The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion
This topic is about
The Man Who Was Thursday
All Other Previous Group Reads
>
The Man Who was Thursday: Part One - Chapters 1-6
I'm hoping to be able to keep up with the group on this. I've recently read Crime & Punishment, as well as Conrad's Secret Agent. And am halfway through Under Western Eyes. The Man Who Was Thursday would fit right in with the lot, I think. Ive heard mixed reviews but I'll try to squeeze in a little Chesterton this week.
I started the book last night but I don’t think I’m going to go on with it. Finding Chesterton’s prose tediously predictable. Vary your syntax, old boy!
Oh, Abigail, I hope you persist! It's really a wonderful book and I think we need all the help we can get to figure it out! I'm on chapter 3 and honestly, I find this story so unique. I'll be back with a few comments later ....
Mod
I'm here too - I only have one more chapter to go for the week!
Mod
Mod
I just finished chapter 3 and am so far finding the novel to be hilarious. I loved the way Syme made Gregory crazy by arguing that the greatest poem/most poetical thing is the train schedule. So silly and over-the-top, and so the diametric opposite of Gregory's outlandish, posturing claim that anarchy is the basis of all poetry. And the scene in the secret meeting place, deep underground where everyone is Mr. Joseph Chamberlain! Of course the undercover policeman just happens to give the stirring speech which propels him toward Anarchy Headquarters!
Maybe it's so funny to me because I've been steeped in Dostoyevsky and Conrad, but so far I'm delighted.
I'm hoping Chesterton is being very tongue in cheek, because our two main characters are absurdly extremist. I'm in chapter 4, and Symes has just joined the thought police, which while it echoes 1984, it also smacks of the ridiculous, and I've had fun with it. I like how it is humorous, and yet there lurks an undercurrent of real danger beneath all these arguments.
I'm on chapter 5 and like Renee I'm enjoying the absurdity of it all. But, as Janice mentioned, it's interesting that while it's hilarious, the characters do not find the situation so and there is certainly an underlying tone of seriousness that wars with the humour. Gregory's observations seem somewhat exaggerated, yet initially Syme seems to be encouraging him to see wonder in the mundane, everyday things.
It's fascinating that Chesterton does not seem to be presenting a regular "hero". At first, I thought Syme was it but as we read further Chesterton's description of him comes with some obvious flaws. There is a definite contrast between the two characters, but other than the obvious, I'm musing on what Chesterton is attempting to convey.
My impressions after chapter 1: It is all so ornate. The descriptions, the language, the detail of arguments. There is so much layering -- first one sweeping statement, then its apparent contradiction, forcing the reader to dwell on the difference, and how these characters represent those differences that the reader might never consider. His attempts at grand, universal truths (mostly about women, for some reason) here and there wouldn't be tried seriously today.
It is so ornate that it is almost unrealistic. Even the most fantastic characters today wouldn't talk like Gregory and Syme do. Was this plausibly the way people spoke when it was written? Then again, perhaps these characters are supposed to be fantastic.
Do we need to know that Gregory's "dark red hair parted in the middle was literally like a woman’s, and curved into the slow curls of a virgin in a pre-Raphaelite picture." Probably not, and I suppose the trend today is to let the reader fill in or imagine such details. But this is how he wants to tell the story -- to describe everything and really set the scene and give us a sense of place.
This looks like one of those stories where you just have to accept it and hope you fall in love with the language and worlds described.
I read this a couple of months ago so I'm a bit wary of commenting. I did like the book but felt it went off the boil towards the end. I also thought that the 'twist' as some might describe it was pretty obvious but we'll see what others think as the book progresses.He skewers so many tropes, including emancipated women ...who, while protesting against male supremacy…would always pay to a man that extravagant compliment which no ordinary woman ever pays to him, that of listening while he is talking,
I found that horribly offensive myself but as the only other things I've read of Chesterton made me utterly despise him with a depth of detestation that I've rarely felt for any author, I fairly much just took it as par for the course. I think the man was an utter &^%$£!!!
I just finished A Study in Scarlet, and will take up TMWWT pronto.From the comments, it already sounds interesting.
Alex wrote: "It is so ornate that it is almost unrealistic. Even the most fantastic characters today wouldn't talk like Gregory and Syme do. Was this plausibly the way people spoke when it was written? Then again, perhaps these characters are supposed to be fantastic...."
I believe Chesterton is deliberately trying to present two extremes which is perhaps why they appear somewhat unbelievable. It might also be helpful to remember that the sub-title is "a nightmare". Our dreams are often a little surreal which perhaps explains the "fantastic" feeling this tale generates.
Mod
Nicola wrote: "..... the only other things I've read of Chesterton made me utterly despise him with a depth of detestation that I've rarely felt ..."Lol! Chesterton was a product of his times and if you detest him, you detest probably much of the male population in Great Britian at the time, never mind elsewhere. I look at the relationships he had with the women close to him and with both his mother and his wife, they were close, respectful and deeply cherished. Not to mention his friendship with Dorothy Sayers who experienced discrimination against her because she was a woman (you would probably enjoy her book of essays Are Women Human? Astute and Witty Essays on the Role of Women in Society, Nicola. It's very good), yet remained a good friend of Chesterton's and at his death wrote to his widow, saying, “G. K.’s books have become more a part of my mental make-up than those of any writer you could name.” I also respect Chesterton for his close relationship with George Bernard Shaw; they disagreed on mostly everything but remained friends for 35 years and on Chesterton's death, Shaw said that the world was not nearly thankful enough for Chesterton. Chesterton said about Shaw (before he died, of course! ;-) ), "I have argued with him on almost every subject in the world, and we have always been on opposite sides, without affectation or animosity. … It is necessary to disagree with him as much as I do, in order to admire him as I do; and I am proud of him as a foe even more than as a friend." It takes a special person to be able to maintain a contrary friendship like this one for as long as they did.
I don't know tons about Chesterton (yet) but I do know a great deal about C.S. Lewis, a contemporary who also tends to get branded as a misogynist which makes me laugh, as women LOVED Lewis. They wrote to him all the time asking him his opinion on different matters. It only serves to illustrate how times have changed and I often wonder in a hundred years which things will we be judged and accused of that people of that time think terrible when we, right now, think they're acceptable and fine.
In any case, Chesterton the man seems to been as lively as this book. I've fortunately forgotten the end so I'll have to wait and see what happens. I just remember being completely puzzled by it so hopefully with reading it with a group, some things at least will become clearer.
What an exciting and unexpected ending to chapter 6! I'm trying hard not to read ahead to find out what happens.
Mod
You might be right. After finishing chapter 2, I am more and more inclined to see this as a sort of fantasy. Passages in chapter 2 are so unrealistic that they border on magic realism: for example, the pub booth that, through some hidden technology, descends into state of the art anarchist war rooms. I presume that, even then, people knew that anarchists were not so technologically equipped.If this was unrealistic when it was written, what are we to make of it? Was it intended to be a fantasy, or did the styles then permit hyperbolic plot devices for dramatic effect?
Alex wrote: "You might be right. After finishing chapter 2, I am more and more inclined to see this as a sort of fantasy. Passages in chapter 2 are so unrealistic that they border on magic realism: for example,..."Doesn't it make you think of Get Smart?
Or, even more, this guy:
Christopher wrote: "Alex wrote: "You might be right. After finishing chapter 2, I am more and more inclined to see this as a sort of fantasy. Passages in chapter 2 are so unrealistic that they border on magic realism:..."Yeah it did remind me a little of the cheesy Bond-type super villans. Then again, maybe this story was their inspiration.
Chapter 3: high, theatrical drama -- a murderous anarchist who is too honest to break a promise to his sworn enemy, a undercover policeman who manages to get himself elected the head of ultra-suspicious anarchist chapter. Implausible and absurd, and the tirades and monologues are peppered with philosophical statements. OK. I guess that's where we're going: an allegory that uses fantastic twists and turns to drive home some grand themes. That's fine (it's part of what made The Napoleon of Notting Hill so fun to read). Not everything has to be a subtle character study or an atmospheric novels about small things.
Plus there is Chesterton's epigrammatic wit throughout: "He came of a family of cranks, in which all the oldest people had all the newest notions. One of his uncles always walked about without a hat, and another had made an unsuccessful attempt to walk about with a hat and nothing else."
Mod
I got a bit behind so most everyone has posted what I was going to say. It is absurd, and the main characters are all extremes. Makes it difficult to understand what Chesterton is trying to say. Who is the hero, who are the villains? Are they both a little of each? Syme definitely isn’t a hero; he’s too flawed. And I rather liked Gregory, who is supposed to be on the villains side.I’m going to have to look at the Background thread. I’ve read a bit about the late 19th century anarchists, but don’t really remember/know much about it. I’ll have to brush up on my history a bit next week.
Cleo wrote: "Nicola wrote: "..... the only other things I've read of Chesterton made me utterly despise him with a depth of detestation that I've rarely felt ..."Lol! Chesterton was a product of his times and..."
I wouldn’t make a judgment about a man’s misogynistic tendencies based on whether or not women liked him. Women are often women’s worst enemies. Sadly, even today, women tend to still put men up on pedestals.
Mod
This book was published in 1908. In 1914 an Anarchist threw a bomb in Sarajevo, killing the Archduke Ferdinand and his wife in their carriage-which led to World War One.
This book may be somewhat of a satire, but anarcnists were a force to be reckoned with in those days. They could be compared to the terrorists of nowadays. Their aims may have been different, but their methods have some similarities.
Rosemarie wrote: "The end of chapter six does have a surprise for Syme and the rest of the group.This book was published in 1908. In 1914 an Anarchist threw a bomb in Sarajevo, killing the Archduke Ferdinand and hi..."
I'm currently also reading The Romanov Sisters: The Lost Lives of the Daughters of Nicholas and Alexandra, and the security they had to install in the early part of the century (1908-09 etc) to protect themselves from the violence of anarchists was incredible. It reminded me that anarchists today are a different breed from the anarchists of the time the book was written... you're right, Rosemarie, they were the terrorists of the times.
Lynnm wrote: "I wouldn’t make a judgment about a man’s misogynistic tendencies based on whether or not women liked him. Women are often women’s worst enemies. ..."In the case of Chesterton, to add to Nicola's comment I was offering evidence which I hoped would give a broader characterization of the man. I included both women and men. Who would be a better judge of a man than those who were his contemporaries and had lifelong relationships with him?
In the case of Lewis, as well as having good relationships with females, he was also good friends with Dorothy Sayers and she would have put up with male misogyny for less than one second. She is harsh in her critique of it. There is no way they would have been friends if he demeaned or put women down.
So my case is that they are either innocent or willfully misunderstood based on the context and era of their works. But we digress away from the book which is getting more puzzling. I still don't know what to make of Syme or the policeman for that matter. I'm looking forward to reading the next section!
Mod
Rosemarie wrote: "I would almost consider the characters caricatures. The description of the six other Days helps support this. ..."Yes, exactly! I was expecting Gregory to be the "bad guy", so to speak and Syme, the good guy, but when we get the description of Syme you can see that he's an extremist in his own way and not all "good". Caricatures is a great word to describe them.
I just remembered that I have an annotated The Man Who Was Thursday: A Nightmare lying around somewhere, so I'm going to dig it up. Usually I don't like reading notes on books or other people's views until I finish the book but in this case, I might make an exception. I'll be careful what I post though as I'm aware that many people also like to discover a book by themselves as well! :-)
Mod
His dark red hair parted in the middle was literally like a a woman's, and curved into the slow curls of a virgin in a pre-Raphaelite picture. From within this almost saintly oval, however, his face projected suddenly broad and brutal, the chin carried forward with a look of cockney contempt...he seemed like a walking blasphemy, a blend of the angel and the ape.
We meet Gogol as
He wore indeed the high white collar and satin tie that were the uniform of the occasion; but out of this collar there sprang a head quite unmanageable and quite unmistakeable, a bewildering bush of brown hair and beard that almost obscured the eyes like those of a Skye terrier...If out of that stiff tie and collar there had come abruptly the head of a cat or a dog, it could not have been a more idiotic contrast.
Of de Worms
It did not express decrepitude merely, but corruption...He could not help thinking that whenever the man moved a leg or arm might fall off.
and of Bull and his opaque glasses
Syme even had the thought that his eyes might be covered up because they were too frightful to see.
So not only are his characters caricatured personalities, they carry physical caricatures as well.
Mod
Here's the actual opening credits to Get Smart for those who didn't grow up on this show-fun to rewatch for those of us who did!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElqZm...
I think this is the best bit of dialog so far:“Are you the new recruit?” said the invisible chief, who seemed to have heard all about it. “All right. You are engaged.”
Syme, quite swept off his feet, made a feeble fight against this irrevocable phrase.
“I really have no experience,” he began.
“No one has any experience,” said the other, “of the Battle of Armageddon.”
“But I am really unfit—”
“You are willing, that is enough,” said the unknown.
“Well, really,” said Syme, “I don’t know any profession of which mere willingness is the final test.”
“I do,” said the other—“martyrs. I am condemning you to death. Good day.”
Sorry I'm so late joining in - I'd been thinking the read was starting in October.Anyway, I'm up to date with this first section, thanks in large part to the excellent audio recording I found on YouTube (I've mentioned it in the background thread, but will add the link again here in case anyone is interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNK-G... )
I got about half way through chapter 2 when I realised that I have read this before. It was the scene with the secret underground meeting and the election of the new "Thursday" which started bells ringing. I genuinely cannot remember what else happens though, so any speculation as to future events I might make are just that and not spoilers :-)
I've been very struck by the abundance of red imagery in the first six chapters, and the use of colours generally. Eg, the police constable Syme meets on the embankment is a blob of blue sandwiched between the red sky and the red reflection of the sky on the river. Those aren't the precise words, obviously.
Frances picks out a few quotations above describing some of the different characters and there, too, colours feature heavily. By the way, I laughed out loud at the description of de Worms and the idea of an arm or leg falling off every time he moved!
There is a lot of humour in this, which I'm really appreciating, and it makes the talk of blowing people up and other anarchistic antics all the more absurd.
I do wonder about the use of "Anarchism", or perhaps its over-use both then and now, to describe any kind of group using violent terror tactics. The Black Hand, for example, responsible for the shooting of Archduke Ferdinand in 1914 was a Serbian Nationalist group - terrorists yes, but anarchists not necessarily. The image of the black-bearded, crazed anarchist with lit bomb in hand often used in cartoons at the time genuinely frightened people who desired order above all things - a social order which didn't change radically until the First World War.
Anyway - those are my initial thoughts. Sorry if it's a bit waffly, but I'm typing in a hurry. Will aim to do better in the next section!!
Mod
I noticed that before Gabriel joined the special force, he dressed like a typical anarchist.
Ooh... I also found Chesterton very heavy on alliteration in his writing. Just from the lines Frances quotes above, there is "curved, curls", "broad and brutal", "cockney contempt" and "angel and the ape." Very poetic, which is appropriate given Syme and Gregory's callings.
Rosemarie wrote: "Pip, I am glad you caught my historical error. I guess I was seeing Anarchists, complete with capes, everywhere.I noticed that before Gabriel joined the special force, he dressed like a typical anarchist"
You're right, he was! Black 'n' shabby - good spot. Is there going to be a tale within a tale within a tale here? It's difficult to believe anything anyone says, or trust who anyone is, isn't it?
And I wasn't correcting you at all (if I sounded like I was, I apologise). I think all of us tend to use "Anarchist" in a more general sense than it really should be - even some Anarchists, probably!
Mod
And then, of course, there is "Anarchy in the U.K."!
Great observations, Pip. I was wondering if there was some significance to Gregory's red hair/beard but hadn't seen the rest. I feel cautious with taking this book too seriously; it's a nightmare after all. But then again, what kind of nightmare? We can have waking nightmares that relate to life circumstances but then again we can also have nightmares that are utterly absurd.
And the alliterations .... good catch! I'd forgotten until you mentioned it that Chesterton also wrote some poetry so he'd be familiar with the usage.
Yes, the "bomb that ignited WW1" was thrown by a nationalist, not an anarchist*. The resulting carnage, all in the name of god & country, makes me wonder whether Chesterton got his priorities right. Of course we can ignore any moral lesson the author might try to impart and just enjoy the frolics. To me, though, Chesterton's humour feels a bit heavy handed, his writing rather mannerist.
Anyway, is it possible for someone living in the certainty of a belief (anarchist, catholic or whatever) to imagine the absurd? Or imagine it in any other way than a lack of belief?
* For anarchist terrorism in Chesterton's days see: wikipedia
Oh dear I am lagging so far behind. I'm only beginning chapter 3. I hope that I can stay with it. I have never read anything like this before. I'm finding myself drawn more and more into the craziness. Abigail, you speak of predictable syntax but I find it all so new to me. Evidently I'm not quite as widely read as I thought! 😊
Wendel wrote: "is it possible for someone living in the certainty of a belief (anarchist, catholic or whatever) to imagine the absurd? "Interesting question! A quick Google of the definition of "absurd" gives me several variations on: wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate; incongruous; extremely silly or ridiculous; illogical" etc.
I suppose everyone, even absolute believers, has their own centre point of "good sense" from which everything which differs is nonsensical to some extent. From that point of view, an absolute believer should have a narrower centre point and therefore consider more things to be nonsensical than someone with more relaxed beliefs. ???
I think Chesterton - at the time he wrote this a Protestant - did have fairly rigid beliefs, and the novel is certainly full of absurdities!
Pip wrote: "Wendel wrote: "is it possible for someone living in the certainty of a belief (anarchist, catholic or whatever) to imagine the absurd? "Interesting question! A quick Google of the definition of "..."
I have not heard anyone specifically discuss this, but every time I read Chesterton he seems like the wayward disciple or bastard offspring of Oscar Wilde.
You would have to read Intentions and Heretics side by side, perhaps, to see how much both authors not only employ paradox, but in a way depend upon paradox to make their points.
Just to take the two most ready-to-hand examples (from Intentions and Heretics, respectively):
VIVIAN (reading in a very clear, musical voice). THE DECAY OF LYING: A PROTEST.—One of the chief causes that can be assigned for the curiously commonplace character of most of the literature of our age is undoubtedly the decay of Lying as an art, a science, and a social pleasure. The ancient historians gave us delightful fiction in the form of fact; the modem novelist presents us with dull facts under the guise of fiction. The Blue-Book is rapidly becoming his ideal both for method and manner. He has his tedious document humain, his miserable little coin de la création, into which he peers with his microscope. He is to be found at the Librairie Nationale, or at the British Museum, shamelessly reading up his subject. He has not even the courage of other people’s ideas, but insists on going directly to life for everything, and ultimately, between encyclopaedias and personal experience, he comes to the ground, having drawn his types from the family circle or from the weekly washerwoman, and having acquired an amount of useful information from which never, even in his most meditative moments, can he thoroughly free himself.
[...]
When the old Liberals removed the gags from all the heresies, their idea was that religious and philosophical discoveries might thus be made. Their view was that cosmic truth was so important that every one ought to bear independent testimony. The modern idea is that cosmic truth is so unimportant that it cannot matter what any one says. The former freed inquiry as men loose a noble hound; the latter frees inquiry as men fling back into the sea a fish unfit for eating. Never has there been so little discussion about the nature of men as now, when, for the first time, any one can discuss it. The old restriction meant that only the orthodox were allowed to discuss religion. Modern liberty means that nobody is allowed to discuss it. Good taste, the last and vilest of human superstitions, has succeeded in silencing us where all the rest have failed.
Renee said she had just read Conrad's The Secret Agent which is what I first thought of because it also deals with an anarchist and was written in 1907, the year before TMWWT. However, Conrad was serious and realistic and this book is.... not so much. I also thought of Graham Greene, but its probably Catholicism that Greene and Chesterton share more than style. Reading the above discussion has helped and I'm reminded that Nightmare is in the title. It is certainly interesting in its "ornate" unrealistic descriptions and caricatures and I will try to enjoy where this takes me.
I didn't know The Secret Agent and TMWWT were so close in date.One theme in Conrad is that the anarchists have almost nothing to do in England, because they are tolerated and not repressed.
And there is an undercover policeman, iirc.
But a very different tone, for sure.
I've always been fascinated by the 1900's era anarchistic movement, especially its relationship to the emerging communist movements. They shared views on pro-worker values but not on the government's role in sustaining these values.
Well, I have crawled along to the end of chapter six thanks largely to the link you quoted, Pip. I listened from the beginning while reading along. The narrator Geoffrey Palmer helped me to understand better the first couple of chapters because of his emphasis on certain words and the flow of his sentences.So far this is certainly quite a wacky story!
I thought the quotation you shared, Alex, was particularly hilarious as is the description of de Worms that you mentioned, Pip. He certainly has an eye for the absurd, in comedy at least.I see what you mean with reference to Chesterton's sexism, Nicola. Strangely when I read that reference I understood it to be quite patronising to men in that I saw it as a suggestion that men were, in general, not worth listening to.
The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910
Books mentioned in this topic
The Secret Agent (other topics)Intentions (other topics)
Heretics (other topics)
The Man Who Was Thursday: A Nightmare (other topics)
The Romanov Sisters: The Lost Lives of the Daughters of Nicholas and Alexandra (other topics)
More...
What genre of novel is this-do you feel this is a satire, an allegory, a detective story, something else?
In the opening pages Chesterton describes Saffron Park and some of its denizens as almost caricatures, or platonic ideals, of what they are or represent. He skewers so many tropes, including emancipated women ...who, while protesting against male supremacy…would always pay to a man that extravagant compliment which no ordinary woman ever pays to him, that of listening while he is talking, the anarchic poet, the impression that it is in the disorderly and the unexpected that we find beauty and poetry ...Take your Byron, who commemorates the defeats of man; give me Bradshaw, who commemorates his victories. Give me Bradshaw, I say! that it is hard to settle on one target or theme.
What did you think of Chesterton’s Anarchists? His policemen? What about the gentleman’s agreement between Syme and Gregory not to inform on each other? Any other favourite targets for you?
Who were your favourite characters? What are your expectations, if any, for where this novel is headed?
Share your thoughts on this extraordinary novel so far, and remember to hide or leave out spoilers for those who haven't read ahead.