Tom Cantor Seems Like a Loser and a Moron

Earlier today, I received in the mail an unsolicited autobiography by Tom Cantor titled Changed, which is a recounting of Cantor's decision to accept Jesus (though he insists he's still a Jew and not a Christian).  There have been plenty of articles about people offended by receiving the book, but none that have really gone into depth about the content.  So, using examples from the book itself, I hope to prove three things. 

1. Tom Cantor is a loser.

As far back as Saint Augustine, the Christian redemption narrative has featured a recitation of the convert's depravity before finding Jesus.  This trend continues today.  Ben Carson tried to stab someone and Mike Lindell was a crack addict.  According to the synopsis on the back cover, Cantor was "expelled from schools" and "broke through the boundaries of morality and plunged into sexual defilement."  Sounds saucy.  Let's start with the expulsions.  Cantor was expelled from a private military school at the age of eight.  What did he do?  Well, he was told not to touch the fire alarm, and frequently did so anyway.  One time he accidentally set it off, and his fellow students quickly gave him up. By his own account, he only intended to touch the fire alarm, and setting it off was an accident.  This is enough for him to caption a picture of his seven year old self as "Trouble Maker in Disguise" and cite this incident as proof of his underlying perversity.  "Accidentally pulling a fire alarm" is the least bad thing someone could do to get expelled. If Saint Augustine stole pears he didn't need, Tom Cantor touched a pear at the supermarket and accidentally knocked it to the floor.  This is the first of five bad things Tom Cantor does in his life.  Or rather, the ones he treats as bad things.  See section 2 for the actually shitty things he does, but never seems to acknowledge are awful.  The next horrible, sinful act he perpetrates is when he gets caught shoplifting records at the age of 15.  Yes, despite describing himself as a died-in-the-wool terror, there's a seven year gap until the next thing he finds worthy of mention.  The result of this arrest?  Daddy sends him to a boarding school in Switzerland.  The third bad thing happens on the boat there.  He was "so loud and annoying to the other passengers that the Swiss Police...picked me up by the ear and told me that I was a guest in their country."  How does this rebel without a spine react?  He behaves himself for the rest of the trip.  He was loud, and was told to quiet down, and did.  This is proof of his "rebellious nature."  

His fourth bad thing is probably the worst. After being in Switzerland for a couple months, he got caught being drunk and getting into a fight, which leads to expulsion and finding a new boarding school.  Is this good?  No.  Is this shocking for a teenager sent halfway around the world (or who has friends with a parent out of town)?  Also no.  We're talking about a man who, as a senior citizen, recounts accidentally pulling a fire alarm when eight years old as one of the worst things he's ever done.  This is not a rebel or a trouble maker.  This is a loser who is desperate to think of himself as having a bad streak, and briefly being loud on a boat hits his top five bad boy moments.  This is someone who desperately wants a cool redemption arc, despite being Milhouse's lamer older brother.

But hey, maybe the fifth moment is a doozy.  We still haven't come to the "sexual defilement" and whatever can be found on the other side of "the boundaries of morality."  It's 1960s Switzerland, who knows what freaky stuff he could get into. Maybe BDSM, prostitution, orgies, consensual sex with women who weren't truly in love with him ah shit it's consensual sex with women who weren't truly in love with him isn't it?  Here, in its entirety, is the sexual defilement of Tom Cantor:

        "During those trips my sexuality woke up. I hoped that sexual intimacy would fill my emptiness and bring me peace and happiness.  I turned to women looking for comfort and love.  But, the women I turned to were not looking for love, they were were only looking for a new passing excitement.  Those sexual encounters not only left me feeling emptier, but, worse, they made me feel filthy inside. I FELT DIRTY INSIDE!"

Tom Cantor managed to hook up with a random girl and was shocked, shocked I tell you, that she wasn't in love with him.  Him, the bad boy who tried and failed to steal motown records from a supermarket!  The dashing bandit who briefly bothered some transatlantic passengers, and would have kept doing so had he not been asked to stop! But the unnamed, undescribed, totally real European girls didn't fall for his dangerous allure, or his inflated ego, or his almost certainly clammy hands (even though they once accidentally pulled a fire alarm). 

After this, he feels so dirty that he takes a hot shower!  with soap!  for two hours!  But this doesn't cure his terminal case of feeling icky! 

2. Tom Cantor is a terrible partner

Tom Cantor moves back to the US to go to college at Miami University in Ohio.  After trying a shower once didn't cure his sense of defilement, he decided that he needed a "girl that was wholesome and pure" to "cleanse" him.  So he goes to the library to "hunt for that serious student."  He discovers that the study rooms each "had a square window that I could look into." He describes his reaction to this discovery as blurting out "Pefect! Window shopping!"  This alone is worse than any of the things Tom Cantor has actually felt bad about.  He sees a girl he likes, and then proceeds to lie to her, first claiming there are no other rooms available.  He presents her as believing this to be true.  "Appearing to be sorry that there were no booths available, she agreed."  He then finds out she's studying French, offers to evaluate her accent, then has the clever idea of negging and lying to her again.  "Seeing an opportunity to spend time with her I told her that her accent was terrible and that I could help her with her accent even though I knew I had a terrible Swiss accent."  He doesn't present this as a bad thing he did that he now regrets.  He just lied to this woman he didn't know with the hope of seducing her so she could cleanse him of sin.

After coming back to college after visiting family for the summer, he proposes to Cheryl, who tells him that she had been raped and was now pregnant.  This is terrible news.  For Tom.  Yes, Cheryl has PTSD and nightmares and sinks into depression.  But that's not the most important thing here. 

 "Impure, she was no longer better than I. No longer could she rescue me from my  own impurity.  What was worse [sic] about the rape of Cheryl and the pregnancy was that it forced me to be reminded of my own sexual defilement.  Her pregnancy was a glaring reminder of my own acts and defilements." (emphasis added)

To be clear, according to this man, the worst thing about the woman he loves being raped and impregnated, was it reminded him of the time he had emotionally unfulfilling consensual sex as a teenager.  Fuck this guy, right?  This is sociopathic.  This is worse than pulling a fire alarm on purpose!  But of course Tom Cantor doesn't see it this way.  The rape of the woman he claims to love is a tragedy, but mostly because it makes him feel bad. 

Even if we put aside how morally atrocious this is, how much of a moron do you have to be to actually put this in a book about your come to Jesus moment?

3. Tom Cantor is a moron.

Ostensibly, the purpose of sending this book to random Jews is to convert Jews.  And yet, in an 85 page book, he feels he needs to stop and explain what a moyle is.  Yes, he spelled mohel "moyle."  He also needs to explain what Yom Kippur is, what Baruch Atah Adonai means, etc.  He also does not seem to understand anything about how the world or any religion works.  If you're wondering how someone can accept Jesus as their personal lord and savior, but still consider themselves to not be a Christian, Tom Cantor explains his reasoning. 

"I had always been taught that people who were not Jewish were either Christians or Moslems...  I knew my three co-workers were not Moslems, they must be Christians... Right in the middle of them talking about their extra-marital relationships, I announced, "You fellows need Jesus Christ."... I was trying to find out if being Christian meant having Jesus Christ... From their response, I learned that a person could be a Christian and not have Jesus Christ or, expressed differently, I learned that a person could have Jesus Christ and not be called a Christian." 

Completely putting aside religious faith, this is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard.  This is grown man from a major city in the twenty-first century, and his entire argument is predicated on only three religions existing.   Even if we agreed with his conclusion that his coworkers were Christian and didn't have Jesus (after all, they're not Muslim or Jewish, so there is literally no other option), the reverse isn't automatically true.  Everyone who isn't a doctor is a lawyer or an accountant.  My acquaintances aren't lawyers or accountants so I will assume they're doctors.  I asked them if they have residency at a hospital.  They said no.  Therefore, a doctor does not need to have residency at a hospital or, expressed differently, a person can have residency at a hospital without being a doctor.

Q.E.D.

Look, I grew up in a pretty Jewish area.  I'm not super well-versed in the New Testament.  But Tom Cantor is either bafflingly ignorant or hamming it up for effect.  

"The first book in the "New" section was a book called "Matthew." What became obvious to me was that this was a book about Jesus.  This book was all about Jesus, Jesus, Jesus... As I came to the end of the book of Matthew, I was shocked to read of how Jesus was hated, betrayed and tortured to die a slow, agonizing death on the cross.  I felt so disappointed that the person I hoped could help me was now destroyed."

According to Tom Cantor, he, as an adult, began reading the new testament and was surprised to find out that it was about Jesus Christ.  We were all impressed when people went months without spoiling Infinity War, but Tom Cantor managed to go about 20 years without finding out about Jesus being crucified or resurrected!

Obviously, this is a lie.  It's a very stupid lie that serves no purpose.  He mentions travelling around Europe; was he confused by all the buildings that had a big letter "t" with a dude nailed to it?  Did his Christian girlfriend who happened to be carrying a bible with her when they met just never mention it?   When people tell obvious lies and expect to be believed, they either think their audience is dumb or foolishly think they themselves are exceptionally clever.  Tom Cantor is the latter.  That's the reason I'm treating this as evidence that Tom Cantor is a moron.  It fits a pattern we see in the book, where he acts real self-satisfied about convincing people of obvious lies.  His entire story of meeting his wife is just a series of lies that he recites as if it were proof of what a clever wooer he is.  He has no sense of his own limitations.  The purpose of this book is to convert Jews, but show me one of us who doesn't know that the New Testament is about Jesus.  Show me one who hasn't heard that Jesus gets crucified and [spoiler alert!] resurrected.  Not only is this a dumb lie, it directly hinders his goal.

Based on this book, Tom Cantor doesn't seem to understand Judaism, Christianity, Islam, the fact that those aren't the only options, syllogisms, how lying works, how empathy works, the fact that your girlfriend being raped isn't all about you, that Dennis the Menace isn't history's greatest villain, the definition of "defilement," or that an 85 page book shouldn't have 31 chapters. 

Tom Cantor is a loser, a terrible partner, and a moron.

Q.E.D.

2003-2004: The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown

The Author:

Dan Brown (1964-    ) was born in Exeter, New Hampshire, where his father worked as a professor of mathematics.  Brown went on to study at Philips Exeter and later Amherst, from which he received his B.A. in 1986.  He moved out to Hollywood to pursue a career in music.  He released a few albums by 1994.  In 1993, he moved back to New Hampshire with Blythe Newlon, whom he married, and taught English at Philips Exeter.  He and his wife co-wrote his first book: 187 Men to Avoid: A Survival Guide for the Romantically Frustrated Woman.  Brown was credited under the pseudonym Danielle Brown. He quit teaching to work full time in 1996 and published his first novel, Digital Fortress, in 1998.  Angels & Demons (2000) was his first novel starring Robert Langdon.  His fourth novel, The Da Vinci Code (2003) was the bestselling novel of the year it was published and the following year.  His next two novels, The Lost Symbol (2009) and Inferno (2013) were the bestselling novels in the year they were published.

The Book:

1st ed. cover/Jacket design - Michael Windsor

Length: 454 pages

Subject/Genre: Religious Conspiracy/Thriller

The Da Vinci Code is the second thriller starring symbologist Robert Langdon, who finds himself caught in the endgame of a centuries long battle between the Opus Dei, a real life Catholic organization, and the Priory of Sion, which in real life was an organization concocted in the 1950s by a megalomaniac would-be cult leader, who had documents forged to connect it to the similarly named Abbey of Sion (alt. spelling of Zion) that existed for a few centuries early in the last millennium.  Despite Brown's statements at the beginning of his book, there is no connection between the modern day and ancient organizations, nor were any of the famous historical figures members of either organization.  His declaration that "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate" is also blatantly false. For example, Langdon talks about how the pyramid above the entrance to the Louvre has exactly 666 glass panes, and that this was done at the express command of the president at the time.  Simply put: Bullshit.  Which brings me to my biggest problem with this book.

If you are the least bit skeptical of 'facts' like the above, if you have a passing knowledge of art history, if you can intuit the difference between a fringe theory and a widely accepted position, then Robert Langdon comes across as a well-educated hack.  He's more likely to host a reality show, right between Ghost Hunters and Alien Mysteries.  Hell, even his specialty is bullshit.  'Symbologist' doesn't even make etymological sense, and he's only called that because 'Art Historian' doesn't sound impressive enough.

   
I actually read both The Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons when I was in high school, and they're pretty much the same novel.  There's a massive conspiracy tied to a religious organization and its history, Robert Langdon, with the help of a beautiful young woman has to solve a mystery, Brown does everything he can to shout that 'untrustworthy guy with a grudge' is the bad guy, but instead it turns out that 'guy beyond reproach' is the bad guy, roll credits.  I'm expecting The Lost Symbol and Inferno to follow this formula as well. Because if it works once, why not run it into the ground?  

But why did The Da Vinci Code work?  Or more accurately, why did it sell a metric shit ton of copies?  Good old fashioned controversy and lying.  Pretty much everything about the book and all the discussions treat the conspiracy fever dreams as accepted historical fact.  To quote the dust jacket from my copy: "The late curator was involved in the Priory of Sion -- an actual secret society whose members included Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Da Vinci, among others....The Da Vinci Code is simultaneously lightning paced, intelligent, and intricately layered with remarkable research and detail."  [bolded words mine]*   As to the first claim: Bull shit.  As to the second, the book has tons of research and detail, but much of it inaccurate.  The book garnered so much controversy (and therefore attention, and therefore sales) because it presented itself a true and radical reexamining of history, rather than a second-rate conspiracy thriller. The premise, in case you've managed to stay unaware, is that Jesus Christ had a kid, and that the Priory of Sion has always protected the descendant, as well as the holy grail, which is actually the body of Mary Magdalene.  Side note, the 1950's Priory of Sion, created by a man named Pierre Plantard, who claimed that it protected the descendants of the Merovingian dynasty (which is 5th-8th  century Northern European) which he tied to the medieval legend of the last great catholic emperor, all of which he claimed to be.  In 1982, Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln published The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, which was largely based on the forgeries of Plantard, and added the idea that Christ's descendants moved north and became the Merovingian Dynasty (*cough* Bullshit *cough*).  Anyway, despite being a fictionalized version of a fictionalized version of an easily debunked hoax, the public treated the claims in the Da Vinci Code as something  more than, to repeat myself, bullshit.

Anyway, as I'm sure you know, The Da Vinci Code was given a film adaptation.

The film includes Ian McKellan, Audrey Tautou (Amélie) and stars Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon as he attempts to beat Forrest Gump's record for historical revisionism.

I have two more novels in this series to read, and I'm going to read them with the view of Robert Langdon as an educated loony and the novel as his unsubstantiated claims.  As for my recommendations to you, just watch Ancient Aliens.  At least that will only take you 45 minutes.

*As I was copying this out, I noticed that some letters in the dust jacket are bolded.  If you put all the bold letters in order, you get "Is there no help for the widow's son," a phrase tied to freemasonry, the subject of his next novel.

Bestsellers of 2003:

1. The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown
2. The Five People You Meet in Heaven by Mitch Albom
3. The King of Torts by John Grisham
4. Bleachers by John Grisham
5. Armageddon by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins
6. The Teeth of the Tiger by Tom Clancy
7. The Big Bad Wolf by James Patterson
8. Blow Fly by Patricia Cornwell
9. The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold
10.The Wedding by Nicholas Sparks

Bestsellers of 2004:

1. The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown
2. The Five People You Meet in Heaven by Mitch Albom
3. The Last Juror by John Grisham
4. Glorious Appearing by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins
5. Angels & Demons by Dan Brown
6. State of Fear by Michael Crichton
7. London Bridges by James Patterson
8. Trace by Patricia Cornwell
9. The Rule of Four by Ian Caldwell and Dustin Thomason
10: The Da Vinci Code: Special Illustrated Collector's Edition by Dan Brown


Also published in 2003-4:

Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood
2666 by Roberto Bolaño
The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini
The Namesake by Jhumpa Lahiri
Fortress of Solitude by Jonathan Lethem
Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell
Runaway by Alice Munro
The Plot Against America by Philip Roth
Doubt by John Patrick Shanley

1952: The Silver Chalice by Thomas B. Costain

The Author:

            Thomas B. Costain (1885-1965), was born in Brantford, Ontario, Canada.  His writing career started in 1902 when he was hired by the Brantford Courier as a reporter.  He later went on to work for the Ontario’s Guelph Daily Mercury in 1908.  In 1910, he married Ida Spragge and was hired as an editor by the Maclean Publishing Company.

            In 1920, Costain moved to the United States to become an editor of the Saturday Evening Post. That same year, he became a naturalized citizen.  He remained at the Saturday Evening Post until 1934, when he became a story-editor for Twentieth Century Fox.  He published his first novel in 1942, My Great Folly, which, like the rest of his novels, was a piece of historical fiction.  Costain also wrote a lot of non-fiction volumes, most notably the Plantagenet series, about the Middle Ages dynasty of the same name.

The Book:

Length: 533 pages

Subject/Genre: Early Christianity/Historical Fiction

            The Silver Chalice takes place in first century Greece, Rome, and Jerusalem.  The novel’s protagonist is a gifted silversmith named Basil.  Adopted by a wealthy Greek merchant, Basil was wrongly sold into slavery by his adoptive Uncle after his adopted-father’s death.  But the quality of his workmanship gained the attention of Luke (as in, ‘the gospel according to’).  Luke buys Basil’s freedom and takes him to Jerusalem to work for Joseph of Arimathea.  After completing demonstrating his ability to Joseph (and impressing his Joseph’s granddaughter, Deborra), Joseph reveals to Paul and Luke that he has the Holy Grail.

Artist's recreation

Joseph wants Basil to craft a silver chalice to house it.  This will require Basil to travel and meet the apostles so he can sculpt them.

            This is by no means the first time I’ve said what I’m about to say, but I feel like I need to say it again.  I was clearly not in the target audience for this piece of Christian historical fiction.  What I’ve found reading a bunch of these, is that they start with the assumption that anyone who reads it is already going to feel very strongly for Christianity.  If you don’t start with this viewpoint, the character’s emotional and spiritual growth doesn’t seem particularly reasonable because it acts as if there is only one possible spiritual/philosophical response.  Which, if you start with a foregone conclusion, isn’t a problem, but otherwise it falls apart a bit. 

            As I pointed out in the bio section, Costain was also known for his non-fiction histories.  From what I’ve found, the detail in The Silver Chalice (and there’s a lot of it) is very well researched.  In his attempt to capture the ancient world, Costain, like Lloyd C. Douglas, decided to use prose that mimics a scriptural tone. For example, “The oil merchant, gasping for breath and slightly purple of cheek, stepping inside to escape the sun, which was beating down with all the fury of the fires of atonement.”  The frequent use of archaic grammar (“purple of cheek”) and over-the-top religious metaphor seems a bit pompous, honestly.
 

            It wasn’t incidental that I mentioned Lloyd C. Douglas in the previous paragraph.  The Silver Chalice was frequently compared to The Robe, which is also the bestseller for the second time in 1953.  Religious fiction and historical fiction have been perennial favorites in American popular literature.  Likewise, one of the best ways to get on the bestsellers list is to have previously been on the bestsellers list.  Costain appeared on the top ten annual bestsellers four times in the 1940s, reaching the number two spot in 1947.  As with most of the bestsellers so far, The Silver Chalice was made into a film.

            The 1954 film is notable for two things: Being Paul Newman’s first feature film role (he played Basil) and being so bad that when it was going to air on TV years after its theatrical release, Newman took out an ad apologizing for the film. 

            Like with a lot of the books I’ve read so far on this list, The Silver Chalice is not bad, but it’s not very good.  It’s pretty understandable why it’s no longer famous.  If you enjoy religious/historical fiction, you’ll probably like The Silver Chalice, but there’s no particular reason to seek out this novel, specifically.


Also published in 1952:

Ralph Ellison - Invisible Man
Edna Ferber - Giant
Ernest Hemingway - The Old Man and the Sea
Flannery O'Connor - Wise Blood
John Steinbeck - East of Eden
Kurt Vonnegut - Player Piano
E. B. White -Charlotte's Web

Sources:
Dictionary of American Biography. New York: Scribners. Supplement 7 (1961-5). Print.
Costain, Thomas B. The Silver Chalice. Garden City, New York: Doubleday. 1952. Print.

1948: The Big Fisherman by Lloyd C. Douglas

The Author:

This is Lloyd C. Douglas's (1877-1951) third time as #1 bestseller of the year.  A Lutheran minister and native of Indiana, Douglas appeared in the top ten annual bestsellers list thirteen times between 1932 and 1953.  He tops the list four times, the first time with Green Light in 1935.   

The Book:

Length: 503 pages

Genre/subject: Historical fiction; Religious Fiction

         At first I thought The Big Fisherman was going to be a sequel to Douglas's earlier bestseller, The Robe.  Rather, Fisherman takes place before, during, and after the events in The Robe. The novel starts nearly two decades before the Jesus begins preaching, and focuses on an alliance being forged between the Jews and the Arabians, who, we are told, have been unfriendly for about 1,500 years, but must put aside this enmity to make a show of force to dissuade the Romans from plundering the Middle East.  To solidify this alliance, the Arabian king's daughter, Arnon, is married to the Jewish king Herod's son, Antipas.  The marriage is not a happy one, and Antipas's infidelity drives away Arnon (with their daughter, Fara) and inspires the anger of the Arabian people.  At the age of sixteen, Fara, after her mother's death, rides off to take revenge against her father who is now the tetrarch of Galilee.    

        She arrives in Galilee as her father is leaving for Rome, and ends up staying with a successful fisherman named Simon who lives with his mother-in-law (no, seriously, he lives in a house with just him and his mother-in-law).  So, Fara has to put her patricidal plans on hold, but, in the meantime, Simon decides to find out just what's up w/r/t this Carpenter that's going around preaching blasphemies and performing miracles.  Simon eventually joins up with this preacher (spoiler: It's Jesus) and changes his name to Peter.    

       Honestly, Fara's storyline was far more interesting to me than Simon/Peter's.  Perhaps it's largely because we all know how the Jesus and Peter thing turns out.  Then again, I'm not in this novel's target demographic.  As a piece of historical fiction, The Big Fisherman succeeds in creating an atmosphere and setting that draws you in.  The political and social life of Roman colonies and nomadic peoples are a lot of fun to read about, though I can't speak to their veracity one way or the other.  

      

        While it may sound silly to complain about an explicitly religious novel being preachy, I'm going to do just that.  While Simon/Peter starts out skeptical he becomes convinced of that Jesus is more than just some radical preacher.  As opposed to Marcellus in The Robe, who comes to follow Jesus by the power of his ideas and the effect he (Jesus) has had on others, Simon/Peter witnesses Jesus heal the sick on a couple occasions.  If someone can heal the sick with just a word or gesture, it doesn't take a great deal to convince others to follow.  As such, the emotional/psychological journey Simon/Peter takes is less interesting than Marcellus's.  

       While The Big Fisherman, even with its differences from The Robe, certainly benefited from its predecessor's success.  Like The Robe, The Big Fisherman ended up with a film adaptation in 1959.

It seems that the film has not had a DVD release.  Although it appears that the full film is available on Youtube.

While it has its flaws (e.g. a lack of focus, very stiff prose), if you're a fan of (Christian) religious-historical fiction, you'll most likely enjoy the The Big Fisherman.    

Also published in 1948:   

Pearl Buck - Peony  

Truman Capote - Other Voices, Other Rooms

William Faulkner - Intruder in the Dust   

Norman Mailer - The Naked and the Dead

Sources:

Douglas, Lloyd C. The Big Fisherman. 1948. Chicago: People's Book Club. 1952. Print.

1943 & 1953: The Robe by Lloyd C. Douglas

The Author:

           This is Lloyd C. Douglas’s second book on the list, the first being Green Light (1935).  Douglas (1877-1951) is an Indiana born Lutheran minister.  He found success as an author in 1929 with Magnificent Obsession.

The Book:

            The Robe follows Roman Tribune Marcellus and his Corinthian slave Demetrius in the early first century A.D.  As punishment for insulting Prince Gaius Agrippa, Marcellus is sent from Rome to lead a garrison in Minoa near the Dead Sea.  He and Demetrius accompany troops to Jerusalem to keep order during Passover week, and Marcellus is assigned to watch over the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.  He wins Jesus’s robe in a game of dice from some one of the other Romans present but, when he puts it on, has an emotional breakdown and returns to Rome. 

            Demetrius and Marcellus return to Rome.  Demetrius begins to believe that there may be something to this Jesus fellow after all, and when Marcellus’s mental collapse is rectified by touching the robe again, he decides to learn more.  Demetrius and Marcellus travel back to the Middle East and talk to the people who knew Jesus.  Eventually, they both become Christians as does Marcellus’s love interest, Diana, back in Rome. 

            Like in Green Light (and The Inside of the Cup and TheKeys of the Kingdom), Douglas focuses on a less dogmatic version of Christianity, preferring to emphasize the importance of compassion and redemption.  In fact, he challenges some of the New Testament miracles.  In the 1986 introduction by Andrew Greeley: “It is a curious indication of the change in Catholicism that forty years ago Douglas was faulted for not being literal enough in his approach to the Bible and that now he might be criticized, especially by Catholic biblical scholars, for being too literal.”   

            One problem I ran into reading this was that I’m clearly not part of the audience Douglas was writing to.  The novel heavily relies on not only knowledge of New Testament stories but a strong pre-existing emotional connection to Christianity.  Most of the novels I’ve read so far that deal heavily with Christianity have been attempts to rebuke a purely dogmatic or hypocritical approach to the religion.  From an outsider’s perspective, it baffles me how a multi-billion dollar industry can spring from an individual who was crucified for throwing the money-changers out of the temple, or how members of a religion based on a document eschewing the existing dogma and preaching love and tolerance can use that same document as an attempt to claim automatic moral and legal superiority, while others use it to promote prejudice and justify any political action.  This novel, and the others like it, is aimed at reinforcing the faith and behavior of those who use religion as a positive personal and social force, while attempting to improve people the likes of which I’ve alluded to above.

            Even when not the main subject, this view of religion appears in many of the books I’ve reviewed so far and has remained pretty relevant.  In 1953, The Robe reached the number one spot again, in conjunction with the release of the film version starring Richard Burton and Jean Simmons.

            If you are interested in New Testament theology or Christian literature, you’ll probably like The Robe.  Otherwise, it’s probably not something you’d enjoy.

Also Published in 1943:  
Ayn Rand - The Fountainhead  
Antione de Saint-Exupery - The Little Prince
Jean-Paul Sartre - Being and Nothingness 
Betty Smith - A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

Sources:
Douglas, Lloyd C. The Robe. 1942. New York: Mariner Books. 1999. Print.
Kunitz, Stanley. Twentieth Century Literature: A Biographical Dictionary of Modern 
              Literature. New York: The H. W. Wilson Co. 1942. Print.

1913: The Inside of the Cup by Winston Churchill

No, not that Winston Churchill. 

This Winston Churchill

WHO?    

     The author of The Inside of the Cup was, at the time, more famous than the future British Prime Minister.  The American Winston Churchill was born in St. Louis, Missouri in 1871.  He attended the United States Naval Academy and, upon graduation, was made an editor of the Army and Naval Journal.  In 1895, he was made managing editor of Cosmopolitan Magazine (the same magazine that “now survives as a harrowingly explicit sex manual”¹).  He published his first novel, The Celebrity, in 1898, to moderate success.  His second novel, Richard Carvel, was released in 1899 and placed third on the bestsellers list.  From 1899 through 1913, Winston Churchill appeared on the annual bestsellers list eight times.  Five of those times, he was in the number one spot.  He became a millionaire and a household name.  The Inside of the Cup was the last book of his to reach the top of the bestsellers list.

          He got involved in politics in the early twentieth century, and got elected to the New Hampshire state legislature in 1903 and 1905.  He failed to win the Republican nomination for governor in 1906.  In 1912, he ran as the candidate for the Progressive Party (colloquially known as the Bull Moose Party, after its founder Theodore Roosevelt), but lost to Democrat Samuel Felker.  The novel I’m reviewing deals heavily with the political and social values espoused by the Progressive party.

So what's this book?

          The Inside of the Cup was originally published serially in Hearst Magazine in 1912 before being released in book form in 1913.  The title comes from a biblical quote: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.”2

          Despite being written over a century ago, The Inside of the Cup is surprisingly relevant today.  The story centers around John Hodder, an orthodox Anglican rector from a comfortable suburb who is recruited to lead the congregation of St. John’s, a prestigious chapel in “one of the largest cities of the United States of America, and of that portion called the Middle West.”  St. John’s had been built on Dalton Street in what was originally an upscale part of town, but in the past decades, had become the slums.  However, it is still frequented by the rich and powerful.  Through his interactions with the heads of industry and the poor of Dalton Street, Hodder’s worldview drastically changes. 

          Theology is, unsurprisingly, a major aspect of the novel.  The first chapter features a conversation between members of the Waring and Goodrich family which sets the tone for the theological debates to follow.  The aim of the novel’s theology can be inferred from this quote on page eleven:

“So far as I can see, the dilemma in which our generation finds itself is this, - we want to know what there is in Christianity that we can lay hold of.  We should like to believe, but, as George says, all our education contradicts the doctrines that are most insisted upon… We have the choice of going to people like George, who know a great deal but don’t believe anything, or to clergymen like Mr. Hodder that demand that we shall violate the reason in us which has been so carefully trained.” 

          Although initially obstinate, Hodder eventually agrees with the above sentiment and sets to create a new understanding of religion, putting him at odds with Eldon Parr, one of the nation’s most powerful businessmen.  The main focus of the novel is Hodder’s ‘conversion.’  As with practically any book that delves into the can of worms that is theology, the book occasionally becomes encumbered by it.  Its saving grace, however, is the similarity of the issues in the novel to the issues of today.  Regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof (in the spirit of full disclosure, I am not religious in any sense), anyone who has an intellectual interest in theology could gain some insight from reading this. 

          The cast of supporting characters and their subplots are the best part of the book.  Although most of the focus is on John Hodder, he is not so much of a personality as he is a set of beliefs that we watch change throughout as he becomes enlightened.  It is a testament to Churchill’s writing prowess that these small characters are so complete, and tend to steal the show whenever they pop in.   

Why was it so popular at the time?

          The Inside of the Cup was written in what is known as the Progressive Era in the United States and propounds many of the ideals of the Progressive party including women’s rights (including suffrage and minimum wage), an eight hour workday, a social security system, direct election of senators, and more.  The novel deals with all of these to some extent and further shows how they not only do not contradict religion, but are a necessary part of it.    

          Specifically, the novel calls out the unfair practices of major trusts.  Abuse of workers at the hands of large companies was endemic.  If you think corporations are powerful today, this was nothing compared to how it was at the time.  From Thomas Patterson’s textbook “We the People” (ninth edition):

“After the Civil War, the Supreme court also gave nearly free rein to business.  A majority of the Court’s justices were proponents of laissez-faire capitalism, and they interpreted the Constitution in ways that restricted government’s attempts to regulate business activity.  In 1886, for example, the Court decided that corporations were “persons” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, and were thereby protected from substantial regulation by the states. 

“The Court also weakened the national government’s regulatory power… When the federal government invoked the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890) in an attempt to break up a monopoly on the manufacture of sugar, the Supreme Court blocked the action, claiming that interstate commerce covered only the transportation of goods, not their manufacture… However, because the Court had previously decided that state’s regulatory powers were limited by the Fourteenth Amendment, the states were not allowed to regulate manufacturing activity in a significant way.”3

     Public sentiment was incited, and a book that helped them express and expand upon their discontent was bound to receive a large audience.

Why haven't I heard of it?

          Winston Churchill’s popularity declined not long after this book was published.  He wrote two more novels in that decade, plus one non-fiction and a play.  In 1919, he quietly left the sphere of public writing, only releasing one more book in 1940.  He passed away in Florida in 1947.  Since then, the other Winston Churchill has become considerably better known, as a public figure and as a writer. 

Should I read it?

          If you have an interest in theology, academic or personal, there’s a lot to gain from this book.  The showdowns between opposing parties are very tense and exciting, though they are few.  If you can handle some slow parts, I’d recommend giving it a shot.


You can read The Inside of the Cup on Project Gutenberg.

Books with similar themes:
Native Son by Richard Wright
God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater by Kurt Vonnegut

1. Vonnegut, Kurt. Bagombo Snuff Box. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1999.  Page 7.

2. Churchill, Winston. The Inside of the Cup. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1913.

3. Patterson, Thomas E. We the People. 9^th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. 2011. Page 82-3.