Week 1: Introduction – Chapter II

[John]

Irene wrote: "Yes, Frances, I was referring to the fasting by the animals in response to the preaching of Jonah."

Interesting connection, but I don't think that is what Chesterton has in mind. I took him to be referring to cows voluntarily abstaining from grass every Friday, not going without because the king ordered that they not be fed.

[John]

Irene wrote: "Manny, I don't think the Jonah bit is instruction to farmers to cease feeding their livestock. I think Jonah is full of humor and this is an example of Jonah's humor, animals fasting at Jonah's pre..."

Oops, sorry, I should have read the rest of the thread before responding.

6 When the news reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, laid aside his robe, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. 7 Then he had this proclaimed throughout Nineveh:[b] “By decree of the king and his nobles, no man or beast, no cattle or sheep, shall taste anything; they shall not eat, nor shall they drink water.

This is clearly not the animals responding to Jonah's teaching, but the king responding and ordering the animals not to be fed.

[Irene]

Then, by that interpretation, the humans are also not converting but following the king's decree. Humans and beasts alike respond in the same fashion. But, again, this is not the place for exegesis of Jonah. If you want to read it differently then I am reading, the Jonah reference I made does not fit. Sorry I said anything. It just struck me that Chesterton was in a rich line of humor and imagery in making a point. But, if you see it differently, so be it.

[Manny]

Either way we read the Jonah passage, I do think Chesterton is intentionally alluding to it, either joining in with Jonah’s humor or contrasting against the King’s decree. Irene’s reference was very helpful.

[Manny]

Nadine wrote: "i’m now catching up since i started the look late but the introduction strikes me as something every british (theological writer) of the 20th & 21st century does: long winded writing, many examples..."

Yes, Chesterton is British and in the little biographical note I put in the background folder, he spans the Victorian, Edwardian, and early modernist periods, but his writing style strikes me as Victorian, which is to say wordy.

Well, I shouldn't say "wordy" off the cuff like that. He's actually a fine writer. What makes him a little different from our times is he revolves around his point before stating it. That's actually more comprehensive as an essayist than contemporary way of writing essays. Today's essayists suggest more than actually stating everything, and so leave things unsaid. You might consider it long winded, but it's actually more precise. But the style has changed.

[Kerstin]

Manny wrote: "What makes him a little different from our times is he revolves around his point before stating it."

That's exactly it. He leaves no question as to how he gets to his point. There is very little wiggle room. Then, whatever builds upon it has a solid foundation. Once you get into the rhythm of his writing, it is rather enjoyable. You wonder, what is he getting at? And then it is beautifully resolved. And now that I've gotten farther into the book the aptness of his examples are quite impressive.

[Leslie]

I'm running behind all of you, but am enjoying the read and your comments. I think it would have been more interesting to have paired this with Belloc and Well's reads for a fuller understanding. As for the polemic-apologetic debate, I'm of the opinion it is both. I enjoyed his thoughts about cave-man and bird's nests, but was disturbed at the leap in assuming the cave-man beat his wife with his club. These men were fond of pub debates and I do imagine this derived from a hearty debate after a few ales so my feathers aren't as ruffled as they might otherwise be. I wish I could have pipped in on a few points.

There's more than a little verbosity and I do wish his writing was more structured. He alludes to this third mystery to consider, but doesn't fully go there as tightly, specifically as with the others. I feel like he came home from the pub and just started flowing in his writing for Chapter One rather than collecting his thoughts for more of a pre-planned response to the debate of his day. That said, I do enjoy it and will likely read the other's writings at some point.

Chapter Two is much more structured and excellent reasoning. Still working on Part B. Enjoyed Part 2A more than B. As I was reading 2A I remembered my Science teacher from high school reading us an excerpt from this as we covered evolution. It's always good in Science to stay grounded and humble. There are many possibilities.