In reading about the experiences of other GoodReads subscribers with this book, it becomes evident that many modern readers, just like me, faced challenges in staying engaged during the initial few chapters. At one stage, I actually set it aside and firmly decided to return it to the library without completing it. However, one evening, on a sudden impulse, I sat down and gave it another shot. As I delved deeper into the pages, the more intrigued I became.

I surmise that devising the plot for the novel might not have been overly arduous. All Lewis seemingly had to do was observe the events transpiring in Germany and Italy at that time and transplant them into a New England backdrop.

Nonetheless, he crafted a captivating narrative that managed to draw me in emotionally to such an extent that I found myself cheering during those relatively scarce moments when the antagonists received their just deserts.

So, how does it compare to the Trump presidency, which was in its final two weeks as I perused this over the past few days? The novel was far more bleak, yet there were parallels to be discerned in our present circumstances. The vilification of the press, for instance, and the opportunists who would do or say anything, no matter how preposterous, in the hope of climbing a little higher on the “leadership” ladder.

Moreover, along with the slandering of the press, we are witnessing a highly efficient propaganda machine that has persuaded numerous seemingly intelligent individuals to believe whatever a, quite frankly, rather dim person like Donald Trump utters over their own senses. In fact, it reminds me of a recent Trump quote: “What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.” (If you don't believe me, Google it.)

I have had to refrain from looking at Facebook in the past couple of days as I am astounded by how many people I know actually believe and are vehemently insisting that it wasn't Trump supporters who attacked the US Capitol last Wednesday but rather “antifa” agents attempting to smear Trump and his adherents. A friend of my niece even claimed that her brother or boyfriend or someone had been there and had witnessed them actually transporting in the antifa people. Whatever that might look like. (How would one know when everyone around is a stranger? I mean, it's not as if they would be donning “Antifa” T-shirts if they were supposed to be masquerading as Trump supporters, right?) And yet, gradually, the actual perpetrators are being apprehended, and it turns out they are known Trump enthusiasts, not “agents” trying to make a laughingstock of Trump, something he is quite capable of achieving on his own.

Anyway, my apologies for digressing. In any event, this book is well worth reading. Given that it is approximately 90 years old, don't be startled if it lags in certain areas where you don't fathom the context of the discussion. Simply disregard that and continue reading as the specific contexts are not crucial for comprehending the story itself.

Aside from foreshadowing the terrifying reigns under Hitler, Stalin, and the North Korean dynasties, Lewis's novel from 1935 is truly remarkable. It vividly captures the significance of journalistic resistance against totalitarian regimes. This is beautifully encapsulated in the final line, "a Doremus Jessup can never die". It also emphasizes the importance of maintaining one's sense of humor and courage in the face of mindless thuggery and senseless violence. The disillusioned Minute Men, who are left behind, are shown to be ready to resort to torture and revenge instantly when the power dynamics change. This serves as yet another reminder that tyrannies thrive when politicians exploit a directionless anger for their own purposes. The spirit of Doremus Jessup persists in all free media reporting from impartial sources around the world. It is a spirit that will always triumph in the face of anonymous hatemongering.

What an interesting satire indeed!

It is especially fascinating because it was penned eight decades ago and still has a relevant connection to contemporary politics.

In 1937, Sinclair Lewis crafted a script for the stage, which achieved enormous success.

I am utterly convinced that, considering the current state of affairs in 2017, if this play were to be performed now, it would be an absolute blockbuster.

The play was last staged in 2011.

In 1937, Lewis himself took on the role of Doremus Jessup, a small-town newsman who had the foresight to recognize what was transpiring, while others remained either oblivious or too courteous to oppose the prevailing current.

This character's perspective and actions add depth and intrigue to the story, making it not only a reflection of the political climate of its time but also a thought-provoking piece that can resonate with audiences today.

The enduring relevance of this satire serves as a testament to the power of great literature to transcend time and offer valuable insights into the human condition and the world of politics.

Frankly, I had never heard of this novel until recently when it has received a great deal of attention for obvious reasons.

This is actually not too far from my usual preferred genre, as it is truly speculative fiction - or perhaps an alternate future? It was written in the early to mid-thirties, and yet twice there is a mention of television sets as being a rather common luxury item.

According to a Wikipedia article, while the first cathode ray tubes were manufactured by Telefunken in Germany in 1934, the RCA 630-TS was the first mass-produced set, becoming available in 1946.

Maybe it is science fiction after all. I found it more similar to H.G. Wells' "The Shape of Things to Come", though it is more satirical and much less far-reaching.

Sinclair Lewis is a master of economical writing. His clear and imaginative prose makes for both easy and entertaining reading.

"This country is ripe for a dictatorship...", and the argument made to support it, is the defining line of this 1935 novel. Had I read this a couple of years ago, I would have thought it was as absurd as Heller's "Catch-22". Reading it now, it is merely as crazy as the reality of the current state of America. Just imagine, people actually leaving the greatest country in the world for places such as Canada.

Originally published in 1935, this book served as a “message to thinking Americans,” presenting a cautionary tale about the fragility of democracy.

‘An alarming, eerily timeless look at how fascism could take hold in America.’

What did I say, published in 1935?

This book was actually beautifully performed at our local community college in 2019.

My husband and I remember leaving the theatre with a sense of awkward silence. What did we just see? What did we just experience? How could it be that we are living this now? And then the pandemic hit.

One reviewer shared the following:

“I have always thought that if fascism ever came to America it would come clothed in red, white, and blue, with patriotic songs, and quotations from founding fathers. It would be nationalistic. It would extol military endeavors and elevate soldiers to the level of heroes. It would handle the race question in subtle yet effective ways. It would join forces with conservative Christian churches and begin to make life hard for anyone else. It would give free reign to the rich, the powerful, and the political supports they enjoy. It would ignore democratic ideals and replace them with a kind of Americanism that encourages love of country over love of people. Make no mistake, American fascism is possible with just the right rhetoric and influence. Sinclair Lewis' book, It Can't Happen Here, portrays just such an America. His dystopia is set in the 1930s, depression years during which extreme solutions to economic problems were abundant. But if you think it can't happen here, and now, think again. They won't call it \\"fascism\\" of course, but we already have Americans who think this way.”

Obviously, this book is a cautionary tale that seems to transcend time and is a constant reminder of what can happen if we are too complacent or too timid to make our voice heard.

Pay attention. We must always be vigilant and not take our democracy for granted. We need to speak up and take action to protect the values and freedoms that we hold dear. This book serves as a wake-up call, urging us to be more aware of the potential threats to our democracy and to work together to prevent them from becoming a reality.

Given the current state of American politics, this book undoubtedly earns my award for the most terrifying read of 2016. I apologize if you don't like my use of the "p" word, but that's the truth.

To understand the novel in its historical context, I refer to an article in the New Yorker by Alexander Nazaryan (October 19th of this year). It states that Sinclair Lewis published the novel as Adolf Hitler was making Germany great again, violating the Treaty of Versailles by establishing the Wehrmacht. Benito Mussolini invaded Ethiopia. Meanwhile, at home, things weren't much better: there was a race riot in Harlem and dust storms in the Midwest. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act, but the promise of the New Deal remained unfulfilled for many. The Times, that November, reported on a meeting of the New Jersey Bankers Association, whose president offered a blunt assessment of the national mood: "America is tired of adventure and anxious," the man of industry said. The people wanted "safety and conservatism again."

I won't go into details here, but the central figure in American politics in this story is Berzelius (Buzz) Windrip, a seemingly down-home populist candidate who ran against FDR and won due to his appeal to potential voters who agreed with his rhetoric about financial security and anti-immigrant nativism. Once in office, he begins to usher in "a fascistic regime of suppression, terror, and totalitarianism -- all draped up in red, white, and blue bunting." (ix)

Standing against Windrip is the liberal media, represented here by the character of Doremus Jessup of Fort Beulah, Vermont. Jessup fully understands what's really going on and feels a deep need to channel his outrage into action. As things continue to worsen and institutions designed to safeguard American democracy are shut down one by one, you can imagine the situation.

The novel reveals how it could happen here, but what was more interesting to me was observing one particular character, Shad Ledue, Jessup's very unhappy former handyman, "the kind of vindictive peasant who sets fire to barns." Ledue is part of the working-class poor who feels he hasn't been given proper respect by his employer. Galvanized by Windrip's rhetoric, he throws in his lot with Windrip and the single political party, the Corpos, and starts climbing the ladder of power with revenge against Jessup as his top priority.

Considering the large number of page tabs I inserted in this book, it's clear I found a lot to think about. I could easily discuss this novel for hours. But I won't. I read this book in a day and an entire night – I couldn't put it down until I finished. The knots in my stomach tightened and tightened – frankly, I had a full-blown, serious case of paralyzing fear while reading this book. And when the election came and went, it all came back to me, making things even worse. Even now, nearly a month after I finished it, it still has the same power. It continues to linger in the back of my mind, making it a book worthy of every second of my reading time. Frankly, not many novels can do that.

Someone told me some time before the election that if things went a certain way, reading this book would be "moot." To that, I say pish-posh, you're wrong. Lewis wrote this novel as satire, and according to the introduction, It Can't Happen Here "gave shape" to a number of "anxieties" people faced during the 1930s, so it's very much a novel reflective of its time. And as I replied to that person, good literature is never moot. If a book written some eighty years ago can weigh so heavily on the mind because of what's happening in America right now, well, that's one hell of a story, and by no means moot.

3.75/5

It is one of the essential books that every educated individual who holds freedom in high regard should peruse. This is because the scenario it描绘 can occur anywhere. In fact, it is already happening in numerous countries around the world.

It presents an alternative history of 1930s USA, where a totalitarian regime seizes control of the government and the disastrous consequences that follow.

What sets this book and others on the same subject of totalitarianism apart is the tragic and disturbing reality that, despite the passage of many decades since they were written, they remain highly relevant, if not entirely accurate. We should have made more progress, and there is no doubt that we can do better! We must learn from the lessons of these books and strive to create a more just and free world for all.

I had never delved into the works of Sinclair Lewis before. As an English major in college, I was tasked with reading Lewis' book "Babbitt" in one of my courses. However, I was immediately put off by the cover (and I firmly believe that it's okay to make a初步判断 based on the cover). The first dozen or so pages failed to capture my attention, and I quickly abandoned it. But I have a weakness for anything that claims to be relevant to modern times, and "It can't happen here" has gained popularity due to Trump.

Side note: Regardless of one's opinion of the man, there's no denying that Trump has been a boon for the struggling publishing industry.

"It can't happen here" predictably explores what occurs when it actually does happen here - in short, nothing good. But a book about the rise of an American fascist should be more engaging than this. There are sections of Lewis' book that are so dull that it's no wonder it was written during the Dust Bowl.

I actually finished reading this about a week ago - I've just been slow to update my Goodreads account - and there's relatively little that stands out in my mind now. I will say that, while reading it, I couldn't help but think that it was an absurd idea that a man as seemingly dumb and backward as Berzelius ‘Buzz’ Windrip could win the presidency. But then I remembered who the current president is.

Maybe this is why I had never heard of "It can't happen here" before. Besides being rather boring, it feels highly unlikely, even when read in light of current events. "What's Lewis smoking?" was probably a common refrain in many reading parlors back in 1935.

A reading parlor! God, what a concept.

But today, oh, today we look at Lewis' book and certain parts of it seem remarkably prescient. Prescient, yes, but still boring. It's even more boring when compared to what's actually happening in the US at the moment.

Today, September 25th, 2018, the rumor is that Trump is considering a "cleaning out" (words that seem strikingly ironic) of the Justice Department. An over one-year-long investigation into the administration's dealings with the Russians has uncovered a number of alarming (and treasonous) revelations, and Bob Woodward's book about the crazy goings-on inside the administration is sitting at the top of the bestseller list.

No, "It can't happen here" has never felt as uninteresting - or as outdated - as it does now.

Like many people who picked up It Can't Happen Here in 2017, I was drawn to the supposed parallels between the plot (a fascist demagogue ascending to power in 1930s America) and the current political climate.

While some of those parallels were indeed striking, the text itself is dull, tiresome, and bereft of much literary value. From a political science standpoint, the rise of Buzz Windrip lacks any degree of complexity. Lewis trudges along, detailing the ways in which Windrip seizes power, yet those methods are unremarkable and unengaging.

Perhaps the text held significance in the political atmosphere of 1930s America, but any profound insights eluded this reader. From a literary perspective, the characters lack any semblance of depth, and the writing is stylistically feeble. I would have anticipated more complex emotions, for instance, from characters observing the rise of such a figure.

I understand that Lewis was aiming for more of a political satire rather than a literary masterpiece, but (from a modern perspective) it fell short on both counts. As a student of history, I did find the text to be an interesting relic of the thirties, but that wasn't sufficient to make it a worthwhile read. For anyone interested in classic commentary on fascism, I would suggest adhering to 1984.

Despite having been published in 1935, this book has recently gained significant prominence. Over the last 6 months, it has been regarded as almost a prophecy of the rise of Donald Trump.

The early section of the book, which describes the ascent of Berzelius Windrip, a Trump-like figure, to the presidency based on hard-to-deliver populist and somewhat contradictory policies, along with the promise of making America great again, is strikingly reminiscent of the politics witnessed in the recent election.

In the book, the right-wing "fascists" behind Windrip quickly establish themselves in government, similar to Hitler's rise in Germany. The results of their dictatorship are both fantastical and plausibly explained. When considering the current situation, I tend to lean more towards the former rather than the latter. The title of the book still rings true for many, but for some harbingers of doom, the story might serve as fuel for the fire of the notion of "Christmas yet to come." Only time will tell what the future holds and if the parallels between the book and reality will continue to unfold.

Lewis' prowess as a writer lies significantly in his acute sense of social satire, which is further enhanced by his humanist portrayal of characters. He views individuals as inherently flawed, constantly teetering on the brink of succumbing to their fears, insecurities, and inflated egos. Nevertheless, this does not imply a condemnation of humanity or its creations. Humanists, unlike idealists, do not anticipate people to completely overcome their flaws. Nor do they advocate for wallowing in apologetic guilt in the hope of redemption.

The aspiration for humanists is that we can come to recognize our imperfections and then strive to minimize their consequences. However, there is a peril in approaching this with self-righteousness, as basing one's self-worth on the recognition of flaws rather defeats the purpose. Coming to terms with our faults is not an act of superiority but simply a definition of how we navigate our lives.

Consequently, the task of the satirist is to bring to light the faults that we humans commonly share. Reading satire is often a delightful experience. The author unearths something concealed within our society, something unspoken and taken for granted, and drags it out of the darkness. It appears as if by magic, now undeniable and unable to slink back into hiding (at least until we cease looking).

Magicians and comedians may repeat this trick time and again, and it will always amuse us to realize that there is no such thing as 'ordinary'; there are only unquestioned assumptions. It demands an active and creative mind to achieve the effect of revealing the ordinary as strange, and this is what we term 'wit'.

Lewis possesses wit and is capable of uncovering the things we take for granted, startling us or making us laugh with seemingly innocuous matters. In 'Elmer Gantry', he takes on a very grand assumption - religion - and its associated hangers-on, dealing a deadly blow to blind faith. In this work, there is no need to inquire about God, as all the faith directed towards him is intercepted by self-righteous men before it has an opportunity to reach anything holier.

In 'It Can't Happen Here', Lewis offers commentary on another favored target of satirists: politics. Specifically, he focuses on the rise of totalitarian tyrants who gain power through the fears of the masses. Inspired by the ascendance of Hitler and Mussolini in Europe, even though his book was written prior to World War II, it still reflects the apprehensions that such regime changes inspired in America's liberal republic.

The most evident of these fears, as presented by Lewis, is the notion that the uneducated American masses might install their own warlike tyrant. His extensive political critique is an early example of the literary movement to critique and explore the methods of totalitarianism, which gave rise to works such as Koestler's 'Darkness at Noon' and the dystopian politics of '1984', 'Fahrenheit 451', and 'Brave New World'.

Regrettably, Lewis is not content with merely exposing flaws, as he did in 'Elmer Gantry'. He also succumbs to the temptation of presenting his own ideals and solutions to the problems of totalitarianism. His condemnation of the uneducated and the self-serving sometimes leads him to become overly righteous about his own intelligence.

The protagonist sometimes functions as a rather transparent proxy for the author, especially in the philosophical development of the denouement. At other times, he allows the protagonist to be small, flawed, and narrow-minded, but the lows are less frequent than the highs. The satire becomes incomplete because there are areas where Lewis himself cannot or will not extend it.

Since Lewis fails to perceive the role that totalitarianism assigns to Academia and intellectualism, he also fails to present the rise of totalitarianism as entirely plausible. As Machiavelli noted, a people unaccustomed to being openly ruled by a prince will resist that rulership. For them to progress into an unfamiliar political state requires a significant social and economic transformation.

Although America endured a relatively severe low during the Great Depression, it was never as profound nor as widespread as the impact of the global economy in Europe. It was this level of poverty and desperation that enabled a few men to amass power, as the majority of people were too preoccupied with obtaining food to offer effective resistance.

Lewis could have hypothesized a more severe prolongation of the Depression to account for the American political shift, or an event significant enough to create a climate of fear through which the dictator could seize power, similar to Hitler after the burning of the Reichstag or Crassus in the Third Servile War.

Perhaps it was Lewis' intention to depict a more gradual and insidious shift in America, but if so, he quickly abandons this for a more extreme portrayal. Presenting both becomes mere hyperbole, and hyperbole without sarcasm is disingenuous. It conflicts with his ostensible aim of presenting a seemingly realistic sequence of events.

The inconsistency in his satire, whether in character or facts, weakens it as a whole. Although the purpose and vision of the work have influenced others in the genre, from Orwell to Heller, Lewis' seminal and enjoyable critique of totalitarianism falls short of the less biased satire of 'Elmer Gantry'.

A clear case of well-intentioned is not the same as well-done. Perhaps the book still had some justification in its year of publication in 1935, as an enlightening means to warn against the danger of totalitarian political systems. As is known, Sinclair Lewis wrote his novel, in which the scenario of a fascist seizure of power in the US is devised, to thwart the presidential ambitions of the democratic Senator Huey Long. A radical populist and challenger of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who served as the model for the figure of the fascist leader Buzz Windrip for Lewis. Long was later assassinated, but the dangers to democracy were indeed present against the backdrop of economic crises and the events in Europe. The attempt to address this threat with the means of the writer is worthy of recognition in this regard. And measured by the then success, the book did not miss its purpose.

The problem is unfortunately that the literary quality is simply abysmal. The characters are all one-dimensional, not to mention psychological depth or ambivalence of the characters. The plot consists of a mere juxtaposition of ideas, abrupt scene changes, and enervating descriptions. Over long stretches it has the level of a dime novel and especially in the second half it reminds of the robber pistols of Karl May. It is hardly explicable why this book deserves a new edition. Although some parallels to Trump, Putin & Co. cannot be ignored. But the charm of the comparison with current political events wears off quite quickly when reading. Another annoyance is the outdated German translation, which even causes involuntary hilarity in serious places. So in the end it must be noted that basically there is nothing against committed literature, if it can also meet aesthetic demands. This does not apply to this novel in any way.