« More On Philip Yancey | Main | Prayer Requests »

September 10, 2003

The Man Who Was Thursday

This is supposedly the next book for our religious/spiritual book group and I am finding the same difficulty with it that I had the first time through--the writing is stilted, uneven, and even just plain bizarre--or so it seems. Compared to close contemporaries Bernard Shaw and H.G. Wells it lacks a polish and an immediacy these others have. He fails to engage me in any meaningful sense. I always feel inadequate when I admit this because so many speak so highly of Chesterton's work. But I'm afraid that it just doesn't resonate with me. Some of the nonfiction prose is more interesting and better composed, but frankly I rather spend the time with Greene, Waugh, O'Connor, or Percy, all of whom present their own problems and flaws, but who at least never fail to be interesting from the point of view of a writer.

I would love to have some encouragement in this reading--so if there are any who really, really like The Man Who Was Thursday I'd appreciate hearing from you, and I am certain others in the blog world would profit from it as well.

Posted by Steven Riddle at September 10, 2003 7:39 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.stblogs.org/scgi-bin/mv/mt-tb.cgi/8393

Comments

Count me out. I liked The Man Who Was Thursday as sort of a fun read that unravelled at the end, but I would never recommend it to someone who wasn't already sold on Chesterton, nor for a reading group that didn't have some compelling reason to pick that book rather than another.

Posted by: Tom at September 10, 2003 9:16 AM

This might be of assistance:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2000/003/10.30.html

I found the meaning somewhat elusive as well, at least in my initial reading. I'll have to re-read it someday.

Posted by: Christopher at September 10, 2003 10:48 AM

As much as I dislike reading out loud, Chesterton makes more sense spoken and heard rather than simply read. If this one is available as an audio book, it might make more sense.
I love Chesterton, but he can be difficult for a rapid reader to get through.

Posted by: alicia the midwife at September 10, 2003 12:23 PM

I think Chesterton must have been on his third single malt each time he sat down to write. There is something there, but one must sort through quite a bit of bluster to get there. I get a kick out of him in small doses, though.

Posted by: Erik Keilholtz at September 10, 2003 12:48 PM

Here's a link to a Christianity Today piece on the novel:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2000/003/10.30.html

Posted by: David at September 10, 2003 1:15 PM

Duh, I should really READ the earlier posts more carefully.

Apologies for the repetition.

Posted by: David at September 10, 2003 1:49 PM

Me, I like Chesterton, but there's no disputing taste, and if you don't like his style, you won't like it.

I can even see why some people don't like it.

Posted by: Mary at September 10, 2003 7:04 PM

Ditto Alicia. I like Chesterton, but sometimes I find it easier if I read him aloud -- it helps me get into his conversational, playful style.

Posted by: Peony Moss at September 11, 2003 7:47 AM

Chesterton is the perfect epigrammist - it often seems he thought in terms of pithy little sentences. His poetry is often good, his topical political commentary is right on the mark and often profound, his insights into Shakespeare are unequalled, but he just wasn't a novelist.

Posted by: Bill White at September 11, 2003 10:42 AM

I was going to write, "That's not fair! He was too a novelist, he just wasn't a good novelist."

But now I'm thinking that, when he turned to fiction, it was as a fabulist who occasionally wrote book-length fables, and the fable is not an art form that can be sustained for many tens of thousands of words.

I think it was in his autobiography that Chesterton mentioned one review of The Man Who Was Thursday that quoted a line from the opening poem -- "Oh, who shall understand but you; yea, who shall understand?" -- and asked, with what GKC admitted was good reason, why anyone else should be expected to understand it.

Posted by: Tom at September 11, 2003 1:34 PM

Actually, Steven, this is the only Chesterton book which I've finished; in fact, I've read it more than once! I understand your disinterest (if that's the right word) viz. Chesterton... although I *know* that "The Everlasting Man" is a great book, I've never gotten halfway through it! And I've tried at least twice!

Thursday, though, was different for me; not sure why...

Posted by: Chris Burgwald at September 16, 2003 1:14 AM