REVISIONS: THE MAN WHO WAS THURSDAY BY G. K. CHESTERTON

This is a revised post from my old blog.  The original post can be found here.

Abstract: Espionage meets philosophy in the midst of absurdity as a poet infiltrates an anarchist guild to undermine its plans and save England.  The thrilling plot clips along within beautiful prose, and unlike many mysteries, this story remains engaging even on a second read with all the questions answered.  The characters are pretty flat, but whether that is a boon or a doom for this story depends on the reader, and the ending might not sit well for first-time or inexperienced Chesterton readers.

Content Warning (highlight to view): violence, scary images, occasional language

———

The Man Who Was Thursday is an odd little book by one of my favorite authors, G. K. Chesterton.  A strange tale, a spy-thriller of sorts, in which darkness breeds danger, but does not, in which an investigation into villainous peoples drives the plot, but does not, in which absurdity is dangerous and danger is absurd, in which Thursday is a man and a man is Thursday, and the Chestertonian “both-and” of this story’s paradoxes stands upon a single question asked in answer to an accusation.  Yes.  It is an odd little book, and I love it.

Gabriel Syme, a poet who becomes a secret police officer, infiltrates an underground anarchist organization in order to save his beloved England from it.  His weekday-named enemies bestow on him the title of “Thursday,” and from there he begins his mission to dethrone the organization’s boss, the impressive and intimidating Sunday.  I can’t really say much more without spoilers.  Mysterious figures, dark plots, manhunts, an elephant, and a hot air balloon.  That will have to do for now.

Positives to this novel can be listed in a few phrases, and negatives in even fewer.  As fits a spy story, the tone, twists, mysteries, suspense, and pacing of the plot carry the reader along quite well.  The prose is also quite strong, with gorgeous phrases and word choices at certain points.  For the more heady reader, there are many tightly packed, philosophic quotes within the book, but not enough to bog down a casual reader.  The characters are also interesting, though I can’t say much about them without spoilers.  These elements also do not lose power on a second reading.  Even with knowing all the answers, having picked out my favorite philosophic one-liners, and gotten to know the characters, I still enjoyed reading it again, picking up hints and nuances a first-time reader is unlikely to notice.  

There are only two negatives I can really think of, though if you’re like me, they might not necessarily be negative.  First, while the characters are distinct once you get to know them, there are quite a few for so short a book, and the first time I read it I kept mixing people up.  After a second read, I found I could figure out their subtle differences better, but still not perfectly, as there is simply not much time in the novel to develop fully defined characters.  Still, I don’t mind more shallow characters if putting more detail into them could have caused more harm than good, and with this story, filling out the characters more could very well have bogged down the story too much.  The second issue relates to the ending.  The ending… let’s just say it didn’t fit my expectations.  After reading more Chesterton and rereading the novel, I am able to see better the logic of what he does with it, and I’ve really come to love it in ways, but to some, events towards the ending could be a major turn off.  I understand that reaction, but I can’t help but wonder how much of that reaction could be more a flaw with modern philosophy than necessarily with the book itself.  Though it could also just be personal taste, as Chesterton tends to be in general.

Point is, even with its flaws, this small book stimulates the mind and the imagination with its prose and espionage-suspense plot.  What’s more, despite its size, it holds many philosophic statement and questions worth examining within its story.  Between the plot and the thoughtfulness, this is a book which encourages rereading, and that’s quite an accomplishment for such an odd little book.