt you. We’re going to have a new schoolbuilding in this town – in just a few years – and we’ll have it without one bit of help or interest from you.

Professor Mott and I and some others have been dinging away at the moneyed men for years. We didn’t call on you because you would never stand the pound-pound-pounding year after year without one bit of encouragement. And we’ve won!
Yes, Carol comes back with a rejoinder:

I’m glad. And I’m ashamed I haven’t had any part in getting it. But – Please don’t think I’m unsympathetic if I ask one question: Will the teachers in the hygienic new building go on informing the children that Persia is a yellow spot on the map and Caesar is the title of a book of grammatical puzzles?
Carol Kennicott begins the story unsympathetically, and ends it the same way – never satisfied, smug that her way is the best way – the same feeling she resents in the townsfolk.
Any reform, any progressivism, is going to go slowly. Over time. When you try to get reform all at once, you get things like the French Revolution, the revolt against the Czar, and other unpleasantness. Even the odious “reforms” of Nazi Germany took time – years, not months.

Would-be reformers are too impatient most of the time to get the reform they want. That doesn’t mean the blind stubbornness that clings to the present is any better, but progress and progressivism ought to have the intelligence to stick things out and be patient.
This is likely not what Lewis intended in creating this story – but it’s what I see in it. And I see it twice, because in the character of Erik Valborg, we see the same insistence that genius is there behind the innate naivete. Valborg, the local yearning artiste, knows what he wants to do: Go east to art school, so he can learn to design ladies’ clothing. But like Archie Bunker’s Meathead, he ain’t got no brains nor no ambition – he’s content to work in the local flour mill because it’s easier than pursuing his dreams, which go unpursued because they’d be too much hard work. Even when Valborg is eventually driven out of town, he shows up again acting in a Hollywood movie, much to Carol’s chagrin:

(Page 340) On the screen, in the role of a composer, appeared an actor called Eric Valour.
She was started, incredulous, then wretched. Looking straight out at her, wearing a beret and a velvet jacket, was Erik Valborg.
He had a pale part, which he played neither well nor badly. She speculated “I could have made so much of him – “ she did not finish her speculation.
She went home and read Kennicott’s letters. They had seemed stiff and undetailed, but now there strode from them a personality, a personality unlike that of the languishing young man in the velvet jacket playing a dummy piano in a canvas room.
Again, Carol Kennicott fails – and sees that the things she wished to “reform” – including her husband – mean more to her, have more to them than she ever supposed, than the reformed, the artistic, the phonies who feel they’re free but are playing dummy pianos in a canvas room.
The only character who succeeds at reform in Gopher Prairie is the luckless Miles Bjornstam, who defied everything held holy in the town and dared to live the life he wanted to live. He succeeded by reforming himself. So he says:
(page 108)I never thought I’d be agreeing with Old Man Dawson, the penny-pinching old land-thief – and a fine briber he is too. But you got the wrong slant. You aren’t one of the people – yet. You want to do something for the town. I don’t! I want the town to do something for itself. We don’t want old Dawson’s money – not if it’s a gift, with a string. We’ll take it away from him, because it belongs to us. You got to get more iron and cussedness into you. Come join us cheerful bums, and some day – when we educate ourselves and quit being bums – we’ll take things and run ‘em straight.
He had changed from her friend to a cynical man in overalls. She could not relish the autocracy of “cheerful bums.”

Bjornstam found joy in his “reforms” – a wife and a child, a growing, prospering dairy – for which he did not exchange a single cent of his cynicism, his freedom. He found defeat not from the town, but from the deaths of his wife and child from typhoid. The town gloats in his defeat, but it is not their defeatism that sends him packing – it is the thought of looking at his house, the little chariot he built for his son, and seeing only memories, memories the ugliness of Gopher Prairie could not take form him, nor ease.
And Carol – Carol learns she doesn’t have the patience to get more iron and cussedness – the same virtues Vida Sherwin says she lacks – in order to run things straight. She can’t get educated and stop being a bum – for doing that is simply too hard, or too hard for her yet.
Need more evidence? Consider Will Kennicott’s speech to Carol after he catches Carol and Erik out for a soggy walk:
(Page 312) Wait, wait, wait now! Hold up! You’re assuming that your Erik will make good. As a matter of fact, at my age he’ll be running a one-man tailor shop in some burg about the size of Schoenstrom.
He will not!
That’s what he’s headed for now, all right, and he’s twenty-five or –six and – What he done to make you think he’ll ever be anything but a pants-presser?
He has sensitivities and talent –
Wait now! What has he actually done in the art line? Has he done one first-class picture or – sketch, d’you call it? Or one poem, or played the piano, or anything except gas about what he’s going to do?
She looked thoughtful.
Then it’s a hundred to one shot that he never will. Way I understand it, even these fellows that do something pretty good at home and get to go to art school, there ain’t more than one out of ten of ‘em maybe out of a hundred that ever get above grinding out a bum living – about as artistic as plumbing. And when it comes down to this tailor, why, can’ t you see – you that take on so about psychology – can’t you see that it’s just by contrast with folks like Doc McGanum or Lym Cass that this fellow seems artistic? Suppose you’d met up with him first in one of these reg’lar New York studios! You wouldn’t notice him any more ‘n a rabbit!
This is preceded by a plea from him to recognize him for his skills, his science – (Page 311)  “You that ‘re always speiling about how scientists ought to rule the world, instead of a bunch of spread-eagle politicians – can’t you see that I’m all the science there is here?” Carol Kennicott can’t see the trees of competence, of skill, of artistry, for the forest of inadequacy she populates in Gopher Prairie, and with which Gopher Prairie is rightly populated.
It’s interesting that so many people say Main Street is a novel without a plot – but to me, the plot is clear: Witness the life of Carol Kennicott, would-be reformer, too lazy to become educated enough to be an effective reformer, because she’s too lazy to put in the work.

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Not Enough Tin Foil in the World, or Politics Explained via Sponge Bob


I go vote every chance I get. If I lived in Chicago or Miami, I’d follow their collective motto: Vote early, vote often. I’m like those poor confused fellows in England who want to vote for their preferred candidate for Mayor of London even though I, technically, live in Manchester.

But the older I get, the more I realize: There just ain’t enough tin foil to go around for the people who really get wound up in this politic slop.

Both parties are blowing it. Fringe parties are just that – the fringe. I’ve voted for plenty of people in fringe parties, always regarding my vote as a protest, a throwaway. I knew there was no chance in hell that H. Ross Perot – Part Mongoose, Part Ferengi – would win. I knew when I voted for Ralph “Charisma Vacuum” Nader that I might as well vote for Darth Vader as Vader might have a better chance of winning.
Ever since my first presidential election vote in 1992 (I voted then, absentee, for Perot while sitting in an apartment in Toulouse, France, wondering why the Bonneville Republican Party had been allowed to include their propaganda in the same envelope with my absentee ballot) I’ve been voting for the lesser of two or three evils. That’s why Nader got my vote in 2004. And let me tell you, I’m just bubbling with anticipation to see who the major parties will put up in 2012.

The Democrats, of course, will go with the incumbency of Barack Obama, unless, of course, his holding action of appointing Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State doesn’t hold. (And if It doesn’t, I hope to see something like this at the DNC convention, with Hillary taking the role of Sandy Cheeks):


The real wild cards will come from the Republicans, I’m sure. And depending on whom they pick, they could turn President Obama into your typical Democratic one-termer.

But, based on whom the Republicans picked last time, this is what I anticipate coming from them in 2012:


I’ll say it right now: If the Republcians pick Sarah Palin in 2012, I’ll vote for the other guy, be it Barack Obama or Berzelius “Buzz” Windrip.

But they’ll have to be careful. As much as I like Mitt Romney, he won’t win an election for the Republicans, though he might fare better against Obama than Palin. No, the Republicans are going to have to find somebody else. Who that somebody else might be at this point, I do not know. Not Bobby Jindal. Somebody who’s experienced in things political and foreign (aside from looking out of frost-encrusted windows, metaphorically, into foreign countries) but who has also been off the radar for a while. Because if you ask me, this next election is for the Republicans to win or lose, depending on whom they select as the contender. Back the wrong horse and they’ll see Obama back in office for another four years. I’m not saying that would be bad, but I am kind of implying that given toe kowtowing to the status quo, putting Obama back in office will have the same kind of magical effect as putting him in office in the first place.
Because, frankly, this is the kind of things we expect from our politicians:


Though we say we want this (meaning the truth):


Of course, the same can be said for the voters on either side of the political spectrum. Collectively, we've got the brain of a diseased fig. We want what we want and don't really care if getting what we want tramples onwhat others want. Dissatisfied with our politicians, we join fringe movements (yes, there are fringes on the left as well as the right; the right just gets air time with the Tea Party crazies; just listen to those flipping out abou the Mother Teresa stamp and not really realizing that The Daily Show is MAKING FUN OF THEM in their little Da Vinci code segment to get a little flavor of the Left's bizarre irrationality.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mail Mary
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorHealth Care Reform

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Who Reads an American Book?

This is coming out of the blue, so bear with me.

Several years back in a college poetry-writing class, we got to talking about Miguel de Cervantes' Don Quixote, and how the story has become a symbol of Spain. Someone in the class asked the professor if there were an American author whose writings have become a symbol of the United States. This professor said no -- that the nation was too young to have produced such an author.

That thought bugged me for a long time. So today, I present a few authors whose writings can be said to represent the United States:
  • Sinclair Lewis. From Babbitt through Arrowsmith to It Can't Happen Here, Lewis' writings embody two quintissential facets of the U.S. culture: Migration form the small town to the big city and the desire to make fame and fortune without really having to work for it. Both Babbitt and Arrowsmith follow characters who have great ambitions but see their dreams tripped up in their own shortcomings, specifically (for Babbitt) his desire to conform and (for Arrowsmith) his desire for something constantly out of his reach due to fear of failure.
Reading Babbitt is a profound pleasure. Anyone who says they can't see a bit of themselves in George Babbitt is, frankly, a liar.
  • John Steinbeck. No American author has better captured both the beauty and the ugliness of the American spirit. In The Pastures of Heaven and Cannery Row, he finds American character at its best, albeit flawed by the nature that makes us all human. In other works such as The Grapes of Wrath and In Dubious Battle, he identifies the side of Ameridan character that drives one to succeed at all costs, even if the costs are the lives and livelihoods of fellow human beings. Winter of Our Discontent is his most haunting novel, in which we find a character driven to despair by his pursuit of the American Dream.
I plan on adding to this list form time to time. Both of these authors, of course, paint a pretty gloomy picture of the American character. There are others who paint with different strokes and with brighter colors (James Thurber, L. Frank Baum and Mark Twain come to mind).

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

The Small Town Is Dead! Long Live the Small Town!

I knew, going in to read Jan Karon’s At Home in Mitford, that what Karon writes and what one of my favorite authors, Sinclair Lewis, wrote was going to clash. I was right.

Karon worships the small town, painting her characters as irascible misfits, artistes, the dedicated doctor, the troubled boy, the harried farmer/veterinarian, the priest who is the community’s glue, keeping everything, including the storyline, going. Only one character – a minor one, at that – is depicted as unsavory or annoying (the editor of the local newspaper, who is only mentioned because of the flubs he prints and his overeagerness for “hard” news). The character of Dooley Barlowe’s mother is also unsavory, but since she is mentioned only in passing, her characterization hardly counts.

Lewis is weary of the small town, painting his characters as smug, self-satisfied, prying, dull and – worst of all – reluctantly conformist who keep following their small-town ways because that’s the way it’s always been done. Lewis depicts only one of his characters in a savory manner – Miles Bjornstam, the town crank and critic who never gives in to the small-town mentality. His protagonist Carol is depicted sympathetically, but ultimately with Lewis’ most-hated characteristic – the conformist. Reluctant, yes, but a conformist nonetheless.

The truth of the small town is in the middle somewhere. Small towns aren’t as oppressive as Lewis’ Gopher Prarie, nor are they as idyllic as Karon’s Mitford. Small-town characters aren’t as colorless as Lewis’s Vergil Gunch, nor as vibrant as Karon’s Father Tim.

What both authors catch is the small-town susceptibility towards being condescending to outsiders. Lewis condemns it, while Karon seems to celebrate it (most vividly in describing the reluctance of the town’s grocery store to sell local corn to visitors because they’d overcook it).

I see this on a daily basis, as I live in a small town, population of just under 1,300. The dividing line between newcomer and old-timers is 1976, when the town was flooded after a federally-built dam on the Teton River burst. In this town, you’re either pre-flood or post-flood. Even people who moved to town 30 years ago feel this divide. Not that the divide bothers us. My wife and I are hermits. I’d live happily in the middle of nowhere if we had electricity and a good Internet connection; my wife likes being close to town just for the convenience of it.