Scan barcode
Reviews
The Napoleon of Notting Hill with Original Illustrations from the First Edition by G.K. Chesterton
mayajoelle's review against another edition
3.0
I struggled to get through this. I think Chesterton expresses the ideas he espouses here (in heavy-handed moral fiction) better in other writings, particularly Heretics. The localism/patriotism was cool, but nothing I haven't seen elsewhere in his works. However I do think this is his first novel, so I'm willing to give him some grace. It was a necessary step on my journey toward reading everything he's written (ha. maybe before I die?).
writegeist's review against another edition
4.0
I have enjoyed Chesterton's writing, especially the fascinating The Man Who Was Thursday. Chesterton is not just an author; he's a philosopher. You will be challenged in your beliefs if you have the good fortune to read any of his books, including his famous Father Brown mysteries, where he tackles the subject of good and evil. In this round, Chesterton presents the premise that there are two types necessary for the health of a society: the fanatic and the satirist. I assume he feels if one or the other gets the upper hand, society will suffer. He couches this all in a story about London in the future where the choice of king is made by random selection from the entire populace. In this case, the choice falls to a man whose sole purpose is to make his reign a complete joke. I'm still mulling over his ideas, which is the mark of a great book, something that sticks with you long after the last page is turned.
beckinasec's review against another edition
5.0
A strange book to read in these days, when the concept of patriotism has long lost all luster. I never leave Chesterton knowing how to think, but I always leave him with more thoughts than I know how to hold.
_m_k_m_'s review against another edition
adventurous
funny
lighthearted
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.0
mouseyness's review against another edition
this was leant to me, and I probably would never have picked this up otherwise as it isn't really my taste. I enjoyed the first fifth or so, but approaching the half way point I couldn't find motivation to pick it up and finish, but there were a few quotes that I did really like :
- "The players listen very carefully and respectfully to all that the clever men have to stay about what is to happen in the next generation. The players then wait until all the clever men are dead, and bury them nicely. They then go and do something else. That is all."
- "Men are men, but Man is woman."
- "You could not see the ground for clever men. They were so common that a stupid man was quite exceptional, and when they found him, they followed him in crowds down the street and treasured him up and gave him some high post in the State."
- "If we change, we must change slowly and safely, as the animals do. Nature’s revolutions are the only successful ones."
- "If you look at a thing nine hundred and ninety-nine times, you are perfectly safe; if you look at it the thousandth time, you are in frightful danger of seeing it for the first time."
- "He discovered the fact that all romantics know… that adventures happen on dull days, and not on sunny ones."
- "When you say you want all peoples to unite, you really mean that you want all peoples to unite to learn the tricks of your people. If the Bedouin Arab does not know how to read, some English missionary or schoolmaster must be sent to teach him to read, but no one ever says, ‘This schoolmaster does not know how to ride on a camel; let us pay a Bedouin to teach him.’"
cliffsboats's review against another edition
dark
lighthearted
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
2.0
Well-written unapologetic jingoism.
romeolover's review against another edition
5.0
my god this book. the poetry hidden between absurdity has lodged this book in my heart and mind forever onwards. the beauty of the last chapter compelled be to reread aloud, only to be moved more than i could have anticipated beforehand.
new favourite.
new favourite.
dijira's review against another edition
lighthearted
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.25
What have I just read, I asked myself, having finished The Napoleon of Notting Hill.
What have I just read?
It is a book set in the 1980 year in London (but it is no different to London in 1904, so for all intents and purposes.
The author starts with listing a number of ideas for Britain's political future, states plainly that all politicians are idiots, and then proceeds to write down a fantastical version of the future in which the king’s are randomly selected from the political class and rule in some kind.
The king, a known jokester, creates a Charter of the Cities, giving each neigbourhood in London rights of a small city, as a joke. However, the Provost of Notting Hill, takes him seriously and the said Provost refuses to give up his land for the rest of the city to build a way, which results in 20 year long medievalistic warfare.
One one plane, this is all this book about.
On the other hand, I think this book is mostly a reflection on politics (no matter how stupid and ridiculous, a poliltical system will always find followers), war (wars at thought for stupidest of reason and are entirely pointless) and individualism (and London, of course).
It is was also a really slow read (maybe because I was not much connected to the story or characters)
What have I just read?
It is a book set in the 1980 year in London (but it is no different to London in 1904, so for all intents and purposes.
The author starts with listing a number of ideas for Britain's political future, states plainly that all politicians are idiots, and then proceeds to write down a fantastical version of the future in which the king’s are randomly selected from the political class and rule in some kind.
The king, a known jokester, creates a Charter of the Cities, giving each neigbourhood in London rights of a small city, as a joke. However, the Provost of Notting Hill, takes him seriously and the said Provost refuses to give up his land for the rest of the city to build a way, which results in 20 year long medievalistic warfare.
One one plane, this is all this book about.
On the other hand, I think this book is mostly a reflection on politics (no matter how stupid and ridiculous, a poliltical system will always find followers), war (wars at thought for stupidest of reason and are entirely pointless) and individualism (and London, of course).
It is was also a really slow read (maybe because I was not much connected to the story or characters)