BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


The Man Who Heard Thursday

 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
11:40 / 16.10.01
Given that the Bodiless one keeps banging on about it, I've finally started reading G.K. Chesterton's The Man Who Was Thursday. And 'tis great. Exercising my web-fu, though, I came across (in addition to the Bartleby version) an audiobook version, iffn you're too lazy to read. 18 20-minute MP3 files; not sure if it's abridged or not, but I'm pretty sure it's not.

Anyway. Enjoy. Discuss. Ignore. Thoughts?

[ 16-10-2001: Message edited by: Rothkoid ]
 
 
Ariadne
07:12 / 18.10.01
Mmm. I cornered JtB about this at a recent meet but he was too-many-beers-on by that time to get into an in depth discussion.

You see - I liked it, but... i didn't really see what the big deal was. I thought it was pretty obvious what was happening from about half way through, and - well, you know, I thought it was a well-enough crafted little story but I couldn't see why JtB likes it so much.

I'm happy to be enlightened, though - have I missed something huge? Perfectly possible.
 
 
Seth
20:46 / 18.10.01
[hastily cobbled together interim response before Jack sees this thread and waxes lyrical]
-
-
S
-
-
P
-
-
O
-
-
I
-
-
L
-
-
E
-
-
R
-
-
S
-
-
Essentially, the Man Who Was Thursday is a meditation on the nature of God, part of G K Chesterton’s voicing/coming to terms with his doubts. His use of diversion is only partially to blindside the reader (a lot of people see the twists coming, especially the connection between Sunday and the man in the darkened room) - I think he uses it more to totally emasculate the forces of “evil” in his books. There are a number of Father Brown stories (the one about the Ogilvies and their gold, can’t remember the title) in which he skilfully creates a sense of dread, horror and menace, then smashes it to smithereens in the space of a sentence in order to make a point.

One key to understanding Chesterton: he doesn’t take his writing seriously. He doesn’t take much seriously (which is one of the things that’s so tremendously endearing about him). The only thing he treats as sacred is the point he’s making. Taking that into consideration, I don’t think an awareness of narrative structure (which works using heavy repetition, so I wouldn’t be too quick to give anyone a medal for guessing what’s going to happen) is sufficient without relating it to the themes and ideas he presents.

[/hastily cobbled together interim response before Jack sees this thread and waxes lyrical]
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
13:01 / 20.10.01
quote:Originally posted by expressionless:
Essentially, the Man Who Was Thursday is a meditation on the nature of God, part of G K Chesterton’s voicing/coming to terms with his doubts...


Yeees... I believe it's more a safe rendering of doubts he had prior to the turn of the twentieth century, at college, before he came to the realisation of his faith. The aestheticism of the time (drawn in beautiful detail in Wilde's The Picture Of Dorian Gray, IMSearinglyMyopicO) filled our Gilbert with horror : hence the depiction of the anarchists in TMWWT, and particularly Lucian Gregory, the flame-haired poet-anarchist. Gregory was actually based on a young man he knew at university, his association with whom is described vividly in Chesterton's essay 'The Diabolist', possibly my favourite of his hundreds of gorgeous essays.

TMWWT is subtitled 'A Nightmare'. Continual awareness of this is essential to the reading of the novel, otherwise even simple things like the radical warp and weft of time and space in the book appear to be huge gaps in continuity.

The book can be enjoyed on a variety of levels, but (true of most of Chesterton's writing) a love of paradox informs every idea within its pages. This means that there ends up being no definitive reading - and the fact that the inspiration for the writing is so acutely personal to a man now dead for sixty-five years, and yet TMWWT feels so universal is another basic fundamental within Chesterton's writing. He had a beautiful knack of being able to express complex and occasionally abstract concepts based within spirituality, personal experience, philosophy, politics and theology in funny, touching and finely observed single sentences written, not to impress or in order to fellate the ego of the writer, as is common with many others attempting the same trick, but to convey the emotion and context behind an idea as well as its intellectual bones.

TMWWT, at its heart, exemplifies one of Chesterton's fundamentally held beliefs, which (being the writer he was) wasn't necessarily always expressed in his writing, but was actually written into the 'genetic code' of everything he created. It's best summed up using a line belonging to Lenny C:

"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."

(Edited as I decided not to add spoilers... and apologies if the above is sketchy/incoherent. So am I right now)

[ 20-10-2001: Message edited by: Jack The Bodiless ]
 
 
Ellis
23:01 / 25.10.01
I read this today then found this thread.

I really enjoyed the book, not knowing about Chestertons background as a Christian made this book even better as I didn't know what he was really exploring until the end of the novel and then its "Wow, so this has nothing really to do with anarchists at all!"

And the twists with the other council members was pretty obvious about halfway through but this didn't actually diminish my enjoyment on the book, instead it probably added to it for some bizarre reason as i wanted to see where it was heading... and i am not sure if i am disappointed with the ending or not to be honest- i think i shall have to reread it later.

The chapter at the end though with Sunday riding an elephant just seemed silly, even for a nightmare- it just didnt seem to gel with the rest of the story- i thought it was too absurd.
 
 
Saveloy
13:46 / 26.10.01
That was the best bit!

"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."

I like that.

My twopen'orth: If you read the book with no prior knowledge of the state of the culture that existed at the time it was written, you would gather from the first few pages that pessimism and nihilism* were very popular, and that it must have been very fashionable to be a pessimistic old misery chops or a nihilistic young smart arse, and that the author was pretty fed up about that. You could argue that it's a situation that yer modern reader will be all too familiar with, and that it is therefore relevant as well as entertaining.

I was going to say it's all about romanticism vs nihilism, but it's not that at all, it's more 'humane common sense' vs. 'taking a magnifying glass to the world's imperfections, feeling very pleased with yourself for doing so, and using it as an excuse to perform acts whose sole purpose seems to be to let the world know just how much contempt you feel for it'. Does that sound fair enough, Jack (anyone), or have I got it completely wrong?

I've not long finished The Napoleon of Notting Hill, and I recommend it to anyone who enjoyed TMWWT. It doesn't gallop along in the same way, but it's very funny and the theme is very, um, now (and something I've been thinking about a lot recently). Two extreme world views/modes of behaviour are presented: the constantly piss-taking, take-nothing-seriously 'fool' (deliberately foolish, like the nihilist but with a humane streak [Christ I'm making a mess of this]) and the dour, super-earnest romantic. To me it's even more relevant to the present state of things than TMWWT, what with... shit, I can't explain it. 'The triumph of comedy', maybe? Small example: have you noticed how ALL music and TV reviewers think they're bloody comedians? How their aim seems to be, first and foremost, to make you laugh?

Ahem, anyway - Jack and Exp', I'd love to hear your takes on it.

*Whatever it was called then. When was the word nihilism invented?


PS I apologise for the mess that are be this post.

[ 26-10-2001: Message edited by: Saveloy ]
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
11:11 / 27.10.01
No, you actually hit the nail right on the head. The Napoleon Of Notting Hill, while not gathering as much momentum as TMWWT, is a wonderful book. Glad you enjoyed it.
 
 
belbin
23:41 / 27.10.01
'Napoleon' IS a genuinely beautiful book.

Sav> I'd never really thought about what GKC was trying to 'say' in it, it's one of those books like 'War of the Worlds' that completely reconfigures London as an alien landscape. But thinking about it now...

GKC was in many ways a humanist in the tradition of renaissance figures like Erasmus. He has a 'reasonable' (if not rationalist) worldview tempered with a strong catholic faith and both a sense of tradition and a sense of humour.

One of GKC's points is that it's not enough to be either a satirist or an activist - you've got to do both. He's an enemy of irony and therefore very, very cool.
 
 
Seth
10:07 / 28.10.01
Adam Wayne, John Wayne, Bruce Wayne.

Flawed heroes all.
 
  
Add Your Reply