Chicks On Lit discussion
This topic is about
It Can't Happen Here
Archive 08-19 GR Discussions
>
"It Can't Happen Here" by Sinclair Lewis, our May 2017 Group Read
I wish I could join in, but the local libraries have 20 holds already placed on this book! Must be newly re-relevant!
Mod
HELP! I just downloaded my copy from BookShare. But, there is no table of contents, no chapter headings. So, I can't tell how to break up the reading. My copy has a bibliography starting on p. 382. Is there someone with a hard copy that could suggest a reading schedule? Sorry for this.I was thinking that maybe we could read around 90 to 100 pages per week starting on May 1. But, I can't tell where a natural break might be.
Irene--I have a Signet Classics paperback that has no table of contents, but does have chapters: chapter 12 starts on page 91. Chapter 20 starts on page 197. Chapter 30 starts on page 292 and the book ends on page 381. There is an Intro by Michael Meyer and an Afterword by Gary Scharnhorst.
Thank you for that. It really helps.So, here is a schedule:
May 1-7 Read chapter 1-11 and discuss any introduction or background info anyone has on the book.
May 8-14 Read chapter 12-19. Discuss chapters 1-11
May 15-21 Read chapters 20-29. Discuss chapters 12-19
May 22-28 Read chapter 30-end Discuss chapters 21-29
May 29 discuss entire book
Does this work for everyone?
Mod
Monday we will begin our discussion of the first 12 chapters of this book. Before we begin our discussion,...What are your expectations of this book? Do you know anything about it going into it?
Have you read anything by Lewis prior to this one? Did you like his style or not? What did you like or dislike?
Although this book was published 80 years ago, it has recently regained popularity, shooting to the top of best seller lists. Does knowing that people are perceiving this as a commentary on our current situation change your approach to reading the story? Do you like books in which you can discover cultural or political commentary or do you prefer to enjoy a novel as a story in and of itself?
I was able to get my hands on a copy, so I will join in!I'm not sure what to expect with this book. I haven't read Lewis before. I imagine that we will find scary similarities to our current times. I hope there is a real story here and not just a political platform for the author.
Mod
Since this book has suddenly become popular again, 80 years after it was published, I am expecting it to cover issues related to our most recent US Presidential election, and the Nationalist movement worldwide. (though Macron's victory in France tonight was a move in the opposite direction).
I have not quite finished this week's reading yet, but I will admit to hightlighting multiple passages, so I am looking forward to an interesting discussion!
So, with 25% of the book read, what are your impressions?What do you make of Lewis' satirical humor? Does it work 80 years after its original audience? Since Lewis is writing a cautionary novel about unfolding political events, does humor seem an appropriate means of communicating his concern?
Many people see parallels between the situation in this novel and our current political situation in the US. This early in the novel, do you see any parallels? What do you make of them?
Our new presidential candidate has promised all things to all people, promises that are logically impossible while at the same time founding a militia that intimidates opposition. Why are the electorate willing to believe the impossible? Why are they willing to accept the intimidating thugs?
The only group that this candidate does not court with friendly promises and back-slapping friendship is journalists. Since journalists can offer positive or negative press, why would he deliberately make an enemy of journalists? Do journalists really have influence over the general population that they like to think they do?
I'm about halfway through this week's reading, but I definitely see parallels with today's politics. I feel like this book could have been written last week. Although, I do notice a lot of name and event dropping, and while I recognize a lot of it, some of it I can't tell if the author is referencing real events or events he has made up. Without the book in front of me, I can't remember all the promises the candidate has made, although I remember some of them sound very much like a "typical" Republican stance while others sound more like a "typical" Democrat's position. I do find it hard to believe that people would be taken in by someone who is promising both sides of things, but maybe it's that people are hearing what they want to hear and ignoring what they don't like. I also get the sense that this guy is charismatic, while his opponent seems weak.
He seems to be a showman. There is a scene near the end of this week's reading where our narrator goes to see this guy give a speech at Madison Square Garden. We get to see him hypnotize a crowd. And,, there is that sceen at the primary convension. He can manipulate people. But honestly, I have never had an experience when I felt drawn so completely into a stump speech that I was carried along with the momentum. So, I can't relate. Has anyone ever had the experience of being at a speech that drew you in so completely?As for his opponent, in the primary, FDR is one of his opponents and I would not call him week. So, it think it is less about the strength of his opponent than it is about his ability to tap into the dreams and fears of those who are listening to him.
Mod
Passages such as how prosperity will be found in allowing "the reponsible business men to bring back prosperity!" against "All those corrupt and self-seeking labor unions...thinking only of how much ages they can extort out of their unfortunate employer".
The denial of the general populace, saying that Waldrip will never be a fascist dictator, as America is a country of freemen who would never allow it. I loved Jessup's counter argument for that (page 17), talking about "on the radio - divine oracles to millions" ((ie Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones), "Kuklux Klan", "million dollar evangelsits", "Red Scares", "Catholic scares", "Hick legislators forbidding the teaching of evolution", etc.
This bit out of Waldrip's book "Zero Hour" was interesting: "we've got to change our system a lot, maybe even change the whole Constitution...the Executive has got to have a freer hand and be able to move quick in an emergency, and not be tied down by a lot of dumb shyster-lawyer congressmen taking months to shoot off their mouths in debates."
What was everyone's thoughts on Waldrip's " Fifteen Points of Victory for the Forgotten Man"? (chapter 8)
I agree Sheila. I thought Waldrip's entire platform was rather reminiscent of this summer's presidential campaign. We can cut taxes and ensure every American increased services. All we need to do is to disenfranchise those who do not deserve to have full rights, who have forgotten their place. For Waldrip, Blacks just need to have their property confiscated, wages capped and employment limited to domestic and farm work. Women need to return to the home and relinquish their recently gained right to vote. The thing that amazed me was that the women made the strongest arguments for having their sphere of influence curtailed. It reminded me of the women who justified the sexist comments we heard on the campaign trail this past year.
I also caught Waldrip's argument that increased executive power, freedom from checks and balances would make government run more smoothly and efficiently. We have 200 plus years of presidents who have tried to circumvent those debates that wanted to thwart the president's infallible will.
OK, I wake up this morning to the news that the head of the FBI, who is leading an investigation of a former presidential appointee, has been fired for something the president previously praised him for, thus stopping that investigation. This seems frighteningly like the book. It can't happen here? It is happening here.
Mod
Yes, it keeps getting scarier and more surreal.
Throughout this first section, we keep hearing the refrain "It can't happen here." whenever anyone raises alarms over Waldrip's similarity to European fascism of the time (1930s). I suspect that we will continue to hear this since it is the title of the book. What do you make of this claim? Is it denial? confidence in our system of government? thinly veiled apathy? something else? This is fiction, obviously. But, can it happen here? Can our democracy be hijacked by a cunning enough person who turns it into a dictatorship or other equally negative form of government?
Mod
I believe our current government has been built with checks and balances to be able to eventually stop things like this, but governments in the process of being taken over change the rules, change the laws, etc. I think if any one person had enough others "on their side" then yes it could happen.
Mod
Say more Irene. What is too familiar ?
The political situation has ramped up in this section. From persuasion and insults, Windrip has moved to brute force with the formation of the military group and the arrests of disent.Does the easy formation of a military state make this novel seem more or less probable as a scenario that "could happen here"?
When Jessup is in jail, he has a revelation that Windrip's rise is not due to those who backed him, but the lazy-minded Doreus Jessups all over the country that did nothing to stop him. What do you think allows a demigog to rise to power?
Despite Jessup's criticism of himself, he does try to oppose Windrip with the power of the pen and one-on-one conversations among his group of associates. What might he have done to be more effective? Is there anything he could have done, other than to flee the country?
When the doctor comes to the courthouse to defend Jessup, he is shot summarily. To what extent does Jessup need to take into consideration the impact of his actions/protests on his family and associates? Should he simply do anything and everything to stand against what is happening in the country or should his actions and words be tempered by his concerns for his family and friends, even if that means he does not fight as vigorously?
What is the role of dissent in the political arena? How should dissent and loyalty be balanced? Is dissent ever unpatriotic? Is silence ever unpatriotic?
What is your assessment of Jessup? Does knowing that he is unfaithful to his wife change your opinion of him?
What else struck you in this section?
Mod
As to the lazy-minded being what allows someone like Windrip to rise, I have to say that probably has some credence. People must always be willing to speak up and speak out (and this includes today)
The shooting of the doctor at the courthouse was a major escalation, and I certainly hope we never see anything anywhere near to that in our country today.
It is interesting that a journalist has already been arrested in our current situation for asking questions: https://www.washingtonpost.com/postev...
Dissent plays a major role in the political arena. Dissent is invaluable. Extreme dissent could become unpatriotic I suppose, but silence is also unpatriotic, especially if our country's values are at risk.
Jessup's unfaithfulness to his wife doesn't play much into the story for me, though I am wondering if it will come into play in the future.
And I'm a bit distracted my the current events news playing out today! :-)
I had not heard of the arrest of the journalist in WV. Thanks for that link. At some point, the thing that strikes me is that the more the person in power knows that s/he is violating the rules, the more questions are crushed and disenting voices are silenced by threats or violence. Windrip appears to know that those who elected him on the promise of instant prosperity are upset. This seems to be the primary criticism that he is receiving. But, rather than answer the dissatisfaction, he silences it. The same thing seems to be happening currently. Those in power know that something smells rotten in the state of the Union, but rather than respond, they are silencing the questions and criticism. Today's news that Trump gave classified secrets away to Russia as part of his bragging is an escollation of his complete hubrous.
Mod
And now this afternoons news that Trump asked FBI director Comey to stop the investigation into Michael Flynn seems to play into the silencing voices part.
I have not heard that yet. It just gets worse and worse.
Mod
Should I keep my eyes open for Minute Men (or will they be called Trump Men?)?
Mod
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/19/politic...
In this book, Windrip escollated immediately after taking office. It seemed that it was a matter of days or weeks that the intimidation of the Minute Men and the extrajudicial arrests started to take place. It was as if people were taken off guard and, by the time they realized how dangerous things had gotten, it was too late to react, the danger was too real. But, many dictators have consolidated their power more slowly, coming to office legitimately and little by little taking more and more away from the people. The heat got turned up on the citizens and they could not see how bad things were getting because it was too gradual. Which do you think is the more likely way for the American system to collapse to a dictator today?
I lost my focus, but am enjoying the comments.
Mod
I hope you don't mind all my current events politics comments, because our current events has got me riled up and I refuse to not talk about it. :-)
Mod
Lewis wrote this in the mid 1930s, before television images could be beamed into every home instantly, before social media could allow everyone to say everything immediately. Is it easier or harder to subvert a stable society with such popular access to true news and false reports indiscriminately?
Sheila I don't mind. I feel the same way.
Mod
"
I almost think it is easier to subvert a society, or at least a certain percentage of a society, with todays internet where groups can spread false news rapidly through a certain crowd via social media. Then it is on others to disprove the information, and even when it is proven false there are still portions of those that initially believed that still believe, and think the ones telling the facts are the ones lying and spreading "fake news".
We are now 3/4ths of the way through the book. Thoughts?What do you make of the use of sarcastic humor? According to the intro in my book, Lewis was warning his reader that the rise of dictators in Europe could be a reality on this side of the ocean. By inviting the reader to laugh, does Lewis minimize the seriousness of any threat? Or does the humor allow the reader to look at issues that might be too scary to face straight on? Or, is there a different reason for the humor? Are you finding this book funny? If yes, how does that affect you?
Jessip makes only one attempt to cross into Canada. Realizing the risks and repeated attempts most refugees take on when they want to leave a dangerous country, why does Jessip give up so quickly? Is Lewis simply getting one option out of the way in order to get to another scenario for Jessip or is he trying to say something about discouragement? the need to fight from inside? love of country ? or something else?
People are being killed and tortured by the Minute Men, large swatches of the population are being sent to consentration camps, yet too many people seem to still support Windrip. Why is there not more outrage? Do we really not care unless our flesh is involved? At the time this is being published, African Americans were being linched in the south and sent to jail and hard labor framed for crimes they did not commit, yet many northern whites did little to resist this. Do most of us really care about injustice that does not directly impact our lives?
Jessip is talking with his son who is trying to convince Jessip that the situation is not that bad, even though one of their family members was executed. Phillip claims that you can't make an omlet without breaking some eggs. To what extent does the ends justify the means? From warrantless wiretaps to try to catch terrorists to police shooting of black men because they reached for a backpack or glove compartment which might have contained a gun to the detaining of Japanese Americans in camps during WWII, we have and continue to balance means against ends. To what extent can unsavory means be employed to reach desirable ends?
For all of Lewis' fears, the dictators that Germany, Italy and Spain, Russia, Chili , China and many other countries saw in the 20th century never came to the U.S. or Canada or England or other countries. Why? Was it just luck or is there something that makes some countries more vulnerable than others? Is our time coming?
I'm still back in chapter 18, but I wanted to say that I don't find the book that funny. Occasionally a line will make me chuckle, but I'm not seeing a lot of laughable moments. Maybe it's going over my head or maybe it's hitting too close to home to seem humorous. I tend to believe that fake news does spread faster and better today with social media, but I just read a book about British spies in WWII, The Irregulars: Roald Dahl and the British Spy Ring in Wartime Washington, and the Brits were so good at fabricated stories that they created a fake Nazi map and got it to FDR and he believed it! So it didn't take a Twitter account to spin some effective propaganda. :)
It is a droll humor, lots of sarcastic observations, not laugh-out-loud humor. But, that said, I am finding it more disturbing than funny. And, when the humor comes, I find it jarring, almost irreverent, as if Lewis has no right to laugh about something so seriously dangerous.
Mod
Wow, I'm 18 pages in and the number of comparisons I can make to our current (world, but especially US) situation is astonishing. I can usually find at least 2 parallels PER PAGE. The book is so dense with them I find I either have to read at a snails pace so I can compare with current events or simply skip over. I can't wait to dive deeper into the book.
And, now MT. has elected someone to office who is charged with assault. So, the US population is comfortable with using physical violence against those who question or have a different opinion? Sounds too much like accepting the Minute Men.
Mod
Mod
"The early crowd of voters at Gianforte's rally were standing by the candidate, unfazed by the events of the previous 24 hours.
"We whole-heartedly support Greg. We love him," said Karen Screnar, a Republican voter who had driven all the way from Helena to support Gianforte. Screnar said she and her husband have known Gianforte for the better part of a decade. After Gianforte was charged with misdemeanor assault, Screnar said she was only "more ready to support Greg."
"We've watched how the press is one-sided. Excuse me, that's how I feel. (They're) making him their whipping boy so to speak through this campaign," Screaner said. "There comes a point where, stop it."
Her husband, Terry, chimed in that he believed Gianforte was "set up." (from CNN article)
Even after he won last night and appologized in his speech: "Some in the crowd laughed at the mention of the incident. “I made a mistake,” said Gianforte. “Not in our minds!” yelled a supporter." (from a Washington Post article this morning)
Chicks On Lit
Books mentioned in this topic
The Irregulars: Roald Dahl and the British Spy Ring in Wartime Washington (other topics)It Can't Happen Here (other topics)
Who will be joining us? I have my copy already, so I am in. I have been hearing mention of this book several times in the last few months, which is interesting since it was published in 1935. So this should be an interesting read and discussion!