Winston Churchill (2) (1871–1947)

Well, I learned something from this book. Never follow up Nevil Shute with an author who tends to be a bit wordy and on the ponderous side. Reading through the first 10–15% of the book was a bit tough, but after I got used to the style, I mostly liked this book. It's the fifth Churchill book I've read in the past few years. It's probably the one I like least, in part because it has not stood the test of time nearly so well as the others. As I understand it, Churchill first wrote historical show more novels. The two that I've read are quite good. Then he moved on to social commentary. This falls into that category, but is no where near so good as the other two I've read, The Inside of the Cup and The Dwelling Place of Light. The social commentary in both those books is still fairly apt to today's problems. This book, not so much.

Basically, it's the story of a young woman, who is rather a princess, albeit one with a good heart, or something. She assumes that she deserves the best things in life and works to ensure that she gets them. So, she marries someone she thinks will become obscenely rich, and thereby bestow all the finest things upon her. After a while, she realizes there's more to life than material goods and divorces him so as to marry for "love". Love, in this case being the bogus concept of romantic love which is primarily a marketing fiction, from minstrel days, if not before, and something that doesn't actually exist (although many will claim otherwise: merely willful self delusion—btw, this all is my editorializing, not Churchill's). Anyway, she figures out that so-called "love" doesn't exactly cut it either and finishes up finding that real love is not about self-delusional romantic impulses, but is built upon a patiently built framework of friendship and trust. Something like that.

Anyway, it's a pretty good book. Nobody much reads Winston Churchill these days, which is a pity. He is still an author with much to offer. show less

The American novelist Winston Churchill was born in 1871, three years before the British statesman who shares his name. He's faded into obscurity today, but a hundred years ago, he was one of the country's most successful novelists. He was so successful that when the British Churchill was preparing to publish his first (and only) novel, he wrote to the American about the potential confusion of their names. Since the American had established a reputation as a novelist -- the English Churchill show more had only published nonfiction -- the men agreed that the Englishman would publish as "Winston Spencer Churchill." The "Spencer" eventually got whittled down to "S.".

The Winston Churchills met briefly a couple of times, when each man visited the other's country, but apparently didn't get along very well. There were other similarities in their lives, though. Both men were educated at one of their nation's military academies, and both took up painting as a hobby. Both entered politics, though the American's career was far less significant, consisting of two terms in the New Hampshire state legislature and two unsuccessful campaigns for governor.

Churchill (and from this point on we're talking about the American) began as a writer of historical fiction, but shifted fairly quickly to novels about contemporary society. He wrote about the politics (in the broadest sense of the word) and social relationships of American communities, and in the 1913 novel The Inside of the Cup, he tackles issues that still feel topical today -- the role of religion in society and the very definition of Christianity.

John Hodder is appointed the new rector of St. John's church in an unspecified midwestern city. He moves there from a small town in Maine, and urban poverty and social stratification is new to him. He's also caught off guard by social trends which hadn't yet come to rural America, largely involving women demanding different roles and a bigger place in society, and by the corruption of local business leaders. All of this leads to a crisis of faith, and Hodder considers leaving the clergy.

The novel is very episodic. In most chapters, Hodder means a new member of the community, with whom he has a conversation about why and how that person became so disillusioned with religion. And these are deep dives into substantial issues; Churchill expects that his reader is familiar enough with current theological debate to keep up. I am no theologian, and by the final third of the book, when Hodder has come to a new understanding of what Christianity should mean, I was floundering through the actual discussions and following the story only in the most basic plot terms -- who's on Hodder's side and who's not, what threats are being made, and so on.

My floundering was only deepened by the prose style of the era. As a sample, here's the first paragraph:

"With few exceptions, the incidents recorded in these pages take place in one of the largest cities of the United States of America, and of that portion called the Middle West, -- a city once conservative and provincial, and rather proud of those qualities; but now outgrown them, and linked by lightning limited trains to other teeming centers of the modern world: a city overtaken, in recent years, by the plague which has swept our country from the Atlantic to the Pacific -- Prosperity. Before its advent, the Goodriches and Gores, the Warings, the Prestons and the Atterburys lived leisurely lives in a sleepy quarter of shade trees and spacious yards and muddy macadam streets, now passed away forever. Existence was decorous, marriage an irrevocable step, wives were wives, and the Authorized Version of the Bible was true from cover to cover. So Dr. Gilman preached, and so they believed."

But I got enough to understand that the issues Churchill raises have never really left. What is the responsibility of the individual to his society? Is it sufficient for the wealthy to give money to the church and to charity, if they aren't also personally involved in doing good works? Is wealth inherently corrupting? Also still with us are the panicked cries of "Socialism!" that greet Hodder's answers to those questions.

Were I a bigger fan of classic fiction, I might someday pick up another of Churchill's novels, preferably one that feels more like a novel and less like a graduate seminar in theology. But for now, I think this one has satisfied the curiosity I felt when I learned that there was an American Winston Churchill. show less

This book is a socialistic parable which reminded me of "The Jungle". While Sinclair focuses on more material matters in talking about how socialism might benefit the lower classes, Churchill offers a similar message, but directed at the "spiritual" matters of the middle and upper classes. The protagonist, while on his journey to capitalistic success, fails to find real fulfillment. In the end, as this is spelled out by an ancillary character in the final chapters (as with Sinclair's show more socialist community organizer), he is compared to the Prodigal Son who fritters away his inheritance in a far country and realizes his consequences of his choices. But, as in the Gospel, he is offered the way home though a change in his thinking and priorities. show less

At times, I found it difficult to believe this book was written a century ago. A common theme through out the book is how the church was being used by the ruling classes as an instrument of opression, and how little of church doctrine was able to stand up to careful scrutiny based on an honest reading of scripture. That was then, but it sounds suspiciously like a criticism of today's churches, the churches of Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Rick Warren, Pat Robertson, Al Mohler, show more James Dobson, et al., people who cheerfully lie to their flocks, while at the same time keeping them ignorant and impoverished, all to the benefit of a wealthy minority, who are, not incidentally, filling the pockets of said august clergy. I always find it comforting to be reminded that, "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose". I get this same feeling from reading Psalm 10. To paraphrase Jesus, "the rich scoundrels you will always have with you".

Winston Churchill, the American author whose historical novels were wildly popular a century ago, and who made a pact with his British counterpart that the latter would be distinguished by using his middle initial, 'S.', used this book as a means of defining his own personal theology. As such, the book would likely have no interest to a modern reader who has little knowledge or interest in religious matters. For those still struggling to understand what it means to be a Christian, the book has much to offer. This book contains some ideas with which many of us might not agree, but provides much food for thought. Members of fundamentalist sects, for whom thinking is anathema, would not find this book meaningful, but for the rest of us, it provides a most profitable read.

I suppose it's worth mentioning that the version I read on kindle was full of typos and other mistakes. Several of the names changed back and forth from one page to another, e.g. the main character was mostly Hodder, but sometimes Holder. Interestingly, the basic typography was not so bad, in that there weren't the annoying line breaks in the middle of paragraphs which mar so many public domain works on kindle. show less