Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.05 AVERAGE
4.05 AVERAGE
This book manages to be always proclaiming “everyone just have fun” yet simultaneously shouting “get off my lawn!” CK Chesterton’s 1912 novel, Manalive, is a plea for living life with joy, to wake ourselves up from the drudgery and social formalities and enjoy the one life we have to live while also spreading that joy to others. Central to the story is a mysterious stranger who arrives with the wind, an archtypal holy fool that frequently feels like a prototype for Mary Poppins, character that feels like whimsicality personified as he breaks all conventions in pursuit of joy and bringing others along with him. A comedic work marred by a bit of a clunky style that feels a bit overwritten—but then suddenly shines with some rather spectacular quotes—and an unfortunate dose of misogyny and racism as casual norms throughout the text, Chesterton’s tale is often considered his closest text to a treaties on how to live life by embracing joy despite a perception of mental instability.
‘I am going to hold a pistol to the head of the Modern Man. But I shall not use it to kill him–only to bring him to life.’
This was our recent read for my book club and I was excited to finally see what Chesterton was all about, though I can’t say that I’m all too eager to try another anytime soon. It is rather inspiring and lighthearted—I can’t help but enjoy the idea that giving in to whimsy and joy to live a more fulfilling life even at the expense of being a social outcast. I love the idea that just breaking from convention can unlock a vaster, richer life, and idea that has been used frequently in shows and films (I kept thinking of the Seinfeld episode where George becomes successful by doing the exact opposite of what he would normally do). It does hit with very blunt religious overtones—which aren’t always my favorite thing but I’m also reading Chesterton so it is to be expected—and Chesterton sees this more free life of joy as one better fit to serve God.
The story begins Innocent Smith blowing into town dressed loudly, performing flips and general tomfoolery that is a sharp juxtaposition to the drab life of those staying in the boarding house Beacon House. There is almost a dark millennial humor of the tenants asking each other things such as ‘do you have any friends’ in a comical caricature of drab, depressing life to which Smith serves as a foil. And while Smith’s path of whimsy is one against social norms, many of which are oppressive, it is also positioned as antithetical to “worldly” logic and science, which Chesterton shows as mortal weights holding people down from the glory of God’s kingdom.
In his autobiography, Chesteron writes that ‘the object of the artistic and spiritual life was to dig for this submerged sunrise of wonder; so that a man sitting in a chair might suddenly understand that he was actually alive, and be happy’ and Manalive is his expression of that. Smith’s antics are intended to wake people up to this, though firing a gun at people to make them embrace life still seems a bit uncool. Though maybe I’m just a curmudgeon for not having properly enjoyed having a gun pulled on me before, and that whole scene reminded me so much of a similar moment and dialog in [b:Fight Club|36236124|Fight Club|Chuck Palahniuk|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1558216416l/36236124._SY75_.jpg|68729] that I’m curious if it was an inspiration for it. It is all very silly and I enjoyed the second half where the trial for all of Smith’s crimes turns out to be a misunderstanding where Smith has robbed his own home and had an affair with his own wife as part of their romantic role-playing.
Sure its all fun and games that the guy can be viewed as breaking social rules and celebrated for it but at the same time women were being tossed into asylums on claims of "hysteria" simply for having an opinion without so much as a trial like Smith receives. Chesterton's idea of "insanity as freedom and joy" by disregarding social conventions seems a bit exclusive to white men at the time. The causal racism is there to remind you of that, though even white folks like the Irish or people with albinism get rather disparaging depictions and comments as well.
‘there should be priests to remind men that they will one day die. I only say that at certain strange epochs it is necessary to have another kind of priests, called poets, actually to remind men that they are not dead yet.’
Overall, not a bad read and one that does make you feel good at the end, though perhaps not one I necessarily enjoyed. I think I enjoyed discussing it with the book club more than actually reading it and we had quite the array of opinions on this one from people who really loved it (so perhaps you will to) to one reader who really hated it. I will say the rather verbose prose (he loves adjectives and stringing them together) makes this one a bit of a slog despite the short length but I also suspect there is a lot to digest on a second or third reading as this feels intended for multiple reads. It won’t be from me though.
3.5/5
‘Grass and garden trees seemed glittering with something at once good and unnatural like a fire from fairyland. It seemed like a strange sunrise at the wrong end of the day.’
‘I am going to hold a pistol to the head of the Modern Man. But I shall not use it to kill him–only to bring him to life.’
This was our recent read for my book club and I was excited to finally see what Chesterton was all about, though I can’t say that I’m all too eager to try another anytime soon. It is rather inspiring and lighthearted—I can’t help but enjoy the idea that giving in to whimsy and joy to live a more fulfilling life even at the expense of being a social outcast. I love the idea that just breaking from convention can unlock a vaster, richer life, and idea that has been used frequently in shows and films (I kept thinking of the Seinfeld episode where George becomes successful by doing the exact opposite of what he would normally do). It does hit with very blunt religious overtones—which aren’t always my favorite thing but I’m also reading Chesterton so it is to be expected—and Chesterton sees this more free life of joy as one better fit to serve God.
‘If Innocent is happy, it is because he IS innocent. If he can defy the conventions, it is just because he can keep the commandments.’
The story begins Innocent Smith blowing into town dressed loudly, performing flips and general tomfoolery that is a sharp juxtaposition to the drab life of those staying in the boarding house Beacon House. There is almost a dark millennial humor of the tenants asking each other things such as ‘do you have any friends’ in a comical caricature of drab, depressing life to which Smith serves as a foil. And while Smith’s path of whimsy is one against social norms, many of which are oppressive, it is also positioned as antithetical to “worldly” logic and science, which Chesterton shows as mortal weights holding people down from the glory of God’s kingdom.
In his autobiography, Chesteron writes that ‘the object of the artistic and spiritual life was to dig for this submerged sunrise of wonder; so that a man sitting in a chair might suddenly understand that he was actually alive, and be happy’ and Manalive is his expression of that. Smith’s antics are intended to wake people up to this, though firing a gun at people to make them embrace life still seems a bit uncool. Though maybe I’m just a curmudgeon for not having properly enjoyed having a gun pulled on me before, and that whole scene reminded me so much of a similar moment and dialog in [b:Fight Club|36236124|Fight Club|Chuck Palahniuk|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1558216416l/36236124._SY75_.jpg|68729] that I’m curious if it was an inspiration for it. It is all very silly and I enjoyed the second half where the trial for all of Smith’s crimes turns out to be a misunderstanding where Smith has robbed his own home and had an affair with his own wife as part of their romantic role-playing.
Sure its all fun and games that the guy can be viewed as breaking social rules and celebrated for it but at the same time women were being tossed into asylums on claims of "hysteria" simply for having an opinion without so much as a trial like Smith receives. Chesterton's idea of "insanity as freedom and joy" by disregarding social conventions seems a bit exclusive to white men at the time. The causal racism is there to remind you of that, though even white folks like the Irish or people with albinism get rather disparaging depictions and comments as well.
‘there should be priests to remind men that they will one day die. I only say that at certain strange epochs it is necessary to have another kind of priests, called poets, actually to remind men that they are not dead yet.’
Overall, not a bad read and one that does make you feel good at the end, though perhaps not one I necessarily enjoyed. I think I enjoyed discussing it with the book club more than actually reading it and we had quite the array of opinions on this one from people who really loved it (so perhaps you will to) to one reader who really hated it. I will say the rather verbose prose (he loves adjectives and stringing them together) makes this one a bit of a slog despite the short length but I also suspect there is a lot to digest on a second or third reading as this feels intended for multiple reads. It won’t be from me though.
3.5/5
‘Grass and garden trees seemed glittering with something at once good and unnatural like a fire from fairyland. It seemed like a strange sunrise at the wrong end of the day.’
lighthearted
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
This book is CRACKERS.
Like, I wasn't sure early on if I was going to finish it because it just seemed so peculiar. I did a lot of skimming. But there was enough humor to keep me going. The problem for me was that the humor was alternated with some passages of what felt like pretty heavy prose, and the tone felt very uneven.
I give you a sample of the hilarity, because when it was funny, it was very, very funny:
"Is that Dr. Warner?" cried Rosamund, bounding forward in a burst of memory, amusement, and distress. "Oh, I'm so sorry! Oh, do tell him it's all right!"
"Let's take hands and tell him," said Michael Moon. For indeed, while they were talking, another hansom cab had dashed up behind the one already waiting, and Dr. Herbert Warner, leaving a companion in the cab, had carefully deposited himself on the pavement. Now, when you are an eminent physician and are wired for by an heiress to come to a case of dangerous mania, and when, as you come in through the garden to the house, the heiress and her landlady and two of the gentlemen boarders join hands and dance round you in a ring, calling out, "It's all right! it's all right!" you are apt to be flustered and even displeased.
That mental picture kept me laughing for pages.
The main idea is that a boarding house full of dull people receives an unexpected visit from one Mr. Smith, a large man with grasshopper-like abilities who appears over the wall one day. He promptly throws everything into disarray and does all the things that no one's thought of doing since they were kids. But then there's an intended elopement, a run-in with the local doctor and criminal specialist, and a sudden distrust of Mr. Smith, who appears to have a very questionable record of violence and philandering.
The conclusion of the matter is... all kinds of batty, bonkers bananas.
But after I finished it, I keep revising my opinion a little and thinking, "You know, I think I liked it." Probably worth a reread now that I know what in the name of sanity it all means!
But don't read the Goodreads description. It spoils it all totally. It was more interesting to just come upon the answer by degrees.
UPDATE: I've just edited the Goodreads description to take out the spoilers, but it might take a while to show up.
Like, I wasn't sure early on if I was going to finish it because it just seemed so peculiar. I did a lot of skimming. But there was enough humor to keep me going. The problem for me was that the humor was alternated with some passages of what felt like pretty heavy prose, and the tone felt very uneven.
I give you a sample of the hilarity, because when it was funny, it was very, very funny:
"Is that Dr. Warner?" cried Rosamund, bounding forward in a burst of memory, amusement, and distress. "Oh, I'm so sorry! Oh, do tell him it's all right!"
"Let's take hands and tell him," said Michael Moon. For indeed, while they were talking, another hansom cab had dashed up behind the one already waiting, and Dr. Herbert Warner, leaving a companion in the cab, had carefully deposited himself on the pavement. Now, when you are an eminent physician and are wired for by an heiress to come to a case of dangerous mania, and when, as you come in through the garden to the house, the heiress and her landlady and two of the gentlemen boarders join hands and dance round you in a ring, calling out, "It's all right! it's all right!" you are apt to be flustered and even displeased.
That mental picture kept me laughing for pages.
The main idea is that a boarding house full of dull people receives an unexpected visit from one Mr. Smith, a large man with grasshopper-like abilities who appears over the wall one day. He promptly throws everything into disarray and does all the things that no one's thought of doing since they were kids. But then there's an intended elopement, a run-in with the local doctor and criminal specialist, and a sudden distrust of Mr. Smith, who appears to have a very questionable record of violence and philandering.
The conclusion of the matter is... all kinds of batty, bonkers bananas.
But after I finished it, I keep revising my opinion a little and thinking, "You know, I think I liked it." Probably worth a reread now that I know what in the name of sanity it all means!
But don't read the Goodreads description. It spoils it all totally. It was more interesting to just come upon the answer by degrees.
UPDATE: I've just edited the Goodreads description to take out the spoilers, but it might take a while to show up.
funny
lighthearted
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Loveable characters:
Yes
I keep thinking I need to read more Chesterton, and especially his fiction. And then I read a book like this and I think, “I’m not smart enough to read Chesterton.” The premise behind this book is one that seems normal, and maybe even dull, on the surface. Carried out through the novel, though, it was for me first confusing and then intriguing.
What if we didn’t live as though we were happy? What if we were really happy? What if every day was new and the joy in life was not in finding the new but in appreciating the mundane as though it were new and novel and wonderful?
The thing I loved most about this book was that it could be read just for entertainment, but the enjoyment didn’t stop there. It wasn’t easy reading, necessarily, but it wasn’t imposing, either. I liked it. A lot. And, however unsmart I may be, I will keep trundling through Chesterton here and there. It’s worth it for the delight factor.
What if we didn’t live as though we were happy? What if we were really happy? What if every day was new and the joy in life was not in finding the new but in appreciating the mundane as though it were new and novel and wonderful?
The thing I loved most about this book was that it could be read just for entertainment, but the enjoyment didn’t stop there. It wasn’t easy reading, necessarily, but it wasn’t imposing, either. I liked it. A lot. And, however unsmart I may be, I will keep trundling through Chesterton here and there. It’s worth it for the delight factor.
“I won’t deny,” he said, “that there should be priests to remind men that they will one day die. I only say that at certain strange epochs it is necessary to have another kind of priests, called poets, actually to remind men that they are not dead yet.” (92)
This was the first book by Chesterton that I have read. I thoroughly enjoyed this witty story of life, love, and learning to covet ones own possessions as given by God.
This was the first book by Chesterton that I have read. I thoroughly enjoyed this witty story of life, love, and learning to covet ones own possessions as given by God.
Title: Manalive
Author: GK Chesterton [You didn't think I could leave him out of this, did you?]
Published: 1912
Year I read it: 2011
One sentence summary: The odd and enthusiastic Innocent Smith arrives at a London boarding house full of disillusioned modernists; but after the stir he causes in the cause to improve his fellow tenants, he is arrested and charged with burglary, polygamy, and attempted murder, turning the boarding house into the trial of Innocent.
Interesting fact: Chesterton was friends and philosophical adversaries with George Bernard Shaw, author of Pygmalion.
Three reasons to read it:
Chesterton is all about paradox - and this book is full of them! I won't spoil the ending, but let's just say that Innocent is himself a paradox.
If you need a reminder of the delight of the little things, this would be a great book to read. There are so many moments we moderns/post-moderns take for granted that the author recognizes and celebrates.
This novel is witty and funny and perfectly Chesterton. [Don't tell anyone, but I actually preferred this to Man Who Was Thursday]
One reason you maybe shouldn't:
It is very obviously and intentionally a parable.
Great quotes:
“I don't deny," he said, "that there should be priests to remind men that they will one day die. I only say that at certain strange epochs it is necessary to have another kind of priests, called poets, actually to remind men that they are not dead yet.”
“This man's spiritual power has been precisely this, that he has distinguished between custom and creed. He has broken the conventions, but he has kept the commandments.”
“Marriage is a duel to the death which no man of honour should decline.”
“I am going to hold a pistol to the head of the Modern Man. But I shall not use it to kill him–only to bring him to life.”
Part of my series "31 Days of Books" over at Wait and Hope
Author: GK Chesterton [You didn't think I could leave him out of this, did you?]
Published: 1912
Year I read it: 2011
One sentence summary: The odd and enthusiastic Innocent Smith arrives at a London boarding house full of disillusioned modernists; but after the stir he causes in the cause to improve his fellow tenants, he is arrested and charged with burglary, polygamy, and attempted murder, turning the boarding house into the trial of Innocent.
Interesting fact: Chesterton was friends and philosophical adversaries with George Bernard Shaw, author of Pygmalion.
Three reasons to read it:
Chesterton is all about paradox - and this book is full of them! I won't spoil the ending, but let's just say that Innocent is himself a paradox.
If you need a reminder of the delight of the little things, this would be a great book to read. There are so many moments we moderns/post-moderns take for granted that the author recognizes and celebrates.
This novel is witty and funny and perfectly Chesterton. [Don't tell anyone, but I actually preferred this to Man Who Was Thursday]
One reason you maybe shouldn't:
It is very obviously and intentionally a parable.
Great quotes:
“I don't deny," he said, "that there should be priests to remind men that they will one day die. I only say that at certain strange epochs it is necessary to have another kind of priests, called poets, actually to remind men that they are not dead yet.”
“This man's spiritual power has been precisely this, that he has distinguished between custom and creed. He has broken the conventions, but he has kept the commandments.”
“Marriage is a duel to the death which no man of honour should decline.”
“I am going to hold a pistol to the head of the Modern Man. But I shall not use it to kill him–only to bring him to life.”
Part of my series "31 Days of Books" over at Wait and Hope
Chesterton IS Innocent Smith. Even after his death he's firing life and laughter into people who've forgotten what it looks like. He's a breath of fresh air in a post-post-modern world. The chapter where Smith threatens his university professor into admitting his preference for life over death will stick with me - it's such a perfect summary of how easily our intellectual rhetoric can deceive us, and how obvious the truth becomes when the lie is backed up against the wall.
I am a big fan of GK Chesterton, so it pains me to give him such a low rating on one of his novels. But this novel just didn't work as far as I was concerned. It was the story of a naif, a college professor named Innocent Smith who was accused of a murder when visiting a household of people who do not really appreciate his personality. The first half of the story is the bickering between Smith and the various characters who inhabit the house where the story takes place. The second half of the story is a "Law & Order" style legal proceeding in which Smith makes his case for innocence. In some ways this is a crime novel, but it's not really that. There's plenty of Chesterton style humor in the story, and of course Chesterton's own style of social criticism. But my experience here is that it's hard to follow this story, and you lose attention quickly. While a great lover of Chesterton may appreciate "Manalive", most others would not. Therefore, I render it a verdict of only 3 stars....
Epically boring. It started off good, but then got really confusing toward the end, and I couldn't understand what was happening. It took me a week to read.