James Gault reviews The Man who was Thursday – A nightmare by G. K. Chesterton
If we combine the comic of aspect of the book’s title with the sinister connotations of its subtitle we get a good clue to what it is: a black comedy. In fact, it’s a dark farce, and also a very witty one. The story, set in the early years of the twentieth century, concerns an idealistic young man who is recruited into the police force to infiltrate a group of dangerous anarchists. As he penetrates this menacing fraternity, he is drawn into a series of events each more ridiculous and fanciful than the previous one. It appears to be hilarious melange of absolute nonsense. But of course it’s not; it’s a satirical allegory in the same vein as Voltaire’s Candide or Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland. The problem with it is that it seems to have a limited audience. It was written in 1908 in the philosophical and academic style of the time, and I can’t imagine anyone unfamiliar with those topics and that particular writing style getting much of the point. Even the jokes are aimed at intellects at the level of professors of theology. Chesterton was a polymath interested and knowledgeable about everything, with the creative wit to express his views and knowledge in very amusing ways. Although he was a journalist and writer rather than a professional philosopher,The Man who was Thursday is overflowing with images and comments on philosophy and theology. There are parallels with Christ’s final week, from the last supper (the Sunday morning breakfast of the anarchists) to the ascension into heaven (at the final reunion party), and you don’t have to look too deeply to find other allusions to biblical stories. Also dispersed throughout the novel are many references to the philosophical thought current at the time, most of which are disparaging. Nihilists, Sceptics and Nietzsche’s superman get a particularly hard time. The main problem I found was that the author seemed to be taking pot-shots at great minds pretty much at random. I couldn’t detect a coherent religious or philosophical position being expressed. Perhaps I missed it. After all, I’m not a professor of theology. James Gault reviews The Man who was Thursday – A nightmare by G. K. Chesterton If we combine the comic of aspect of the book’s title with the sinister connotations of its subtitle we get a good clue to what it is: a black comedy. In fact, it’s a dark farce, and also a very witty one. The story, set in the early years of the twentieth century, concerns an idealistic young man who is recruited into the police force to infiltrate a group of dangerous anarchists. As he penetrates this menacing fraternity, he is drawn into a series of events each more ridiculous and fanciful than the previous one. It appears to be hilarious melange of absolute nonsense. But of course it’s not; it’s a satirical allegory in the same vein as Voltaire’s Candide or Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland. The problem with it is that it seems to have a limited audience. It was written in 1908 in the philosophical and academic style of the time, and I can’t imagine anyone unfamiliar with those topics and that particular writing style getting much of the point. Even the jokes are aimed at intellects at the level of professors of theology. Chesterton was a polymath interested and knowledgeable about everything, with the creative wit to express his views and knowledge in very amusing ways. Although he was a journalist and writer rather than a professional philosopher,The Man who was Thursday is overflowing with images and comments on philosophy and theology. There are parallels with Christ’s final week, from the last supper (the Sunday morning breakfast of the anarchists) to the ascension into heaven (at the final reunion party), and you don’t have to look too deeply to find other allusions to biblical stories. Also dispersed throughout the novel are many references to the philosophical thought current at the time, most of which are disparaging. Nihilists, Sceptics and Nietzsche’s superman get a particularly hard time. The main problem I found was that the author seemed to be taking pot-shots at great minds pretty much at random. I couldn’t detect a coherent religious or philosophical position being expressed. Perhaps I missed it. After all, I’m not a professor of theology. |
SEND YOUR COMMENTSSOME RECOMMENDED
|
