Has its moments. Sometimes Chesterton says interesting things but i didn't really understand a lot of his "philosophy" stuff. Maybe I'm not conservative Christian enough, i dunno. In general the book is alright, not super exciting but interesting enough throughout. the dialogue can be a bit ridiculous at times although i guess that's the point because the people speaking are ridiculous. The ending is surprisingly melancholy and the last chapter is mostly obtuse to me but maybe I'm just being stupid

Below this is all me rambling incoherently I don't really know what I mean

i mean, it's weird because the implication seems to be that manufactured patriotism and nationalism that leads to war and death is good because it reinvigorates people (which is obviously kind of fascist) but i think that's mostly an uncharitable interpretation of mine - hopefully the ending is intended to show that empires fall because they oppress people and the conflicts would stop. but i don't know

Like I mean I guess I'm not 100% sure what his "point" was because although he's sometimes clear about it the plot confuses things (and I feel it's fair to take the "point" pretty seriously because without the somewhat philosophical stuff the plot is kind of dull). I mean some stuff is clear - Wayne's speeches, especially the one at the end about holding on to things, are pretty decent defences of a sort of Little Englander conservative mindset. But like, the book ends with London divided into a load of petty 'patriotic' fiefdoms, just overthrowing the rule of a single one of them for an uncertain future. Is this positive? The book seems to suggest so. Chesterton seems to like the idea of all the different mini cities because they break the dull hegemony yet it's not clear in what way life in the cities would actually be different, so war is the only obvious change. The early scenes with the president of Nicaragua talk about the benefits of particularism with the knowledge each unique group has but it doesn't really show through when it comes to the cities. The opening of the book indicates the "end of war" is based on war (see the destruction of Nicaragua) yet he doesn't take that path and instead goes on about things being "dreary" etc. Like I feel it's clear that it's more about the romanticism aspect but the war thing is inseparable and it's strange.

It's also weird that he's seemingly critical of the "rotating despotism" thing but then makes it the system for each mini city and doesn't criticise it any more. And the suggestion that in a way this created patriotism is "natural" because people get attached to where they live even though only one person took it up and it required someone making a "joke" for it to be started. And then apparently everyone taking it up because Notting Hill had a minor victory. I realise that this is sort of plot convenience and skipping out a lot of boring stuff but it does feel kind of contradictory and confusing. Like, I'm not looking for some ridiculous alt history ~saga~, just for the out of plot commentary and the plot itself to sync up a little. The speech Wayne gives about not letting Notting Hill become an empire is interesting although hard to really understand in the context of the plot (it also reflects the strange attitude the book has to people other the named figures - they're specifically said to behave to spite people with bold ideas about how they should behave and yet they follow Wayne, get completely into his system, and only THEN ignore what he says to do a bad thing) And the last chapter which is sort of about a combination between humorous frivolity and serious change (or something, can't put it into words right) is pretty confusing - especially mixed with the (genuinely pretty funny) prologue about London staying the same in the future and people avoiding changing in the ways people prophesise. Is change bad when it's laid out by people prophesising the future and good when people make up stuff on the spot? I dunno. Chesterton says "It is of the new things that men tire--of fashions and proposals and improvements and change. ... It is the old things that are young." and yet is apparently totally behind the strange division of London. Is it because it's patriotism, an old thing, rather than actually a new thing? It's hard to explain exactly but the way the narration extolled old things while the plot extolled a new thing was a strange dissonance. Oh, and as someone else noted, no women characters at all! Not surprising but still.


I feel I'm both overthinking irrelevant things and completely missing the obvious and have awful reading comprehension so it's fair to accuse me of those things. Just trying to articulate my very confused thoughts about it. Maybe in the future I'd come back to it and like it more or at the very least have a more coherent criticism of it. ( )

hilarious ( )

When I was deeply into the process of becoming a “lapsed Catholic,” two of the priests at the University of Notre Dame (where I was a student) recommended two works by Gilbert Keith Chesterton: Heretics and Orthodoxy. While neither was sufficiently compelling to keep me in the fold, I found both books to be stimulating and illuminating. Moreover, Chesterton had a reputation of being witty and clever if not necessarily profound.

Thus I optimistically looked forward to reading the Wordsworth Classics edition of The Napoleon of Notting Hill. Unfortunately, the book itself was quite a disappointment. Part of the problem is that it is quite dated. In addition, it seems to require a detailed understanding of the nuances of different neighborhoods of early 20th century London to understand many of the references, puns, and irony. Finally, the story just isn’t that good.

Perhaps old G.K. can be forgiven since this was his first novel. He got better with time, as his Father Brown novels attest. But this one is a hard slog, recommended only for Ph.D. candidates compelled to master his entire oeuvre.

(JAB) ( )

A rather odd, but amusing novel set in a future London (1984, ironically, 80 years after the novel's publication), where democracy has given way to a cynical system whereby a random individual is chosen to be king for a period of time. The story is full of wry observations, reflecting the author's own views, but does get a bit dull and repetitive. Worth a look. ( )

I didn't so much enjoy the story as the way Chesterton put words together. I'll try another book by Chesterton based on that, but can't wholeheartedly recommend this one. ( )