Talk:The Man Who Was Thursday

Untitled

tried to add a quote but i got reverted --81.102.218.112 (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Plot section

does anyone know how plots should be described? spoilers acceptable? mnemonic 01:20, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)

Just throw a {{spoiler}} in front of the area with the spoilers. Also, obviously, try to group it so that all the non-spoiling material goes above the line. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 03:11, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Look up Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning. Wikipedia no longer puts spoiler alerts in its articles, because "Plot" should imply it. Jenglish02 (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Reviews section aka "Criticisms"

first, does this completely POV item have any place in a Wikipedia article? given that none would argue about the appropriateness of an

"interpretations" section, i'd think that a Reviews section would be acceptable. however i have a hard time imagining such material appearing in other comparable references (encyclopedias, text books etc.).

also, regarding the actual name of the section: right now it's titled "Criticisms" though that sounds too much like a section about attacking the various qualities of the book. I'm open to other heading suggestions, but "Reviews" doesn't fit right in my opinion. mnemonic 06:35, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)

changed heading to "Reviews" for the sake of Wikiproject Novels conformance, though I may change this later. mnemonic 07:10, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)

How about "Responses" or something comparably vague? -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 03:50, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

cf. "1984"

Syme? thought police? mnemonic 22:22, 2004 Jul 15 (UTC)

Sunday=Devil?

I always thought Sunday was supposed to be god. Doops | talk 04:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

That's the problem with art that uses symbols, codes, metaphors, analogies, and secret allusions. Concepts can't be communicated because a particular word designates different concepts for different readers.Lestrade (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Release Date

My book, published by Penguin in 1986, says that it was first published in 1908, not 1907. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.53.228.115 (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

I've gone ahead and updated the date per Cawthorn and Clute (references also added). I have two additional references that cite the 1908 US printing by Dodd Meade as first, but I suspect they are in error (Bleiler's Checklist of Fantastic Literature and Tuck's Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy). The only reference I could find to a 1907 edition is at The Locus Index to Science Fiction: 1999 and I suspect that it is not correct as I can find no 1907 copies for sale.--Rtrace 00:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm unable to find who changed this paragraph again to "1907", but I changed it to 1908 per reasoning and references listed here. If this is an error and it is changed back, please advise why the 1908 date is incorrect, when listed in every copy I have seen. I noted this change as a "minor edit", which may be an error on my part if this is a source of dispute. Thank you.Profesor Josué (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

On the Picture

does anyone know the ISBN of the edition of the book shown in the picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.150.118.225 (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

What Chesterton had to say about this book

The article is very instructing, because it gives us interesting information on Christian illusions and allegories about Rosa Mundi and Jesus and James and John and the Deity, which some people say that Chesterton meant. And it even tells us, what they say, that he would have meant.

I just wonder, whether it would not also be possible, to give a little space to what Chesterton himself had to say about all this. We would not have to go into details, because otherwise the article might become too long. And perhaps also too impolite. So it would be sufficing, if the essence of it would be given, namely that Chesterton called these interpretators lunatics. And that he said, that if people were unwilling or too lazy or just too plain stupid to read the story, even if it is only "melodramatic moonshine", they might at least make the effort to read the title of it, before giving their opinion about it. This story is titled A NIGHTMARE, and would he have called something about Jesus and the Deity a nightmare? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanno Kuntze (talk • contribs) 09:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The plot

The article presents very accurately, what most people assume today to be the plot of the book. In doing this, it fullfills the main purpose of an encyclopedia. But it could be argued, that - just as for the opinions of the author on his interpretators - there might also be reserved a little corner for the presentation of the plot, how it stands in the book itself. I am not sure, how many details should be included, but indispensible is, what follows:

Lucian Gregory, a poet with some fancy ideas about anarchism, tortured by his guilty desire for his sister Rosamond, has a nightmare. In this nightmare he figures himself as one "Gabriel Syme", another poet, an antianarchist, who was drafted into a special branch of the police and has many adventures hunting supposed anarchists and being hunted by supposed anarchists.

"The Two Poets of Saffron Park", as the first chapter of the book is named, is a typical Chestertonian joke, as is the name "Syme". There is only one poet: Gregory the dreamer. There is no real "Syme", only as Gregory's nightmare. Chesterton makes this crystallically clear throughout the story, in some passages - because he had not yet found his gait at that time - extremely heavyhandedly, but maybe not extremely enough. --Hanno Kuntze 09:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That's original research and has no place here -- WP:NOR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.34.68.89 (talk) 10:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It's original research, and it's also fairly unfounded. I think the idea of any incestuous undertones is extremely tenuous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.12.168 (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Manwhowasthursday.jpg

Image:Manwhowasthursday.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Chesterton Wouldn't Approve

Well, the article is nice but I don't think Chesterton would be pleased. I pretty much agree with the unnamed person who left the comment under "What Chesterton Said About This Book." Chesterton left no interpretation of the book and wouldn't want us to state in an encyclopedia why he wrote it, or what he wanted to say. Also, could somebody verify the lines about his "frequent depression"? Thank you so much, -SeaSpray17 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.11.25.80 (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Chesterton left an enormous amount of explanation and extra material regarding the novel. See Gardner's Annotated Thursday for an appendix full of the stuff, and also see GKC's Autobiography for a whole chapter almost entirely dedicated to the topic.

Also, I'm not sure that pleasing a long-deceased author is any kind of rationale for what goes in an encyclopaedic entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.12.168 (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Chesterton wrote about a nightmarish appearance of God, but he did write about about a nightmarish appearance of God (Who even in the nightmare is still good) and not somewhom else. Hence, Sunday introduces himself as "I am the peace of God" and says "can you drink the cup" etc. At any rate, some time ago I added something of his own qualification, which indeed is necessary for interpretation, and that should i.m.h.o. somewhat settle the matter.--131.159.0.47 (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Zyme

Whats the significance of 'Zyme' in Deaus Ex relating to Chesterton? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.61.239 (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Presumably because it bears a resemblance to the book's protagonist, Syme. Doesn't seem that much of a stretch to say it was an intentional similarity, though it could just as easily have been a coincidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.117.177.129 (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

There are also excerpts from the book scattered throughout the game, it certainly wouldn't surprise me if Zyme was named after Syme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.206.63 (talk) 06:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

1975 BBC Radio Adaptation

As part of their “Hidden Treasures” strand, BBC Radio 4 Extra have (26th September 2024) rebroadcast a recently recovered adaptation of the book. Originally broadcast on Monday 17th November 1975, it was dramatized by Ronald Barton, and starred John samson as Thursday, Trevor Martin as Sunday, and Haydn Jones as Friday. Jock123 (talk) 13:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)