Fascinating book.

Written in 1926, it remains as valid a critique of churches and evangelism today as it was back then.

Sinclair Lewis dedicated a great deal of research to support the story, and it truly shows.

Regarding satire, it has been said that the writer must have a certain degree of love for the things he mocks in order to create effective satire, and one can sense that this is indeed the case here.

The book encompasses numerous aspects of organized religion, ranging from teaching colleges to revivalist gospel meetings, new age religion before it was even named as such, mainstream congregations, and interfaith committees, all with the same sharp wit.

Well written, it was turned into a film. However, there is ample material here for another film, should someone wish to attempt it, although it would still be a controversial subject.

Less than ten pages into this novel, I was completely hooked. It truly felt as if Sinclair Lewis had the ability to time travel. He seemed to transport himself forward in time to sit beside me during worship services in multiple churches and then transport himself back to the 1920s to write about it. Seriously, it gives the impression that very little has changed in the world of American Evangelicalism. This movement still has its emerging celebrities who are more ambitious than humble and show more passion than grace. It still asserts its relevance by waging a "culture war" that demonizes secular education and behavior. Elmer Gantry never really 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 both its strong and weak points. I adored his writing style. I have a few other books on my summer reading list, but I would really like to explore Babbitt and Arrowsmith eventually. He writes with a sense of humor and flamboyance that is 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 while reading this in which I laughed out loud (the best point being a conversation Gantry has with a minister who derides Sinclair Lewis - the best instance of self-deprecation ever), and there were also moments of deep poignancy.

That being said, I wish Lewis wasn't so committed to Elmer Gantry's success in the final third of the novel. (The first part 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 part shows his emergence as a Billy Sunday-type evangelist with global acclaim). By that final third, Gantry seemed to be extremely good at being slimy, to the extent that plot points that Lewis should have used to bring him down did not have any effect, not even a little. Granted, I'm not seeking happy endings, but that final story arc feels like it has no real arc; it just keeps ascending, 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, overshadowed the potential for a real character arc.

Don't let that prevent 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 its shine in almost 80 years.

Arguably, "Elmer Gantry" is the Great American Novel, or at least a work that offers a particularly sharp perspective on Christian revivalism and evangelicalism in the first quarter of the 20th century, with glimpses into early Pentecostalism and New Thought spiritualism. It's a tired old saying, but it's true: the book is just as relevant today as it was in 1927. Elmer Gantry and those like him are still among us, making a commotion out of religion and taking advantage of the faithful who, as Lewis shows, are all too willing to part with their money.
Elmer Gantry may not be the most complex or multi-faceted character in literary history, but he is one that readers can't help but care about, hoping he'll reform and overcome his vices, especially lust and pride.
Don't bother with the 1960 movie adaptation; it doesn't do justice to the book and only focuses on the most sensational parts, while changing them with what seems like blatant disrespect for the source material. The best scenes in the novel are those that would be impossible to film, like the detailed description of another pastor, Frank Shallard, who searches for truth and ends up in a theological dead end. Or the story of Pastor Arthur Pengilly, the book's shining star, a sincere and dedicated Christian whom Lewis presents in a positive light.
Shallard and later Pastor McGarry anticipate the path of the mainline churches, such as the Methodists and Presbyterians, towards a faith that is more about appearance than substance, where people admire the symbols but don't really believe in anything. And Gantry foreshadows the televangelists of our time, charming his congregations with his down-home charm and folksiness while using tricks borrowed from the entertainment industry. These tricks he learned from lady evangelist Sharon Falconer, who was modeled after the disgraced Aimee Semple McPherson, who faked a kidnapping to cover up an affair. Lewis' portrayal is unflattering and scathing, and rightfully so.
In 1927, Lewis used a literary device that I had always thought was invented by Kurt Vonnegut in the 1960s: breaking the fourth wall and including himself in the narrative. Well, at least he refers to himself by name as the author of that "loathsome novel" "Main Street". It's an uncomfortable scene, and shamelessly self-indulgent, especially when Lewis lists himself alongside his friend, the famous muckraking journalist H.L. Mencken, to whom the book is dedicated.
Speaking of Vonnegut, Lewis also preceded him in having his characters from different novels exist in the same fictional world. For example, Elmer Gantry makes a few appearances and has a cameo in Lewis' 1943 novel "Gideon Planish". By then, Gantry is a successful pastor and radio preacher in New York City. (And in a prophetic scene, Gantry blames World War II on God's anger at people for not going to church; compare that to Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson's reaction to 9/11.)
I highly recommend "Elmer Gantry" to evangelical Christians who will most appreciate this well-researched and perceptive, albeit often embarrassing, look at their history. The same scandals, corruption, and internal decay that plagued the faith ninety years ago still haunt us today.

Lewis' indictment of religious hypocrisy is a powerful and thought-provoking piece of work.

Even though it was written some time ago, its message remains as relevant today as it was then.

The way Lewis exposes the false piety and self-righteousness of some religious people is truly compelling.

He shows how their actions often contradict the very teachings they claim to uphold.

This forces us to examine our own beliefs and behaviors and question whether we are truly living up to the values we profess.

Lewis' work serves as a reminder that true religion is not about outward appearances or empty rituals, but about a genuine love for God and for others.

It challenges us to be more authentic in our faith and to strive for a deeper understanding of what it means to be a follower of Christ.

Overall, Lewis' indictment of religious hypocrisy is a must-read for anyone interested in exploring the true nature of religion and its role in our lives.

This classic is not only timely but also evokes a sense of a bygone era. It is truly helpful as I strive to quell my fear of our current Gantry/Gekko president. Shyster sociopaths have existed throughout history and have often achieved great success. Perhaps we will manage to survive this enormous success. After all, he is the most powerful man on our planet. Wow. He really should have remained in the realm of real estate where he belongs.

Lewis is an outstanding observer and incredibly witty. I would have adored to have him over for dinner. I hold this book in the highest regard.

Moving on to “It Can’t Happen Here.” Well, it presents a rather thought-provoking scenario. The story delves into the possibility of a totalitarian regime emerging in the United States, which is both alarming and eye-opening. It makes one question the stability and fragility of our democratic institutions.

The author's vivid descriptions and engaging narrative keep the reader hooked from start to finish. It serves as a reminder that we must always be vigilant and protect the values and freedoms that we hold dear. Overall, “It Can’t Happen Here” is a must-read for anyone interested in politics, history, or the human condition.

I truly wish that I could bestow more than just five stars upon "Elmer Gantry."

This novel is an absolute masterpiece, brilliantly written with such finesse that it manages to deeply disturb the reader while simultaneously being sarcastically funny. It is a scathing satire that delves into the realm of religious hypocrisy.

First published nearly a century ago, it has an uncanny relevance that seems to have only grown stronger with the passage of time.

In a world where religious institutions and figures are often held in high regard, "Elmer Gantry" peels back the layers to reveal the less savory aspects that lurk beneath the surface.

It forces us to confront the uncomfortable truth that not all who claim to be religious are truly virtuous.

This novel serves as a powerful reminder that we should always be vigilant and not blindly accept everything that is presented to us in the name of religion.

It is a work that will make you think, question, and perhaps even change your perspective on the role of religion in society.

Overall, "Elmer Gantry" is a must-read for anyone who appreciates thought-provoking literature that challenges the status quo.

From start to finish, this is an engrossing read.

It is the first Sinclair Lewis novel I have delved into, and his style is truly impressive. What stands out is his remarkable ability to seamlessly transition from the jargon specific to a character to eloquent, neutral narration, and then to the lofty phrasing of preachers, all while infusing it with a marvelously sardonic wit.

The story itself presents difficult questions regarding people and their allure towards a higher power and ambition. Whether it's a farmer in search of salvation or a so-called "holy man" striving for a more prominent place in the world. Moreover, it offers a harsh examination of the practices and hypocrisy within organized religion and its fundamental connection to business, which made the book extremely controversial. (To the extent that the 1960 film includes a written disclaimer clarifying that the story doesn't represent every Christian.)

All the characters are fascinating, but it is Elmer who takes center stage here. Lewis's talent for conveying his unique, self-satisfied, often revolting, and contradictory mindset without reveling in his various scandals and misdeeds is what compelled me to read every word meticulously.

I don't wish to spoil anything, so I'll conclude with this: if you have a penchant for stories about questionable characters, thought-provoking insights on religion and politics, and a desire to catch a glimpse of early twentieth-century America, both in its rustic and metropolitan aspects, then do yourself a favor and read Elmer Gantry. He'll expound on how "love is the morning and the evening star," and, as a point of reference for those who have watched the (still excellent) 1960 movie, he hits six times harder than his on-screen counterpart.

The character Elmer Gantry is portrayed as righteous, yet in a rather strident and repetitive manner. He is also hypocritical, and these traits, among others, do not complement each other. For me, this was precisely the problem with the book. The characters in Sinclair Lewis novels often seem flat and one-dimensional, and this is especially true in the case of Elmer Gantry. The constant hammering of his message can be quite tiresome.

I read Babbitt a couple of weeks ago and had a good time with it. However, my mistake was returning to Lewis too soon. Instead of a new and refreshing novel, this felt more like a sequel. It was like watching Woody Allen films, which are entertaining to a certain extent, but always give the impression that you are watching the same movie on a different set.

There are indeed many good aspects to Lewis and his novels. Nevertheless, for me, Lewis's message comes across a little too much like that of his protagonist - righteous, strident, and repetitive. And just like anything that is repeated too frequently, it eventually becomes a bit boring.

A brilliant exposé of the sordid psyche of two-bit preachers. Surely Sinclair Lewis’ best book.

Does the young skeptic, Jim Lefferts represent Sinclair Lewis himself?

***

“Bishop Wesley R. Toomis had suggested to Elmer that he ought to read philosophy, and he had recommended Royce. … So Elmer came back from Sparta with the two volumes of Royce's “The World and the Individual,” and two new detective stories. … He opened the first volume of Royce confidently, and drew back in horror. He had a nice, long, free afternoon in which to become wise. He labored on. He read each sentence six times. His mouth drooped pathetically. It did not seem fair that a Christian knight who was willing to give his time to listening to people's ideas should be treated like this. He sighed, and read the first paragraph again. He sighed, and the book dropped into his lap. … But he kept at it. In less than three months he had reached page fifty-one of the first volume of Royce. Then he bogged down in a footnote … The Reverend Elmer Gantry drew his breath, quietly closed the book, and shouted, "Oh, shut up!" He never again read any philosophy more abstruse than that of Wallace D. Wattles or Edward Bok.”

***

That door opened inward--only it did not open, with the score of victims thrust against it. In howling panic, Elmer sprang among them, knocked them aside, struck down a girl who stood in his way, yanked open the door, and got through it... the last, the only one, to get through it.

He never remembered leaping, but he found himself in the surf, desperately swimming toward shore, horribly cold, horribly bound by heavy clothes. He humped out of his coat.

In the inside pocket was Lily Anderson's address [the pianist Elmer planned to use to make Sharon Falconer jealous], as she had given it to him before going that morning.

The sea, by night, though it was glaring now with flames from above, seemed infinite in its black sightlessness. The waves thrust him among the piles; their mossy slime was like the feel of serpents to his frantic hands, and the barnacles cut his palms. But he struggled out from beneath the pier, struggled toward shore, and as he swam and panted, more and more was the sea blood-red about him. In blood he swam, blood that was icy-cold and tumultuous and roaring in his ears.

His knees struck sand, and he crawled ashore, among a shrieking, torn, sea-soaked crowd. Many had leaped from the rail of the promenade and were still fighting the surf, wailing, beaten. Their wet and corpselike heads were seen clearly in the glare; the pier was only a skeleton, a cage round a boiling of flame, with dots of figures still dropping from the promenade.

Elmer ran out a little into the surf and dragged in a woman who had already safely touched bottom.

He had rescued at least thirty people who had already rescued themselves before the reporters got to him and he had to stop and explain the cause of the fire, the cost of the tabernacle, the amount of insurance, the size of the audience, the number of souls revived by Miss Falconer during all her campaigns, and the fact that he had been saving both Miss Falconer and Adelbert Shoop when they had been crushed by a falling rafter.

***

Elmer had, even in Zenith, to meet plenty of solemn and whiskery persons whose only pleasure aside from not doing agreeable things was keeping others from doing them. But the general bleakness of his sect was changing, and he found in Wellspring Church a Young Married Set who were nearly as cheerful as though they did not belong to a church.

This Young Married Set, though it was in good odor, though the wives taught Sunday School and the husbands elegantly passed collection plates, swallowed the Discipline with such friendly ease as a Catholic priest uses toward the latest bleeding Madonna. They lived, largely, in the new apartment-houses which were creeping into Old Town. They were not rich, but they had Fords and phonographs and gin. They danced, and they were willing to dance even in the presence of the Pastor.

They smelled in Elmer one of them, and though Cleo's presence stiffened them into uncomfortable propriety, when he dropped in on them alone they shouted, "Come on, Reverend, I bet you can shake a hoof as good as anybody! The wife says she's gotta dance with you! Gotta get acquainted with these Sins of the World if you're going to make snappy sermons!"

****

Sinclair Lewis teases about his own work:

"Oh, tut, tut, Frank; trouble with you is," Philip McGarry yawned, "trouble with you is, you like arguing more than you do patiently working out the spiritual problems of some poor, dumb, infinitely piteous human being that comes to you for help, and that doesn't care a hoot whether you advocate Zoroastrianism or Seventh-day Adventism, so long as he feels that you love him and that you can bring him strength from a power higher than himself. I know that if you could lose your intellectual pride, if you could forget that you have to make a new world, better'n the Creator's, right away tonight--you and Bernard Shaw and H. G. Wells and H. L. Mencken and Sinclair Lewis (Lord, how that book of Lewis', 'Main Street,' did bore me, as much of it as I read; it just rambled on forever, and all he could see was that some of the Gopher Prairie hicks didn't go to literary teas quite as often as he does!--that was all he could see among those splendid heroic pioneers)! Well, as I was saying, if instead of starting in where your congregation has left off, because they never had your chance, you could draw them along with you--"

****

Rev. Frank Shallard and Rev. Philip McGary speaking about their doubts:

[Frank:] ”Phil, next to the humorous ragging I spoke of, and the use of stale phrases, the worst cancer in religious discussion is the use of the metaphor! The Protestant church is not a regiment. You're not a soldier. The soldier has to fight when and as he's told. You have absolute liberty, outside of a few moral and doctrinal compulsions.”

[Phil:] ”Ah-hah, now I've got you, my logical young friend! If we have that liberty, why aren't you willing to stay in the church? Oh, Frank, Frank, you are such a fool! I know that you long for righteousness. Can't you see that you can get it best by staying in the church, liberalizing from within, instead of running away and leaving the people to the ministrations of the Gantrys?”

[Frank:] ”I know. I've been thinking just that all these years. That's why I'm still a preacher! But I'm coming to believe that it's tommyrot. I'm coming to think that the hell-howling old mossbacks corrupt the honest liberals a lot more than the liberals lighten the backwoods minds of the fundamentalists. What the dickens is the church accomplishing, really? Why have a church at all? What has it for humanity that you won't find in worldly sources--schools, books, conversation?”

[Phil:] ”It has this, Frank: It has the unique personality and teachings of Jesus Christ, and there is something in Jesus, there is something in the way he spoke, there is something in the feeling of a man when he suddenly has that inexpressible experience of knowing the Master and his presence, which makes the church of Jesus different from any other merely human institution or instrument whatsoever! Jesus is not simply greater and wiser than Socrates or Voltaire; he is entirely different. Anybody can interpret and teach Socrates or Voltaire--in schools or books or conversation. But to interpret the personality and teachings of Jesus requires an especially called, chosen, trained, consecrated body of men, united in an especial institution--the church.”

[Frank:] ”Phil, it sounds so splendid. But just what were the personality and the teachings of Jesus? I'll admit it's the heart of the controversy over the Christian religion:--aside from the fact that, of course, most people believe in a church because they were born to it. But the essential query is: Did Jesus--if the Biblical accounts of him are even half accurate--have a particularly noble personality, and were his teachings particularly original and profound? You know it's almost impossible to get people to read the Bible honestly. They've been so brought up to take the church interpretation of every word that they read into it whatever they've been taught to find there. It's been so with me, up to the last couple of years. But now I'm becoming a quarter free, and I'm appalled to see that I don't find Jesus an especially admirable character!

"He is picturesque. He tells splendid stories. He's a good fellow, fond of low company--in fact the idea of Jesus, whom the bishops of his day cursed as a rounder and wine-bibber, being chosen as the god of the Prohibitionists is one of the funniest twists in history. But he's vain, he praises himself outrageously, he's fond of astonishing people by little magical tricks which we've been taught to revere as 'miracles.' He is furious as a child in a tantrum when people don't recognize him as a great leader. He loses his temper. He blasts the poor barren fig-tree when it doesn't feed him. What minds people have! They hear preachers proving by the Bible the exact opposites, that the Roman Catholic Church is divinely ordained and that it is against all divine ordinances, and it never occurs to them that far from the Christian religion--or any other religion--being a blessing to humanity, it's produced such confusion in all thinking, such secondhand viewing of actualities, that only now are we beginning to ask what and why we are, and what we can do with life!

"Just what are the teachings of Christ? Did he come to bring peace or more war? He says both. Did he approve earthly monarchies or rebel against them? He says both. Did he ever--think of it, God himself, taking on human form to help the earth--did he ever suggest sanitation, which would have saved millions from plagues? And you can't say his failure there was because he was too lofty to consider mere sickness. On the contrary, he was awfully interested in it, always healing some one--providing they flattered his vanity enough!

"What did he teach? One place in the Sermon on the Mount he advises--let me get my Bible--here it is: 'Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father which is in heaven,' and then five minutes later he's saying, 'Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them, otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.' That's an absolute contradiction, in the one document which is the charter of the whole Christian Church. Oh, I know you can reconcile them, Phil. That's the whole aim of the ministerial training: to teach us to reconcile contradictions by saying that one of them doesn't mean what it means--and it's always a good stunt to throw in 'You'd understand it if you'd only read it in the original Greek'!

"There's just one thing that does stand out clearly and uncontradicted in Jesus' teaching. He advocated a system of economics whereby no one saved money or stored up wheat or did anything but live like a tramp. If this teaching of his had been accepted, the world would have starved in twenty years, after his death!

"No, wait, Phil, just one second and then I'm through!"

He talked till dawn.

Frank's last protest, as they stood on the steps in the cold grayness, was:

"My objection to the church isn't that the preachers are cruel, hypocritical, actually wicked, though some of them are that, too--think of how many are arrested for selling fake stock, for seducing fourteen-year-old girls in orphanages under their care, for arson, for murder. And it isn't so much that the church is in bondage to Big Business and doctrines as laid down by millionaires--though a lot of churches are that, too. My chief objection is that ninety-nine percent of sermons and Sunday School teachings are so agonizingly dull!"

[In the next chapter, Phil throws Frank under the bus and Frank loses his church. Gantry plays a role in Frank’s undoing and acts for his own aggrandizement. Years later, when Frank tries to speak on behalf of science, he is savagely attacked by a group of fundamentalists.]

***

[Does Sinclair Lewis reveal his own religious views and tastes when it comes to the formation and interests of Frank?:]

[Early in the book when Frank shares ideas with one of his errant teachers and they reveal their skepticism to each other:] That began it--began a talk, always cautious, increasingly frank, which lasted till midnight. Dr. Zechlin lent him (with the adjuration not to let any one else see them) Renan's "Jesus," and Coe's "The Religion of a Mature Mind."

[Frank speaking after he loses his church:] "I've done nothing for which to resign! I've led a thoroughly decent life. I haven't lied or been indecent or stolen. I've preached imagination, happiness, justice, seeking for the truth. I'm no sage, Heaven knows, but I've given my people a knowledge that there are such things as ethnology and biology, that there are books like 'Ethan Frome' and 'Père Goriot' and 'Tono-Bungay' and Renan's 'Jesus,' that there is nothing wicked in looking straight at life--"

This book is truly one of those captivating reads that keeps you turning the pages.

You find yourself compelled to know what occurs at the end, yet deep down, you have little hope of the outcome being any different from what it already seems.

The portrayal of the leadership position in Christianity through the character of Elmer is completely scathing.

He embodies every trait a hypocrite is expected to have. On top of that, he is not only obnoxious but also fairly disgusting.

The book appears to present the same story repeatedly, but on progressively grander scales.

Elmer comes up with an idea to enhance his fame. He then implements the plan without considering anyone but himself.

He almost faces disgrace but manages to emerge triumphant and even more famous than ever before.

It's a cycle that keeps repeating, leaving the reader with a sense of both anticipation and a certain weariness.

Overall, the book offers a thought-provoking exploration of human nature and the flaws that can exist within positions of supposed authority.

DNF. I just couldn't bring myself to finish it.

I find that particular type of religiosity to be truly repugnant and extremely hard to read.

I'm well aware that the book is meant to be a satire or a skewering of certain aspects, but despite that knowledge, I just couldn't push through.

It's definitely my fault and not the author's.

Perhaps my own personal beliefs and views on religion made it difficult for me to fully engage with the text.

Or maybe it was the way the author presented the religious ideas and concepts that rubbed me the wrong way.

Whatever the reason, I had to admit defeat and put the book down unfinished.

Maybe one day I'll give it another try, but for now, I just couldn't do it.

Written in 1927, the picture he presents of fundamentalism remains as accurate today as it was back then.

It is truly remarkable how relevant it still is. I understand that it is intended to be satire, yet I can vividly recall specific individuals I have known who bear a striking resemblance to each of the characters depicted.

To be honest, there were moments when I felt he became a bit "preachy" in his stance against all of Christianity, and on that point, I found myself in disagreement with him.

However, it cannot be denied that his portrayal of fundamentalism was absolutely spot-on.

He managed to capture the essence and characteristics of fundamentalism with great precision, making it a thought-provoking and relevant piece even after all these years.

It serves as a reminder of the enduring nature of certain ideological and religious phenomena and the importance of critical examination.