Literary The Club of Queer Trades by G. K. Chesterton

[issybird]

Originally Posted by desertblues

Some thoughts on this (rather quirky and delightful) book.
I wonder whether this book a satire on the very English concept of clubs and societies? British clubs and societies were widespread and powerful social institutions as early as the beginning of the 19th century and there are many of them these days.

Great insight, of course you're right. Swinburne's laundry list of his clubs at the beginning should tip us off, but that aspect went right by me. I think generally speaking, Chesterton doesn't want to épater la bourgeoisie exactly, he's too conservative for that, but he does want to skewer them a bit and make them uncomfortable.

[Bookworm_Girl]

Originally Posted by caleb72

I wasn't hugely thrilled with the book. The prose itself was entertaining but I didn't find anything particularly compelling in the stories. The mysteries were ones the reader was not supposed solve.

My overall feeling about the stories is similar. I think my disappointment was that I wanted a little more meat and intellectual stimulation since I am by personality a problem-solver. The only story I felt was presented in a solvable fashion was "The Singular Speculation of the House-Agent" although somewhat too obvious.

Originally Posted by fantasyfan

One of the things I love about G.K is his wonderfully lateral way of looking at the ordinary;

A good example of this is in that first story:

"Facts," murmured Basil, like one mentioning some strange, far-off animals, "how facts obscure the truth. I may be silly—in fact, I'm off my head—but I never could believe in that man—what's his name, in those capital stories?—Sherlock Holmes. Every detail points to something, certainly; but generally to the wrong thing. Facts point in all directions, it seems to me, like the thousands of twigs on a tree. It's only the life of the tree that has unity and goes up—only the green blood that springs, like a fountain, at the stars."

I enjoyed the parody of Sherlock Holmes, especially as represented by Rupert. I really liked this quote in the last story. His brother Basil said of him: "His reasoning is particularly cold and clear, and invariably leads him wrong. But his poetry comes in abruptly and leads him right.

Originally Posted by issybird

I love how Chesterton constructs a sentence and his unerring ability to create an unexpected yet exact simile.

I really liked the writing style. Unexpected was the exact word that kept lingering in my thoughts. I loved how descriptive his writing was. I wonder if that comes from his training as an artist.

Originally Posted by issybird

Definitely The Man Who was Thursday. It's a captivating thriller with beautiful prose and lots of plot twists and gives some insight into the international political situation right before the start of the Great War.

From Chesterton's biography, he was quite prolific and seems to have written about a diversity of topics and was very intelligent. I decided to give The Man Who was Thursday a try. I am about 30% into it and find it a much more appealing and engaging read to me than The Club of Queer Trades.

[fantasyfan]

I feel that in the second story "The Painful Fall of a Great Reputation" the two characters; Wimpole and Sir Walter Cholmondeliegh dramatise two aspects of Oscar Wilde. Wimpole sports a ridiculous hat which he apparently regards as the height of fashion, a similar--if milder--parody of Wilde that we see in Bunthorne, the character created by Gilbert and Sullivan in Patience. On another level, Wimpole has the appearance of wit while having none and Cholmondeliegh appears to be a dunce but actually is the source of the wit, This could reflect the double identity used by Wilde--his tendency to use his wit as weapon and mask.

The Club of Queer Trades was published only five years after the death of the Irish dramatist and his tragic career would be still fresh in the memory. And it worth mentioning that Chesterton, despite his conservatism had some sympathy and compassion for Oscar Wilde in that the latter was clearly a victim of social hypocrisy. He wrote the following in 1906 regarding Wilde's position concerning the separation of Morality and Art:

"We feted and flattered Wilde because he preached such an attitude, then broke his heart in penal servitude because he carried it out."

[Bookpossum]

That's a really interesting thought, fantasyfan. And I liked the quote about Wilde. Given Chesterton's strict Catholicism, it says much about his compassion that he wrote that.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Bookpossum

That's a really interesting thought, fantasyfan. And I liked the quote about Wilde. Given Chesterton's strict Catholicism, it says much about his compassion that he wrote that.

Well, Chesterton didn't convert until 1922, but I don't think being Catholic precludes compassion. And Wilde himself was a deathbed convert.

[Bookpossum]

Sorry - I was most unfairly basing my comment on the quite appalling lack of compassion still shown currently by the only Australian cardinal. However, I would assume that the social and religious attitudes to homosexuality at the beginning of the 20th century were in general more extreme than they are today.

I didn't realise that Chesterton was a convert.

[desertblues]

I finished The Club of Queer Trades. There seems to be more to this than I thought at first, and before I reflect further I'll contribute to the ongoing discussion.

Chesterton has a good sense of humor, some satire thrown in (especially regarding the British clubs and societies) and writes beautifully about normal and not-so-normal occurrences. In ‘The noticeable conduct of Professor Chadd’ he has Rupert Grant say ‘ For miracles should always happen in broad daylight. The night makes them credible and therefore commonplace.’(107)

I feel that he likes his world to be very tidy or perhaps he is an optimist; all his stories have a happy end. The world may appear to be upside down, but in the end all curious things are explained and neatly placed in order. In ‘The tremendous adventures of Major Brown’, the major’s world changes for a while beyond recognition, but all’s well that end well: he marries a theatrical lady, although from time to time he hankers after some adventure in his organized little life.

Chesterton seems to be lightly satirical about vicars, as seen in ‘ the Awful Reason of the Vicar’s visit’, where a scammer explains ‘Now the highest payment in our office goes to those who impersonate vicars, as being the most respectable and more of a strain' (70)

One of the interesting ideas that Chesterton weaves into his stories I found in ‘The singular speculation of the house-agent’: 'So far from paradox," said his brother, with something rather like a sneer, "you seem to be going in for journalese proverbs. Do you believe that truth is stranger than fiction? “Truth must of necessity be stranger than fiction," said Basil placidly. "For fiction is the creation of the human mind, and therefore is congenial to it.'(74)

Even before reading ‘ The noticeable conduct of Professor Chadd’, Chesterton’s manner of describing the absurd made me think about Monty Python. I found this interesting link on ‘Monty Python and Chesterton’ http://www.staustinreview.com/ink_de...ton_connection

Not only satire, but also social criticism in ‘The eccentric seclusion of the old lady’, where Basil Grant explains his frustration with the legal system ‘ it gradually dawned on me that in my work, as it was, I was not touching even the fringe of justice’ and offered himself as a ‘purely moral judge to settle purely moral differences’ in ‘unofficial courts of honor’. (144-5)

In the same story Chesterton, as Basil Grant(?), criticizes Darwinism: ‘ What I complain of is a vague popular philosophy which supposes itself to be scientific when it is really nothing but a sort of new religion and an uncommonly nasty one. When people talked about the fall of man they knew they were talking about a mystery, a thing they didn't understand. Now that they talk about the survival of the fittest they think they do understand it, whereas they have not merely no notion, they have an elaborately false notion of what the words mean. The Darwinian movement has made no difference to mankind, except that, instead of talking unphilosophically about philosophy, they now talk unscientifically about science.'(130)

Perhaps it is this fragment in the last story that made me think of Dickens, somehow: 'From behind the wooden partition, in which there was a long lean crack, was coming a continuous and moaning sound which took the form of the words: "When shall I get out? When shall I get out? Will they ever let me out?" or words to that effect.'(121)

[Bookpossum]

Thanks for that link, desertblues, and for your interesting post.

I was intrigued that you mentioned the part in the last story containing the criticism of Darwinism, as that had jarred with me - I think because I was surprised that Basil Grant would say that. And I suppose that's because I don't agree with what is being said!

[Dr. Drib]

I just finished the first one and thought it was OK. Just OK.

I actually enjoyed the writing more than the plot. However, I'll read the remaining stories, since I thoroughly enjoy Chesterton's writing.

I'm doing my reading from the Delphi Classic that I bought some time ago...and not my own lrf file (old Sony file).

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by desertblues

...In the same story Chesterton, as Basil Grant(?), criticizes Darwinism: ‘ What I complain of is a vague popular philosophy which supposes itself to be scientific when it is really nothing but a sort of new religion and an uncommonly nasty one. When people talked about the fall of man they knew they were talking about a mystery, a thing they didn't understand. Now that they talk about the survival of the fittest they think they do understand it, whereas they have not merely no notion, they have an elaborately false notion of what the words mean. The Darwinian movement has made no difference to mankind, except that, instead of talking unphilosophically about philosophy, they now talk unscientifically about science.'...

Originally Posted by Bookpossum

Thanks for that link, desertblues, and for your interesting post.

I was intrigued that you mentioned the part in the last story containing the criticism of Darwinism, as that had jarred with me - I think because I was surprised that Basil Grant would say that. And I suppose that's because I don't agree with what is being said!

Consider that On the Origin of Species was published in 1859—a mere 15 years before Chesterton's birth. While the scientific community was relatively quick to accept its arguments, a large segment of the public was much slower to come to terms with it. Even today, those without a firm understanding of biology have their reservations about it. I feel in many ways this man of towering intellect and boundless creativity was nonetheless also in many ways a bit of a reactionary who may have seen Darwin as a danger both to faith and morals. That he saw so many things with a clarity most people lack does not preclude him from having his own blind spots.

On the other hand, there exists the possibility that Chesterton was not at all criticizing Darwin in general or evolution in particular but rather 'the Darwinian movement.' Many absurdities have been postulated under the headings of science and progress, just as they have under the heading of philosophy. Social Darwinism, anyone?

[Bookworm_Girl]

Here is an interesting article in Chesterton's own words titled "Why I am a Catholic" published in a collection in 1926. He addresses Darwinism in a paragraph near the end.

http://www.chesterton.org/why-i-am-a-catholic/

It knows there are many other evolutionary theories besides the Darwinian theory; and that the latter is quite likely to be eliminated by later science. It does not, in the conventional phrase, accept the conclusions of science, for the simple reason that science has not concluded. To conclude is to shut up; and the man of science is not at all likely to shut up.

This article addresses Chesterton's conversion.
http://www.chesterton.org/lecture-49/

Every era tries to create a new religion, something more befitting the age, but new religions are only suited to what is new. And what is new is soon old. Chesterton argues that the Catholic Church has all the freshness of a new religion, but it also has the richness of an old religion. It does not change with people’s tastes. It is a religion that binds men to their morality even when they are not in the mood to be moral. The Church often has to go against the grain of the world.

[BelleZora]

I finished The Club of Queer Trades and enjoyed Chesterton's use of language in the same way that I especially love Wodehouse and E.F. Benson. Because life's complexities are currently demanding my attention, I don't have much ability to focus or really even think about what I am reading at the moment. This Chesterton book was a pleasure because it entertained me without requiring that I think.

Yet Chesterton was always thinking and possessed the rare talent of being enjoyable at whatever level of attention the reader chooses to give him. This discussion thread has been delightful. Not only did I enjoy the book on a very basic level, but now I am enjoying the insights of those who have read it more perceptively. Special thanks to Desertblues for pointing out the 'clubs' satire and to Bookworm_girl for the links, especially the introduction to the American Chesterton Society.

Originally Posted by desertblues

In the same story Chesterton, as Basil Grant(?), criticizes Darwinism: ‘ What I complain of is a vague popular philosophy which supposes itself to be scientific when it is really nothing but a sort of new religion and an uncommonly nasty one. When people talked about the fall of man they knew they were talking about a mystery, a thing they didn't understand. Now that they talk about the survival of the fittest they think they do understand it, whereas they have not merely no notion, they have an elaborately false notion of what the words mean. The Darwinian movement has made no difference to mankind, except that, instead of talking unphilosophically about philosophy, they now talk unscientifically about science.'(130)

During the Victorian Age in Britain Social Darwinism seemed reasonable to many, even when combined with the theory of eugenics proposed by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton. Lecture 36: Eugenics and Other Evils, found on the American Chesterton Society website, contains these sentences.

By the beginning of the 20th century, when Darwin’s theory was safely embraced by the scientific establishment, Eugenics was getting good press. The New York Times gave it constant and positive coverage. Luther Burbank and other scientists promoted Eugenics. George Bernard Shaw said that nothing but a Eugenic religion could save civilization.

Only one writer wrote a book against Eugenics. G.K. Chesterton. Eugenics and Other Evils may be his most prophetic book.

This particular lecture by Dale Ahlquist is disturbing for seeing reproductive rights as a tool of eugenics and even dismisses the founder of Planned Parenthood's assertion that they are feminist issues. Still, it is interesting that Chesterton saw the dangers of Eugenics, which is based upon a flawed understanding of Darwin's work, and which remained a popular theory until its natural culmination in Hitler's Holocaust. In the U.S. it had racist adherents long afterward.

Now I'm getting more off topic, but for those of us who read The Picture of Dorian Gray for the MR book club, here is an interesting Chesterton essay on Oscar Wilde: http://www.chesterton.org/oscar-wilde/. Did Chesterton think and write about everyone and everything that crossed his path?

[sun surfer]

I found the execution of the whole thing mediocre, but the idea was novel enough (even in today's oversaturated landscape of ideas) and the author skilled enough with his language that it was all quite enjoyable anyway. I liked Chesterton's mental acuity in dreaming up these scenarios that seem so obviously to be one thing in the beginning and then still, on some at least, being able to pull the rug out from under even modern readers because of our presuppositions, even if they did all rely on highly extraordinary circumstance. I'm still kicking myself that I didn't figure out the reveal of the final story until the final story, as in retrospect it should've been at least partially obvious through most of the book, but Chesterton was skilled at obscuring that I should even be wondering about that.

Originally Posted by issybird

Fantasyfan beat me to that quote! Coincidentally, I've been working my way slowly through the entire Doyle œuvre about Holmes and I find I don't really like it and for just the reasons this quote implies. They're too carefully structured to admit of only one possibility and it all seems so silly and artificial to me. These frothy and antic stories hold a lot more appeal. Although if I had been Rupert or Swinburne, I'd have been tempted to knock Basil's block off if he had laughed at me one more time, offering no explanation for what was going on...

Holmes has always been somewhat annoying to me, whether in film or book, though I'm still determined to read more of his stories eventually. I appreciate that this was partly a satire on Holmes, though I think in Basil Grant Chesterton made someone equally as insufferable.

I cannot decide if this was on purpose or accidental. After all, the point is that Grant is the anti-Holmes, relying on instinct and definitely not on facts as they appear. But he has that same unsavoury quality as Holmes of always being assured that he is right (which, like Holmes, he always is), and he purposely withholds what he knows from his friends and fellow investigators and often laughs at them until he finally condescends to explain (or until they finally figure it out for themselves). Although, it must be said, Rupert and Swinburne were both quite dull-witted at times.

I did like Basil's joie de vivre though and his unshakeable pleasantness, and my favourite scene was the already-mentioned post-scuffle repartee and debate between Basil and his equally pleasant captive lying on the floor.

[fantasyfan]

Well, I have always been a fan of Chesterton so you'll have to excuse my enthusiasm but I really loved this book. The fact that I last read it some decades ago was an advantage as it was almost like reading it for the first time.

In the end I found this to be a delightful journey. Chesterton plays with a series of outrageously unlikely and seemingly impossible situations with remarkable literary panache and with consummate skill. On the surface the tales have a lovely, frothy insouciant elegance but watch out! Every so often Chesterton suddenly and brilliantly weaves in a revelatory moment of genuine aphoristic insight.

Amazing book!

[paola]

After finishing the book, I am solidly in the corner with the lukewarms - but as usual the biggest bonus from reading the book comes from the discussion!