What do you think?
Rate this book
Father Brown #1
The Innocence of Father Brown
With his round face, pipe and umbrella, the shambling, bespectacled priest Father Brown is an unlikely detective - yet his innocent air hides a razor-sharp understanding of the criminal mind. As this first volume of his adventures shows, the wise, worldly clerical sleuth has an uncanny ability to bring even the most elusive wrongdoer to justice.
263 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 1911
2542 people are currently reading
16526 people want to read
About the author
G.K. Chesterton
4,643 books5,743 followersGilbert Keith Chesterton was an English writer, philosopher, lay theologian, and literary and art critic.
He was educated at St. Paul’s, and went to art school at University College London. In 1900, he was asked to contribute a few magazine articles on art criticism, and went on to become one of the most prolific writers of all time. He wrote a hundred books, contributions to 200 more, hundreds of poems, including the epic Ballad of the White Horse, five plays, five novels, and some two hundred short stories, including a popular series featuring the priest-detective, Father Brown. In spite of his literary accomplishments, he considered himself primarily a journalist. He wrote over 4000 newspaper essays, including 30 years worth of weekly columns for the Illustrated London News, and 13 years of weekly columns for the Daily News. He also edited his own newspaper, G.K.’s Weekly.
Chesterton was equally at ease with literary and social criticism, history, politics, economics, philosophy, and theology.
He was educated at St. Paul’s, and went to art school at University College London. In 1900, he was asked to contribute a few magazine articles on art criticism, and went on to become one of the most prolific writers of all time. He wrote a hundred books, contributions to 200 more, hundreds of poems, including the epic Ballad of the White Horse, five plays, five novels, and some two hundred short stories, including a popular series featuring the priest-detective, Father Brown. In spite of his literary accomplishments, he considered himself primarily a journalist. He wrote over 4000 newspaper essays, including 30 years worth of weekly columns for the Illustrated London News, and 13 years of weekly columns for the Daily News. He also edited his own newspaper, G.K.’s Weekly.
Chesterton was equally at ease with literary and social criticism, history, politics, economics, philosophy, and theology.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,606 reviews
May 29, 2019
Originally published in 1911 these ten Father Brown Stories are perfect examples of short stories. They all pose a mystery, a crime or a murder which is solved by Father Brown's deductions and observations in under 20 pages. Unlike the Sherlock Holmes stories, written at around the same time, they rely less on clues and action but more on rational thought and Father Brown's experience of life as observed through the many sins of his flock. Instead of a Watson at his side, he has Flambeau - initially a clever master thief, sometimes outwitted by Brown, but later reformed by him to use his clever mind for good, he has grown to become Brown's friend and companion and a clever private investigator. The stories cover a range of scenes - locked room murders, murders made to look like suicides, Indian fakirs, sword fights to the death and jewel thefts from under the owner's nose. Still very readable more than 100 years later!
August 7, 2022
El Padre Brown es un cura católico con grandes dotes de observación y con mucho conocimiento de la conducta humana. Combina estos dones para ir resolviendo misterios, asesinatos, dudas históricas y otro tipo de situaciones.
Es una inteligencia al nivel de Sherlock Holmes, pero sin usar tantos datos científicos. Solo con la observación de la escena de los hechos y con el conocimiento de los participantes resuelve con ingenio los casos que se le presentan.
En esta novela, Flambeau (ex-ladrón y detective de oficio) es el hilo conductor de los casos ya que siempre se encuentran juntos, aunque siempre es el Padre Brown quién resuelve los entuertos.
Son casos sencillos en los cuales siempre se encuentran envueltos de manera indirecta tanto Flambeau como el Padre Brown, pero resueltos de manera brillante.
----------------------------
Father Brown is a Catholic priest with great powers of observation and a great knowledge of human behaviour. He combines these gifts to solve mysteries, murders, historical doubts and other situations.
It is an intelligence on the level of Sherlock Holmes, but without using so much scientific data. Just by observing the scene of the events and with the knowledge of the participants, he ingeniously solves the cases that are presented to him.
In this novel, Flambeau (a former thief and detective by trade) is the common thread of the cases, as they always meet together, although it is always Father Brown who solves the puzzles.
They are simple cases in which both Flambeau and Father Brown are always indirectly involved, but brilliantly solved.
Es una inteligencia al nivel de Sherlock Holmes, pero sin usar tantos datos científicos. Solo con la observación de la escena de los hechos y con el conocimiento de los participantes resuelve con ingenio los casos que se le presentan.
En esta novela, Flambeau (ex-ladrón y detective de oficio) es el hilo conductor de los casos ya que siempre se encuentran juntos, aunque siempre es el Padre Brown quién resuelve los entuertos.
Son casos sencillos en los cuales siempre se encuentran envueltos de manera indirecta tanto Flambeau como el Padre Brown, pero resueltos de manera brillante.
----------------------------
Father Brown is a Catholic priest with great powers of observation and a great knowledge of human behaviour. He combines these gifts to solve mysteries, murders, historical doubts and other situations.
It is an intelligence on the level of Sherlock Holmes, but without using so much scientific data. Just by observing the scene of the events and with the knowledge of the participants, he ingeniously solves the cases that are presented to him.
In this novel, Flambeau (a former thief and detective by trade) is the common thread of the cases, as they always meet together, although it is always Father Brown who solves the puzzles.
They are simple cases in which both Flambeau and Father Brown are always indirectly involved, but brilliantly solved.
July 22, 2010
Chesterton was a contemporary of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle; and though he created his principal fictional sleuth, Father Brown, after Doyle had written the bulk of the Holmes canon, he can also claim a formative role (though not nearly so important as Doyle's) in the shaping of the genre. Father Brown is the first --but not the last!-- in a tradition of men and women of the cloth who solve traditional mysteries, the lineal ancestor of such figures as Father Dowling and Brother Cadfael, and the first series sleuth who's an amateur, rather than a professional, detective. Arising and set in the same late Victorian/Edwardian British milieu, the two characters, Brown and Holmes, have some similarities. Both are extremely smart, and have a capacity for minute observation and mental analysis of small but significant details that others tend to overlook. Flambeau, the continuing character in most of these stories, who under Brown's benign influence transitions from thief to honest detective, comes to serve as a Watson-like foil (though not narrator) for the priest detective. The latter even occasionally smokes a pipe -and more rarely (like Chesterton himself, though not like Holmes) a cigar. Like the mysteries of the Holmes canon, these stories are demanding intellectual puzzles, requiring a rationality of which the Neoclassicists would have heartily improved; but they're also steeped in the Romantic tradition, with any number of macabre, exotic or even Gothic elements: the spooky gloom of a Scottish castle as the storm wind howls, a swordfight to the death, a sinister Hindu fakir, a beheaded corpse, a religious cult, madness.
There are also, however, significant differences. Most importantly, Father Brown relies much more on intuition than Holmes does; in this respect, Chesterton sometimes seems influenced more by Henry James than by Doyle. :-) But Brown's intuition is grounded in his understanding of the dark side of human nature, gleaned as a confessor and a moral theologian, just as his knowledge of criminal techniques comes from years in the confessional in crime-ridden urban slum parishes. His priestly calling is thus not incidental to his sleuthing; and it's often the vehicle for serious observations about philosophical and spiritual truth, which are lacking or much less prominent in the Holmes canon (where both Holmes and Doyle have convictions much less definite than Chesterton's, and Brown's). Both men like the intellectual challenge of solving mysteries; but Brown isn't a hired detective, and his main interest is pastoral --he wants the reformation of the offender, not necessarily punishment, and he never takes his knowledge to the police for that reason. (He does usually encourage the culprits to confess -- with mixed success.) Holmes extends a similar mercy in "The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle," but it's not his normal operating procedure. Where Holmes is assertive, flamboyant, and proud of his abilities (though not vain), Brown is mild-mannered, humble, and self-effacing. Chesterton's prose is something the reader is much more conscious of than Doyle's: fulsome, orotund, rich in metaphor and similie; and his much more vivid and lovingly detailed descriptions of the world around him are those of a writer who takes actual joy in the creation, founded in an appreciation of its Creator.
The dozen stories here were all written in 1910-1911; most take place in or near Chesterton's native London. A bare majority (seven) are murder mysteries; two actually turn out to involve no crime at all, and the others are daring thefts or attempted thefts. "The Secret Garden" is a noteworthy example of the first group, in that it involves an early variant on the locked-room mystery: the victim was dispatched in a garden attached to a house (belonging to the Paris chief of police, no less!), with no access save through the house, and the house has only one continuously guarded door --so how did the victim get there? A couple of cases turn on the mental inability of the class-conscious British gentry of that era to notice servants/menials as anything more than part of the furniture --a feature that Agatha Christie no doubt borrowed from Chesterton in her Poirot story "The Yellow Irises."
The particular edition I read has extensive annotations by Chesterton scholar Martin Gardner; hence, it's titled The Annotated Innocence of Father Brown (first published in 1988 by Oxford Univ. Press). These are a mixed blessing. Some of them provide interesting background matter, explanations of Edwardian terms, and textual variants, etc.; too many others explain the obvious, and some critical comments miss the boat. I don't agree with Gardner's negative view of "The Wrong Shape" or the reason for it; and while I agree that the reference to "one fat Chinese sneer" in "The Three Tools of Death" is racially insensitive and deplorable, I don't find a similar problem with any other language here. (The successful Jewish hotel owner in "The Queer Feet" isn't portrayed negatively because he's successful; if Chesterton had never mentioned that a character was Jewish, we'd no doubt hear complaints that Jews are "invisible" in his work! And the bracketing of Jews with country squires, in a passing reference in "The Flying Stars" to groups that can be seen as distinct, is no more disparaging to Jews than to country squires --a group Chesterton, given his social thought, probably more admired than the reverse.) For readers interested in Chesterton scholarship, the value of this edition is enhanced by such features as a printing history of the stories here, and an over 20-page comprehensive bibliography of critical works on Chesterton in general and the Father Brown canon in particular.
There are also, however, significant differences. Most importantly, Father Brown relies much more on intuition than Holmes does; in this respect, Chesterton sometimes seems influenced more by Henry James than by Doyle. :-) But Brown's intuition is grounded in his understanding of the dark side of human nature, gleaned as a confessor and a moral theologian, just as his knowledge of criminal techniques comes from years in the confessional in crime-ridden urban slum parishes. His priestly calling is thus not incidental to his sleuthing; and it's often the vehicle for serious observations about philosophical and spiritual truth, which are lacking or much less prominent in the Holmes canon (where both Holmes and Doyle have convictions much less definite than Chesterton's, and Brown's). Both men like the intellectual challenge of solving mysteries; but Brown isn't a hired detective, and his main interest is pastoral --he wants the reformation of the offender, not necessarily punishment, and he never takes his knowledge to the police for that reason. (He does usually encourage the culprits to confess -- with mixed success.) Holmes extends a similar mercy in "The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle," but it's not his normal operating procedure. Where Holmes is assertive, flamboyant, and proud of his abilities (though not vain), Brown is mild-mannered, humble, and self-effacing. Chesterton's prose is something the reader is much more conscious of than Doyle's: fulsome, orotund, rich in metaphor and similie; and his much more vivid and lovingly detailed descriptions of the world around him are those of a writer who takes actual joy in the creation, founded in an appreciation of its Creator.
The dozen stories here were all written in 1910-1911; most take place in or near Chesterton's native London. A bare majority (seven) are murder mysteries; two actually turn out to involve no crime at all, and the others are daring thefts or attempted thefts. "The Secret Garden" is a noteworthy example of the first group, in that it involves an early variant on the locked-room mystery: the victim was dispatched in a garden attached to a house (belonging to the Paris chief of police, no less!), with no access save through the house, and the house has only one continuously guarded door --so how did the victim get there? A couple of cases turn on the mental inability of the class-conscious British gentry of that era to notice servants/menials as anything more than part of the furniture --a feature that Agatha Christie no doubt borrowed from Chesterton in her Poirot story "The Yellow Irises."
The particular edition I read has extensive annotations by Chesterton scholar Martin Gardner; hence, it's titled The Annotated Innocence of Father Brown (first published in 1988 by Oxford Univ. Press). These are a mixed blessing. Some of them provide interesting background matter, explanations of Edwardian terms, and textual variants, etc.; too many others explain the obvious, and some critical comments miss the boat. I don't agree with Gardner's negative view of "The Wrong Shape" or the reason for it; and while I agree that the reference to "one fat Chinese sneer" in "The Three Tools of Death" is racially insensitive and deplorable, I don't find a similar problem with any other language here. (The successful Jewish hotel owner in "The Queer Feet" isn't portrayed negatively because he's successful; if Chesterton had never mentioned that a character was Jewish, we'd no doubt hear complaints that Jews are "invisible" in his work! And the bracketing of Jews with country squires, in a passing reference in "The Flying Stars" to groups that can be seen as distinct, is no more disparaging to Jews than to country squires --a group Chesterton, given his social thought, probably more admired than the reverse.) For readers interested in Chesterton scholarship, the value of this edition is enhanced by such features as a printing history of the stories here, and an over 20-page comprehensive bibliography of critical works on Chesterton in general and the Father Brown canon in particular.
May 25, 2019
My dad is currently watching the BBC series of Father Brown and after jokingly telling him how terrible the show seemed (which it really didn't at all) I decided to pick up Chesterton's first Father Brown collection to see how the stories compare to the show and because I love to sink my teeth into a good mystery tale occasionally. The Innocence of Father Brown is a collection of interesting and sometimes surprising mystery short stories set in the early twentieth century. The main character is the priest Father Brown who tries his hand as an amateur detective occasionally. He doesn't really care about the true consequences of the law and often tries to figure out these crimes so he can save people in this world before they move on to the next. The only other recurring character is Hercule Flambeau who is a world-famous thief turned private detective and he became a good friend of Father Brown after their paths crossed numerous times. Each of these tales takes about 20 minutes to complete often concluding with a Sherlock Holmes-esque this is what really happened speech by the priest. A good set of stories to dip into and I will check out the next collection asap.
May 29, 2025
Gilbert Keith Chesterton (1874-1936) was an English writer and polemicist who ventured into different literary genres, including poems, books (nearly 80!), Theater, etc. Today, we will focus on the character of the priest detective he created in 1910, Father Brown.
More or less, Chesterton's hero may be in Sherlock Holmes's lineage with Conan Doyle, who predates him. With a highly developed sense of observation, reflection takes precedence over action, reasoning wins over immediate logic, and Father Brown dismantles criminal scenarios with a mastery that leaves you speechless. Only slight criticism, each investigation being the subject of only about thirty pages, the resolution of the puzzles is swift. I would have preferred that Chesterton / Brown had more time to get us to the goal. On the other hand, unlike Conan Doyle, there is a lot more humour in the turn of phrase, and there I find a very slight parallel with Wodehouse, the unforgettable creator of Jeeves.
This book, The Innocence of Father Brown, compiles twelve stories of the ecclesiastic among the fifty in which he was the hero, and was collected in five collections between 1911 and 1935. I advise you not to read them in a row because they do not extend over very long pages and quite quickly, as I have written above. The writer's "tips" and Father Brown's reasoning can become dull or repetitive, so it would be a mess because it is about an excellent book.
More or less, Chesterton's hero may be in Sherlock Holmes's lineage with Conan Doyle, who predates him. With a highly developed sense of observation, reflection takes precedence over action, reasoning wins over immediate logic, and Father Brown dismantles criminal scenarios with a mastery that leaves you speechless. Only slight criticism, each investigation being the subject of only about thirty pages, the resolution of the puzzles is swift. I would have preferred that Chesterton / Brown had more time to get us to the goal. On the other hand, unlike Conan Doyle, there is a lot more humour in the turn of phrase, and there I find a very slight parallel with Wodehouse, the unforgettable creator of Jeeves.
This book, The Innocence of Father Brown, compiles twelve stories of the ecclesiastic among the fifty in which he was the hero, and was collected in five collections between 1911 and 1935. I advise you not to read them in a row because they do not extend over very long pages and quite quickly, as I have written above. The writer's "tips" and Father Brown's reasoning can become dull or repetitive, so it would be a mess because it is about an excellent book.
February 21, 2023
This first collection of stories of Father Brown was a disappointment. Being my first exposure to Chesterton, I didn't know what to expect. But, given the popularity of clergyman/detective Father Brown, I certainly expected a better outcome. There, I was disappointed.
In my opinion, these first twelve short stories, wherein Father Brown "solves" both present and past crimes, don't serve as a good introduction to the series. The majority of them are uninteresting with mediocre crimes/mysteries, and Father Brown's precise knowledge of how each crime was committed was a bit too fantastic and thus, unconvincing.
The introduction in the audiobook I listened to, along with the text, compares Father Brown to Sherlock Holmes, and I couldn't agree less. Such a comparison is unfair to both of them. Nevertheless, I've heard that the later collections of this series are far better than the first one, so I will not form any definite opinion on the Father Brown series until I have read some of the later ones.
In my opinion, these first twelve short stories, wherein Father Brown "solves" both present and past crimes, don't serve as a good introduction to the series. The majority of them are uninteresting with mediocre crimes/mysteries, and Father Brown's precise knowledge of how each crime was committed was a bit too fantastic and thus, unconvincing.
The introduction in the audiobook I listened to, along with the text, compares Father Brown to Sherlock Holmes, and I couldn't agree less. Such a comparison is unfair to both of them. Nevertheless, I've heard that the later collections of this series are far better than the first one, so I will not form any definite opinion on the Father Brown series until I have read some of the later ones.
December 6, 2010
Chesterton is perhaps best known for his Father Brown stories, so I was deeply disappointed to find that they represent him at his preachy, intolerant worst. If I’d started here, instead of with the wonderfully weird and delightfully dark The Man Who Was Thursday and The Napoleon of Notting Hill, I would have had no desire to pick up anything by Chesterton again. All of these stories seem to revolve around the irritatingly smug Father Brown proving that some type of non-Christian is wrong wrong WRONG about everything, the poor, deluded, and occasionally murderous souls.
Aside from being pious, preachy, and at times outright racist, these tales also just aren’t very good from the detective story standpoint, either. The Sherlock Holmes stories continue to be fascinating because Holmes is, because his relationship with Watson is, because the way he interacts with the world is. Father Brown’s character has less color than his name, and although Chesterton makes the occasional attempt at providing him with a sidekick, he’s never truly given anyone to confide in or bounce off of, as Holmes has in Watson. Father Brown is lost without his Boswell. And he can stay there, as far as I’m concerned.
Aside from being pious, preachy, and at times outright racist, these tales also just aren’t very good from the detective story standpoint, either. The Sherlock Holmes stories continue to be fascinating because Holmes is, because his relationship with Watson is, because the way he interacts with the world is. Father Brown’s character has less color than his name, and although Chesterton makes the occasional attempt at providing him with a sidekick, he’s never truly given anyone to confide in or bounce off of, as Holmes has in Watson. Father Brown is lost without his Boswell. And he can stay there, as far as I’m concerned.
October 16, 2010
Reading this reminded me all over again why I hate the Agatha Christie style of whodunnit where people commit bizarrely complicated murders for equally bizarre reasons. Let's take the second story in the collection.
M. Valentin is the Chief of Police and also an atheist. He hears a rumor that an American millionaire is going to donate his fortune to the Church of France. Since he is a rabid atheist he sets out to murder the man before he can amend his will. Let's pass over that central absurdity and focus on the method of murder.
Valentin's plan is to
1. Host a dinner party of a dozen people and invite the American to it.
2. Steal the head of recently executed criminal and take it home.
3. Murder the American by decapitation.
4. Switch heads even though his deputy was at the execution and the dinner party.
5. ???
6. Get away with it.
The stories also filled with the usual kind of "the garden had unscalable walls so no one could have got in!" (Ladders apparently hadn't been invented.)
M. Valentin is the Chief of Police and also an atheist. He hears a rumor that an American millionaire is going to donate his fortune to the Church of France. Since he is a rabid atheist he sets out to murder the man before he can amend his will. Let's pass over that central absurdity and focus on the method of murder.
Valentin's plan is to
1. Host a dinner party of a dozen people and invite the American to it.
2. Steal the head of recently executed criminal and take it home.
3. Murder the American by decapitation.
4. Switch heads even though his deputy was at the execution and the dinner party.
5. ???
6. Get away with it.
The stories also filled with the usual kind of "the garden had unscalable walls so no one could have got in!" (Ladders apparently hadn't been invented.)
August 23, 2018
Το πρώτο ίσως βιβλίο του G. K. Chesterton που δεν μου ταίριαξε. Όσο ευφυείς κι αν είναι στη σύλληψή τους οι μικρές ιστορίες που σκάρωσε προκειμένου να επιβεβαιωθούν οι ικανότητες του πατέρα Μπράουν στη διαλεύκανση κάθε λογής εγκλημάτων, στο τέλος της μέρας ένιωθες να διαβάζεις το ίδιο ακριβώς πράγμα, ξανά και ξανά. Σαν σύνολο διηγημάτων σαφώς υποδεέστερο από το ‘Ο άνθρωπος που ήξερε πολλά’. Τρία αστέρια, λίαν επιεικώς.
September 18, 2010
If you haven't come across the Father Brown stories (I'm surprised how few reviews there are), then they are worth reading. G.K. Chesterton is much more entertaining than your average Christian apologist, and if only the basic assumption of these books actually were true then I would feel a lot more sympathetic towards the Christian Church.
Chesterton doesn't just want to convince you that Christianity is different from superstition; in his universe, it's the opposite of superstition! The idea in each story is always the same. Something happens (most often, a murder), and there is some plausible-looking account which appeals to people's love of the supernatural or the inexplicable. "Ah yes!" everyone is saying. "Sometimes things are beyond our understanding, but you know... you just know!" Then dumpy, prosaic Father Brown comes in, and finds a common-sense way of looking at the facts which explains everything without any supernatural drama.
To give you a taste, the one I remember best is "The Oracle of the Dog". The rich old guy has been mysteriously stabbed. No one can figure out how it could have happened; there appears to be neither weapon nor opportunity. But there is this strange thing with the dog. Just about at the moment when his master would have died, the dog was playing down on the beach, running after sticks that one of the guests was throwing for him, and then he lets out this weird, unearthly howl. Supernatural explanation! The uncanny bond between dog and master! Chesterton sets up the red herring with great skill, and I certainly fell for it.
But Father Brown is a clearer thinker, and knows what really tends to freak dogs out. In fact, the guy on the beach is disposing of the murder weapon, a sword-stick. The dog howls because he can't retrieve it; he's never seen a stick get thrown at the water and just sink! It's amazing how often Chesterton manages to get you, even once you know what the twist is going to be and you're looking out for it. He was a smart guy.
Chesterton doesn't just want to convince you that Christianity is different from superstition; in his universe, it's the opposite of superstition! The idea in each story is always the same. Something happens (most often, a murder), and there is some plausible-looking account which appeals to people's love of the supernatural or the inexplicable. "Ah yes!" everyone is saying. "Sometimes things are beyond our understanding, but you know... you just know!" Then dumpy, prosaic Father Brown comes in, and finds a common-sense way of looking at the facts which explains everything without any supernatural drama.
To give you a taste, the one I remember best is "The Oracle of the Dog". The rich old guy has been mysteriously stabbed. No one can figure out how it could have happened; there appears to be neither weapon nor opportunity. But there is this strange thing with the dog. Just about at the moment when his master would have died, the dog was playing down on the beach, running after sticks that one of the guests was throwing for him, and then he lets out this weird, unearthly howl. Supernatural explanation! The uncanny bond between dog and master! Chesterton sets up the red herring with great skill, and I certainly fell for it.
But Father Brown is a clearer thinker, and knows what really tends to freak dogs out. In fact, the guy on the beach is disposing of the murder weapon, a sword-stick. The dog howls because he can't retrieve it; he's never seen a stick get thrown at the water and just sink! It's amazing how often Chesterton manages to get you, even once you know what the twist is going to be and you're looking out for it. He was a smart guy.
November 18, 2020
These twelve tales of murder and theft, written in 1910 and 1911, introduce G.K. Chesterton's Father Brown, a short, humble, unprepossessing Catholic priest and amateur detective, whose method is informed by what he has learned about criminal motives and means during many years in the confessional.
Chief of the Paris Police Department Aristide Valentin and master criminal Hercule Flambeau both appear in the first story, The Blue Cross; their paths take surprising turns. Another surprise to me is the frequency with which the good Father prioritizes the spiritual development of a repentant criminal he's caught over the technicalities of reporting him to the authorities.
Although these stories were completed about a decade before Chesterton's famous conversion to Catholicism in 1922, assisted by Father John O'Connor, upon whom he based Father Brown, they already reflect his strong views on the superiority of Catholic faith, inferiority of all other faiths, and other prejudices.
Chief of the Paris Police Department Aristide Valentin and master criminal Hercule Flambeau both appear in the first story, The Blue Cross; their paths take surprising turns. Another surprise to me is the frequency with which the good Father prioritizes the spiritual development of a repentant criminal he's caught over the technicalities of reporting him to the authorities.
Although these stories were completed about a decade before Chesterton's famous conversion to Catholicism in 1922, assisted by Father John O'Connor, upon whom he based Father Brown, they already reflect his strong views on the superiority of Catholic faith, inferiority of all other faiths, and other prejudices.
August 23, 2012
Oh, Gilbert Keith, I adore you and you are wonderful.
I read this collection of short stories in between deadlines, a story or two at a time first thing in the morning to help myself wake up. As far as I am concerned, a Father Brown short story is a perfect amuse bouche for the mental faculties. I guessed almost all of the answers before the big reveals, and many of them were ludicrously far-fetched, but that doesn't matter. That wasn't why I was reading it.
Father Brown is a fantastic main character, who occasionally comes out with absolute gems. He's religious, and clearly a vehicle for Chesterton's religious views. Fortunately, he's also marvellous:
"How in blazes do you know all these horrors?" cried Flambeau.
The shadow of a smile crossed the round, simple face of his clerical opponent.
"Oh, by being a celibate simpleton, I suppose," he said. "Has it never struck you that a man who does next to nothing but hear men's real sins is not likely to be wholly unaware of human evil? But, as a matter of fact, another part of my trade, too, made me sure you weren't a priest."
"What?" asked the thief, almost gaping.
"You attacked reason," said Father Brown. "It's bad theology."
Father Brown, as many people have pointed out, is an excellent counterpoint to my other favourite detectives, Poirot and Holmes, who deal in deduction and Cold Hard Facts. These are stories with a heart and a lot of strong morality. They don't preach, but the morality is just the foundation of the whole premise, and I found that very interesting, especially in contrast with the Fact!fetishising of other classic detectives.
Plus, the turn of phrase, oh my goodness:
Flambeau had stocked [his boat] with such things as his special philosophy considered necessary. They reduced themselves, apparently, to four essentials: tins of salmon, if he should want to eat; loaded revolvers, if he should want to fight; a bottle of brandy, presumably in case he should faint; and a priest, presumably in case he should die.
These stories are utterly, unashamedly absurd, not too taxing and fantastic fun to follow. There is duelling and pantomime and messing about in boats and jewel theft. I need them in my life. Gilbert Keith, I adore you, don't ever change.
I read this collection of short stories in between deadlines, a story or two at a time first thing in the morning to help myself wake up. As far as I am concerned, a Father Brown short story is a perfect amuse bouche for the mental faculties. I guessed almost all of the answers before the big reveals, and many of them were ludicrously far-fetched, but that doesn't matter. That wasn't why I was reading it.
Father Brown is a fantastic main character, who occasionally comes out with absolute gems. He's religious, and clearly a vehicle for Chesterton's religious views. Fortunately, he's also marvellous:
"How in blazes do you know all these horrors?" cried Flambeau.
The shadow of a smile crossed the round, simple face of his clerical opponent.
"Oh, by being a celibate simpleton, I suppose," he said. "Has it never struck you that a man who does next to nothing but hear men's real sins is not likely to be wholly unaware of human evil? But, as a matter of fact, another part of my trade, too, made me sure you weren't a priest."
"What?" asked the thief, almost gaping.
"You attacked reason," said Father Brown. "It's bad theology."
Father Brown, as many people have pointed out, is an excellent counterpoint to my other favourite detectives, Poirot and Holmes, who deal in deduction and Cold Hard Facts. These are stories with a heart and a lot of strong morality. They don't preach, but the morality is just the foundation of the whole premise, and I found that very interesting, especially in contrast with the Fact!fetishising of other classic detectives.
Plus, the turn of phrase, oh my goodness:
Flambeau had stocked [his boat] with such things as his special philosophy considered necessary. They reduced themselves, apparently, to four essentials: tins of salmon, if he should want to eat; loaded revolvers, if he should want to fight; a bottle of brandy, presumably in case he should faint; and a priest, presumably in case he should die.
These stories are utterly, unashamedly absurd, not too taxing and fantastic fun to follow. There is duelling and pantomime and messing about in boats and jewel theft. I need them in my life. Gilbert Keith, I adore you, don't ever change.
December 30, 2016
ইংরেজী সাহিত্য পৃথিবীকে অসামান্য কিছু গোয়েন্দা চরিত্র উপহার দিয়েছে। সেই ১৭৫ বছর আগে এডগার অ্যালান পো’র হাত ধরে এলো প্রথম আধুনিক গোয়েন্দা চরিত্র সি অগাস্তে দুপ্যাঁ (দি মার্ডারস ইন দ্যা রু মর্গ), যিনি যুক্তিবিদ্যার প্রয়োগে একের পর এক সূত্র সাজিয়ে রীতিমতো বৈজ্ঞানিক উপায়ে রহস্যের সমাধান করেন। এরও প্রায় অর্ধশত বছর পর স্যার আর্থার কোনান ডয়েল সৃষ্টি করলেন তাঁর অমর চরিত্র শার্লক হোমস, যা গোয়েন্দা সাহিত্যের মানদণ্ড হিসেবে বৈশ্বিকভাবে আজ মোটামুটি স্বীকৃত। আজ অব্দি ইংরেজী ভাষায় যত গোয়েন্দা সাহিত্য রচিত হয়েছে, উল্লেখ্যযোগ্য প্রায় প্রতিটি গোয়েন্দা চরিত্রেরই তুলনা হয়েছে হোমসের সাথে। বস্তুত, তুলনার এই আলোচনাটিই ক্ষেত্রবিশেষে নির্ধারণ করে দেয় আলোচ্য গোয়েন্দাটি কতটা সফল! বিবিসি’র টিভি সিরিজের কল্যাণে বইয়ের পাঠকের এই ভীষণ আকালের দিনে যাঁর শার্লক হোমসের নামই শুনবার কথা নয়, তিনিও দিব্যি গোয়েন্দাপ্রবরের অনুরক্ত হন, তাঁর অনুসরণেই অনেকটা, আশপাশের মানুষদের বুঝে ফেলার নিমিত্তে কুঞ্চিত চোখে দৃষ্টি হানেন, কথা কন। শার্লক হোমসের গল্পগুলো শুধুমাত্র হোমসের অসাধারণ পর্যবেক্ষণ ক্ষমতার প্রদর্শণীর জন্যই বিখ্যাত নয়। গোয়েন্দা কাহিনী লিখবার সবচেয়ে মোক্ষম উপায়টি, সময়ের পরীক্ষায় যা আজও বেশ ভালো নম্বর পেয়ে পাশ করে যায়, তা ডয়েলের অবদান। এই ঢংয়ে গল্প বিবৃত করবেন গোয়েন্দা চরিত্রটির চেয়ে ঢের ক্ষীণবুদ্ধির কেউ একজন, যিনি নিজের সাথে গোয়েন্দাপ্রবরের বুদ্ধির হতাশাজনক পার্থক্যটি গল্পের ফাঁকে ফাঁকে গুঁজে দিয়ে গোয়েন্দা মশায়ের খাসা মগজটিকে বিজ্ঞাপিত করবেন (অনেকটা যেমন আমরা সিনেমায় মূল নায়কের পাশে তাঁর চেয়ে বেঁটে, কম সুদর্শন পার্শ্বনায়ককে দেখি। নাচ-গানে তিনি খুব কম অপটু নন, তবে তা নায়িকার রুচিমতো নয়, তাঁর নাচ গানে মজবেন নায়িকার চেয়ে বেঁটে, কম সুদর্শন উপনায়িকা। হাত পা চালাতেও পার্শ্বনায়ক খুব কম যান না, তবে মূল ভিলেনের সাথে কোনমতেই পেরে উঠেন না)। হোমসের সহকারী ওয়াটসন, শরদিন্দুর ব্যোমকেশের সহকারী অজিত, সত্যজিতের ফেলুদার সহকারী তোপসে, রহস্য সম্রাজ্ঞী ক্রিস্টির এরকুল পোয়ারো’র সহকারী হেস্টিংস-এঁদের জবানীতেই আমরা যাঁর যাঁর গোয়েন্দা চরিত্রের কীর্তিগাঁথা পড়েছি। সহকারীদের সাথে গোয়েন্দাদের বুদ্ধির মহাজাগতিক ফারাক দেখে আবার ভেবে বসবেন না ওয়াটসন, অজিত, তোপসে কি হেস্টিংস হওয়া আপনার-আমার কর্ম! মনে রাখবেন কুরুক্ষেত্রের ময়দানে মহাবীর অর্জুনের রত্থের সারথী হয়েছিলেন ভগবান শ্রীকৃষ্ণ স্বয়ং।
দুপ্যাঁ, হোমসের জনপ্রিয়তার ধারাবাহিকতায় জি কে চেস্টারটন ১৯১০ সালে সৃষ্টি করলেন তাঁর গোয়েন্দা চরিত্র ফাদার ব্রাউন। একেবারে যেন হোমসের উল্টোরথ এই বাদামী পাদ্রী মশায়টি। পাদ্রীর পেশাটিই বলে দেয় হোমসের মতো যথেচ্ছাচারী নন ব্রাউন। হোমসের সেই সকল চারিত্রিক বৈশিষ্ট্যাবলী, যা ধর্মীয় দৃষ্টিতে ভীষণ দোষের, তার কোনোটাই ব্রাউনের মাঝে পাবেননা। ব্রাউন কোকেন সেবন করেন না, তিনি অহংকারী নন, অনিয়ম করেন না, বুদ্ধির লড়াইয়ে অপরকে তুচ্ছজ্ঞান করেন না……অর্থাৎ, ধর্মপুত্র যুধিষ্ঠিরের একটি খ্রিষ্টান অবতার বিশেষ। ঈশ্বর ভীরু বিশেষত ধর্ম-প্রচারক হয়েও যে ঈশ্বর, ধর্ম ইত্যাদি বিষয়কে বিশেষ পাত্তা না দেয���া ভীষণ বুদ্ধিমান হোমসের সমকক্ষ হওয়া যায় তা প্রমাণ করাই কি চেস্টারটনের লক্ষ্য ছিলো? বস্তুত ফাদার ব্রাউনের গল্পগুলোর মাঝে বেশ একটা anti-হোমস পরিবেশ লক্ষ্য করা যায়। একাহারা গড়নের ঢ্যাঙা হোমস প্রয়োজনে বলপ্রয়োগে পিছু হটতেননা (হোমস শখের মুষ্টিযোদ্ধা ছিলেন), কখনো সখনো আগ্নেয়াস্ত্রও ব্যবহার করেছেন, ব্রাউন সহিংসার সেসব পথ কখনো মাড়াননি। পাদ্রীর সাদামাটা পোশাকে ছাতা হাতে বেঁটে খাটো এক মানুষ, যাঁকে দেখে সম্ভ্রম উদ্রেকের সম্ভাবনা নিতান্তই কম, এমন একটি চরিত্র তৈরী করে চেস্টারটন হোমসকে বেশ এক হাত নিতে চেয়েছিলেন বোধ করি!
হোমস আর ফাদার ব্রাউনের সবচেয়ে বড় পার্থক্যটা অন্য জায়গায়। হোমসের কর্মপদ্ধতি হলো deductive, যুক্তি সাজিয়ে সাজিয়ে রহস্যের সমাধান করা। অপরদিকে, ব্রাউনের পদ্ধতি হলো intuitive, অর্থাৎ কিনা, যা দেখতে হাঁসের মতো, হাঁটে-চলে হাঁসের মতো, ডাকেও হাঁসের মতো, তা হাঁস নয়তো আর কি? (ধর্মের পতাকা সুউচ্চে ধারণ করা যাঁদের প্রধান শীরঃপীড়া, তাঁদের বেশীরভাগের বক্তব্যই কি এমন?)। চেস্টারটন অবশ্য ফাদার ব্রাউনের এমন intuitive পদ্ধতির ব্যাখ্যা দিয়েছেন। দীর্ঘকাল পাদ্রীর পেশার সাথে জড়িত থাকার কারণে ব্রাউনকে প্রচুর মানুষের confession শুনতে হয়েছে, ফলে মানব মনের অন্ধকার অলি-গলিগুলো নাকি তাঁর বেশ চেনা হয়ে গেছে। তাই হাঁসের মতো দেখলেই পরিচিত ছাঁচে বসিয়ে রহস্যভেদ করে নেন তিনি। জীবন যাপনের ধরণ থেকে শুরু করে কর্মপদ্ধতি পর্যন্ত হোমসের একেবারে বিপরীত চরিত্র করে চেস্টারটন ফাদার ব্রাউনকে সৃষ্টি করেছেন। কারো কারো মনে নিশ্চয়ই এসব কারণে ফাদার ব্রাউন বিশেষ রেখাপাত করেছেন, তবে ফাদার ব্রাউনের পক্ষে সবচেয়ে বড় সাফাইটা গেয়েছেন খুবই অপ্রত্যাশিত একজন মানুষঃ ইতালীয় মার্ক্স তত্ত্ববিদ আন্তনিও গ্রামসি। সংস্কার বা অনুমানের ওপর ভর করে গোয়েন্দাগিরি করবার জন্য গ্রামসি ব্রাউনের তারিফ তো করেছেনই, এও দাবী করেছেন চেস্টারটন ব্রাউনের কাছে হোমসকে নিতান্তই ‘বালখিল্য’ ও ‘দাম্ভিক’ (pretentious little boy) বানিয়ে ছেড়েছেন। একবিংশ শতাব্দীতে দাঁড়িয়ে মার্ক্সপন্থী কাউকে খুব একটা সুনজরে দেখিনা (এবং দেখবার কারণও বিশেষ পাইনা!) তবে ইতালীর ফ্যাসিস্ট সরকারের বিরুদ্ধে গ্রামসির সংগ্রামের গল্পটা জানলে তাঁর প্রতি সম্মান জাগবেই। এগার বছর জেলে পঁচেছেন, শরীরে ধারণ করেছেন অমানুষিক অত্যাচার। যখন ছাড়া পান, ততদিনে দাঁত পড়ে গিয়েছে, পরিপাক্তন্ত্রের বেহাল দশা। তরল খাদ্য ছাড়া আর কিছু খেতে পারতেননা। এভাবে ধুঁকে ধুঁকেই মাত্র ৪৬ বছর বয়েসে মারা যান গ্রামসি।
হোমসের ঈশ্বর-বিশ্বাস নিয়ে ভক্তদের মাঝে আলোচনার কমতি নেই। হোমসকে মূলত অজ্ঞেয়বাদী ধরে নেয়া হয়। ‘দি নেভাল ট্রিটি’ গল্পে হোমসের একটি উক্তি হোমসের আস্তিকতা প্রমাণে প্রচুর ব্যবহৃত হয়ে থাকে। এখানে সেটির একটি দূর্বল অনুবাদ জুড়ে দিলামঃ
অর্থাৎ, হোমস পৃথিবীতে অন্যায়-অবিচার-দুষ্টের প্রবল প্রতাপ দেখে ঈশ্বরে বিশ্বাস রাখতে ভরসা পাননা, মনেই হয়না ঈশ্বর আমাদের নিয়ে দুদণ্ডও ভাবেন, কিন্তু, একইসাথে, পৃথিবীর সৌন্দর্য্যের কথা ভেবে হোমস সম্ভবত একেবারে পাঁড় নাস্তিকও হয়ে যেতে পারছেননা! বলাবাহুল্য, ফাদার ব্রাউনের কাছে এসব ‘কাব্যিক’ সংশয়ের লেশমাত্র অস্তিত্ব নেই।
আর সব গোয়েন্দার মতো ব্রাউনেরও একজন সহকারী আছেন, ফ্ল্যামবোও (Flambeau), যিনি একসময় ইয়োরোপের সবচেয়ে ধূর্ত অপরাধী ছিলেন। তীক্ষ্ণ বুদ্ধিধর ফরাসী ফ্ল্যামবোও বুদ্ধির খেলায় ফাদার ব্রাউনের কাছে হার মেনে অতীতের পাপাচারকে জলাঞ্জলি দিয়ে ব্রাউনের শিষ্য হয়ে যান। খটকার ব্যাপারটা হলো ফ্ল্যামবোও’র বুদ্ধির যে নমুনা চেস্টারটন দিলেন গল্পগুলোতে (অপরাধী হিসেবেই ফ্ল্যামবোও এর বুদ্ধির বিচার হোক, ব্রাউনীয় পরশপাথরের ছোঁয়ায় তিনি যখন পার্শ্বনায়ক বনে গেলেন, তখন ডয়েলের দেখানো পথে গোয়েন্দার সহকারী হিসেবে তাঁর বুদ্ধি এমনিই কমে যাবে সেতো জানা কথা!) তাতে তাঁকে খুব জোর পাড়াতো ছ্যাঁচড়া চোর মনে হতে পারে, ইয়োরোপের সব দেশের পুলিশের চোখে ধুলো দিয়ে বেড়ানো আন্তর্জাতিক পর্যায়ের ধুরন্ধর কিছুতেই মনে হয় না। ফ্ল্যামবোও সত্যিই অতটা বুদ্ধি ধরলে সে সময়ের ইয়োরোপের পুলিশ বাহিনীগুলো তাঁদের র্যাশনে খাদ্য হিসেবে ঘাস পেতেন কিনা সে ব্যাপারে সন্দেহ হয় (সে সন্দেহ অবশ্য যখন ইন্সপেক্টর লেস্ট্রেড রহস্যের কূলকিনারা করতে না পেরে শার্লক হোমসের শরণাপন্ন হতেন তখন স্কটল্যান্ড ইয়ার্ডস নিয়েও হতো!)।
ধর্মকে পুঁজি করে যেহেতু ফাদার ব্রাউনের রহস্যগল্পগুলো লেখা, ধর্মের জয়গান গাইবার উদ্দেশ্যে বেশীরভাগ ক্ষেত্রেই জোর করে রহস্যের সমাধান করে দেয়া হয়েছে। স্কুলজীবনে ভীষণ প্রচলিত একটি দুষ্টু গল্পের উদাহরণ দিয়ে বোঝানো যাকঃ
সভ্যজন মাত্রেই গল্পটির নোংরামোতে শিউরে উঠবেন, আমায় শাপ-শাপান্তও হয়তো কিছু কম করবেননা! মানছি, গল্পের সমাপ্তি আকর্ষনীয়, তবে গল্পটিতে কোন যৌক্তিকতা নেই, স্রেফ যৌন সুড়সুড়ির জন্যই জোর করে মিলিয়ে দেয়া। ফাদার ব্রাউনের গল্পের ধাঁচও এমনই। নাস্তিকের ভুল ধরিয়ে দেবার জন্য ধর্মের পথে হেঁটে ঠিক এমনই হাস্যকর ভাবে গল্পের সমাপ্তি টেনেছেন। গল্প চলেছে নেহাৎ-ই সরল রেখা ধরে; উপসংহার মেলাতে প্রায়শয়ই "নাভী"তে "আঙুল" চলে গিয়েছে অনেকটা অবধারিতভাবেই।
চেস্টারটন ফাদার ব্রাউনকে নিয়ে সর্বমোট তিপ্পান্নটি ছোট গল্প লিখেছেন পাঁচটি বইয়ে। ‘দ্যা ইনোসেন্স অফ ফাদার ব্রাউন’ হলো এই পাঁচটির প্রথমটি। আমার সংগ্রহে পাঁচটি বইই আছে, একটি অখণ্ড সংস্করণ হিসেবে। ওয়ার্ডসওয়ার্থ ক্ল্যাসিকস থেকে প্রকাশিত এই অখণ্ড সংস্করণের ভূমিকায় ডেভিড স্টুয়ার্ট ডেভিস লিখেছেন ফাদার ব্রাউনের পরবর্তী গল্পগুলো প্রথম দিকের গল্পগুলোর মতো অত সৃজনশীল নয় এবং চেস্টারটন মূলত সেসব গল্পে ধর্মীয় ও নৈতিক শিক্ষার রসে রহস্যের জিলিপী ভেজেছেন। ইনোসেন্স অফ ফাদার ব্রাউন বইটিতে সংকলিত বারোটির মাঝে প্রথম আটটি গল্প হতাশাজনকরকম বেশী সময় লাগিয়ে পড়বার পর ডেভিসের ‘অত সৃজনশীল নয়’ মতটি নিয়ে মনে মনে ঢোঁক গিলছিলাম ভীষণ। প্রথম বইয়েই এ হাল হলে পরে কি হবে? পাঠক হিসেবে হতাশা তো ছিলোই, তবে ঢোঁক গেলার কারণটা ভিন্ন। আমার যিনি আধেক ভালো-সে�� বেটার হাফ’র রক্তচক্ষু এড়িয়ে তাঁর দেখিয়ে দেয়া বইগুলো উপেক্ষা করে আটশ পৃষ্ঠার ঢাউস বইটি কিনবার ফলাফল শেষতক তবে এই? সাংসারিক আর দশটা বাজার করতে গিয়ে নিয়মিতই কাবু হচ্ছি, ভরসার সেই বইও এবার লেঙ্গি মেরে দিলো। এমন misadventure হলে বিবাহিত পুরুষ মাত্রেই জানেন বিপরীত দিক হতে আক্রমণটা কিভাবে আসবে, “আমি তো আগেই জানতাম...” অর্থাৎ, সেই intuition। মহামতি ঈশপের গল্পের মতোই গোটা এ বইয়ের শেষেও একটি ‘moral’ পেলাম তবে, ফাদার ব্রাউনের intuition যদি বা উড়িয়ে দেয়া যায়, স্ত্রীরটি কভু নয়!
এ বইয়েরউল্লেখ্যযোগ্য গল্পঃ The Wrong Shape, The Sins of Prince Saradine, The Hammer of God, The Eye of Apollo, The Sign of the Broken Sword ও The Three Tools of Death
দুপ্যাঁ, হোমসের জনপ্রিয়তার ধারাবাহিকতায় জি কে চেস্টারটন ১৯১০ সালে সৃষ্টি করলেন তাঁর গোয়েন্দা চরিত্র ফাদার ব্রাউন। একেবারে যেন হোমসের উল্টোরথ এই বাদামী পাদ্রী মশায়টি। পাদ্রীর পেশাটিই বলে দেয় হোমসের মতো যথেচ্ছাচারী নন ব্রাউন। হোমসের সেই সকল চারিত্রিক বৈশিষ্ট্যাবলী, যা ধর্মীয় দৃষ্টিতে ভীষণ দোষের, তার কোনোটাই ব্রাউনের মাঝে পাবেননা। ব্রাউন কোকেন সেবন করেন না, তিনি অহংকারী নন, অনিয়ম করেন না, বুদ্ধির লড়াইয়ে অপরকে তুচ্ছজ্ঞান করেন না……অর্থাৎ, ধর্মপুত্র যুধিষ্ঠিরের একটি খ্রিষ্টান অবতার বিশেষ। ঈশ্বর ভীরু বিশেষত ধর্ম-প্রচারক হয়েও যে ঈশ্বর, ধর্ম ইত্যাদি বিষয়কে বিশেষ পাত্তা না দেয���া ভীষণ বুদ্ধিমান হোমসের সমকক্ষ হওয়া যায় তা প্রমাণ করাই কি চেস্টারটনের লক্ষ্য ছিলো? বস্তুত ফাদার ব্রাউনের গল্পগুলোর মাঝে বেশ একটা anti-হোমস পরিবেশ লক্ষ্য করা যায়। একাহারা গড়নের ঢ্যাঙা হোমস প্রয়োজনে বলপ্রয়োগে পিছু হটতেননা (হোমস শখের মুষ্টিযোদ্ধা ছিলেন), কখনো সখনো আগ্নেয়াস্ত্রও ব্যবহার করেছেন, ব্রাউন সহিংসার সেসব পথ কখনো মাড়াননি। পাদ্রীর সাদামাটা পোশাকে ছাতা হাতে বেঁটে খাটো এক মানুষ, যাঁকে দেখে সম্ভ্রম উদ্রেকের সম্ভাবনা নিতান্তই কম, এমন একটি চরিত্র তৈরী করে চেস্টারটন হোমসকে বেশ এক হাত নিতে চেয়েছিলেন বোধ করি!
হোমস আর ফাদার ব্রাউনের সবচেয়ে বড় পার্থক্যটা অন্য জায়গায়। হোমসের কর্মপদ্ধতি হলো deductive, যুক্তি সাজিয়ে সাজিয়ে রহস্যের সমাধান করা। অপরদিকে, ব্রাউনের পদ্ধতি হলো intuitive, অর্থাৎ কিনা, যা দেখতে হাঁসের মতো, হাঁটে-চলে হাঁসের মতো, ডাকেও হাঁসের মতো, তা হাঁস নয়তো আর কি? (ধর্মের পতাকা সুউচ্চে ধারণ করা যাঁদের প্রধান শীরঃপীড়া, তাঁদের বেশীরভাগের বক্তব্যই কি এমন?)। চেস্টারটন অবশ্য ফাদার ব্রাউনের এমন intuitive পদ্ধতির ব্যাখ্যা দিয়েছেন। দীর্ঘকাল পাদ্রীর পেশার সাথে জড়িত থাকার কারণে ব্রাউনকে প্রচুর মানুষের confession শুনতে হয়েছে, ফলে মানব মনের অন্ধকার অলি-গলিগুলো নাকি তাঁর বেশ চেনা হয়ে গেছে। তাই হাঁসের মতো দেখলেই পরিচিত ছাঁচে বসিয়ে রহস্যভেদ করে নেন তিনি। জীবন যাপনের ধরণ থেকে শুরু করে কর্মপদ্ধতি পর্যন্ত হোমসের একেবারে বিপরীত চরিত্র করে চেস্টারটন ফাদার ব্রাউনকে সৃষ্টি করেছেন। কারো কারো মনে নিশ্চয়ই এসব কারণে ফাদার ব্রাউন বিশেষ রেখাপাত করেছেন, তবে ফাদার ব্রাউনের পক্ষে সবচেয়ে বড় সাফাইটা গেয়েছেন খুবই অপ্রত্যাশিত একজন মানুষঃ ইতালীয় মার্ক্স তত্ত্ববিদ আন্তনিও গ্রামসি। সংস্কার বা অনুমানের ওপর ভর করে গোয়েন্দাগিরি করবার জন্য গ্রামসি ব্রাউনের তারিফ তো করেছেনই, এও দাবী করেছেন চেস্টারটন ব্রাউনের কাছে হোমসকে নিতান্তই ‘বালখিল্য’ ও ‘দাম্ভিক’ (pretentious little boy) বানিয়ে ছেড়েছেন। একবিংশ শতাব্দীতে দাঁড়িয়ে মার্ক্সপন্থী কাউকে খুব একটা সুনজরে দেখিনা (এবং দেখবার কারণও বিশেষ পাইনা!) তবে ইতালীর ফ্যাসিস্ট সরকারের বিরুদ্ধে গ্রামসির সংগ্রামের গল্পটা জানলে তাঁর প্রতি সম্মান জাগবেই। এগার বছর জেলে পঁচেছেন, শরীরে ধারণ করেছেন অমানুষিক অত্যাচার। যখন ছাড়া পান, ততদিনে দাঁত পড়ে গিয়েছে, পরিপাক্তন্ত্রের বেহাল দশা। তরল খাদ্য ছাড়া আর কিছু খেতে পারতেননা। এভাবে ধুঁকে ধুঁকেই মাত্র ৪৬ বছর বয়েসে মারা যান গ্রামসি।
হোমসের ঈশ্বর-বিশ্বাস নিয়ে ভক্তদের মাঝে আলোচনার কমতি নেই। হোমসকে মূলত অজ্ঞেয়বাদী ধরে নেয়া হয়। ‘দি নেভাল ট্রিটি’ গল্পে হোমসের একটি উক্তি হোমসের আস্তিকতা প্রমাণে প্রচুর ব্যবহৃত হয়ে থাকে। এখানে সেটির একটি দূর্বল অনুবাদ জুড়ে দিলামঃ
“যুক্তির প্রয়োগটা ধর্মের চেয়ে আর কোথাও বেশী লাগেনা। (ধর্মে বিশ্বাসী) যুক্তিবাদী মাত্রেই যুক্তিতক্ক দিয়ে ধর্মকে একেবারে বিশুদ্ধ বিজ্ঞান বানিয়ে ছাড়েন। আমার মনে হয়, বিশ্বজগতের সব প্রাণের দেখভাল করবার মহৎ ঐশ্বরিক গুণটি ফুলের সৌন্দর্য্যের কাছে এসে থমকে পড়ে। আমাদের খিদে, বাসনা, ক্ষমতার আকাঙ্ক্ষা এসব কিছুই বস্তুত আমাদের অস্তিত্বের জন্য ভীষণ প্রয়োজন। কিন্তু এই যে গোলাপের সৌন্দর্য্য, এর গন্ধ, রঙ, এগুলো হলো বাড়তি, এই অলঙ্কারের না হলেও চলতো। এই বাড়তি সৌন্দর্য্যটা আসলে (স্রষ্টার?) মহত্ত্বেরই বহিঃপ্রকাশ। তাই বলি, ভাবনার খোরাক ফুলের কাছেও খুব কম কিছু নেই”!
অর্থাৎ, হোমস পৃথিবীতে অন্যায়-অবিচার-দুষ্টের প্রবল প্রতাপ দেখে ঈশ্বরে বিশ্বাস রাখতে ভরসা পাননা, মনেই হয়না ঈশ্বর আমাদের নিয়ে দুদণ্ডও ভাবেন, কিন্তু, একইসাথে, পৃথিবীর সৌন্দর্য্যের কথা ভেবে হোমস সম্ভবত একেবারে পাঁড় নাস্তিকও হয়ে যেতে পারছেননা! বলাবাহুল্য, ফাদার ব্রাউনের কাছে এসব ‘কাব্যিক’ সংশয়ের লেশমাত্র অস্তিত্ব নেই।
আর সব গোয়েন্দার মতো ব্রাউনেরও একজন সহকারী আছেন, ফ্ল্যামবোও (Flambeau), যিনি একসময় ইয়োরোপের সবচেয়ে ধূর্ত অপরাধী ছিলেন। তীক্ষ্ণ বুদ্ধিধর ফরাসী ফ্ল্যামবোও বুদ্ধির খেলায় ফাদার ব্রাউনের কাছে হার মেনে অতীতের পাপাচারকে জলাঞ্জলি দিয়ে ব্রাউনের শিষ্য হয়ে যান। খটকার ব্যাপারটা হলো ফ্ল্যামবোও’র বুদ্ধির যে নমুনা চেস্টারটন দিলেন গল্পগুলোতে (অপরাধী হিসেবেই ফ্ল্যামবোও এর বুদ্ধির বিচার হোক, ব্রাউনীয় পরশপাথরের ছোঁয়ায় তিনি যখন পার্শ্বনায়ক বনে গেলেন, তখন ডয়েলের দেখানো পথে গোয়েন্দার সহকারী হিসেবে তাঁর বুদ্ধি এমনিই কমে যাবে সেতো জানা কথা!) তাতে তাঁকে খুব জোর পাড়াতো ছ্যাঁচড়া চোর মনে হতে পারে, ইয়োরোপের সব দেশের পুলিশের চোখে ধুলো দিয়ে বেড়ানো আন্তর্জাতিক পর্যায়ের ধুরন্ধর কিছুতেই মনে হয় না। ফ্ল্যামবোও সত্যিই অতটা বুদ্ধি ধরলে সে সময়ের ইয়োরোপের পুলিশ বাহিনীগুলো তাঁদের র্যাশনে খাদ্য হিসেবে ঘাস পেতেন কিনা সে ব্যাপারে সন্দেহ হয় (সে সন্দেহ অবশ্য যখন ইন্সপেক্টর লেস্ট্রেড রহস্যের কূলকিনারা করতে না পেরে শার্লক হোমসের শরণাপন্ন হতেন তখন স্কটল্যান্ড ইয়ার্ডস নিয়েও হতো!)।
ধর্মকে পুঁজি করে যেহেতু ফাদার ব্রাউনের রহস্যগল্পগুলো লেখা, ধর্মের জয়গান গাইবার উদ্দেশ্যে বেশীরভাগ ক্ষেত্রেই জোর করে রহস্যের সমাধান করে দেয়া হয়েছে। স্কুলজীবনে ভীষণ প্রচলিত একটি দুষ্টু গল্পের উদাহরণ দিয়ে বোঝানো যাকঃ
জনৈকা শিক্ষিকার অনেক রাত অব্দি ছাত্রকে প্রাইভেট পড়িয়ে ঘড়ির দিকে তাকিয়ে সময়ের ব্যাপারে হুঁশ হলো। অত রাতে ছাত্রকে বাড়ী চলে যেতে বলা চলেনা। তাই প্রস্তাব দিলেন তাঁর সাথে রাতটা থেকে যেতে। ছোট ছেলে, পাছে রাতে ভয় পায়, তাই শিক্ষিকা ছাত্রকে সাথে নিয়ে ঘুমোলেন। সকালে উঠে শিক্ষিকা ছাত্রকে জিজ্ঞেশ করলেন তুমি আমায় রাতে গুঁতো দিচ্ছিলে কেন? ছাত্রের উত্তর, ‘আমি নাভীতে আঙ্গুল রেখে ঘুমোতে ভালোবাসি’। শিক্ষিকা বললেন, তুমি যেটা নাভী ভাবছো ওটা আমার নাভী নয়! ‘আপনি যেটা আঙ্গুল ভাবছেন, সেটাও আমার আঙ্গুল নয়!’-ছাত্রের উত্তর।
সভ্যজন মাত্রেই গল্পটির নোংরামোতে শিউরে উঠবেন, আমায় শাপ-শাপান্তও হয়তো কিছু কম করবেননা! মানছি, গল্পের সমাপ্তি আকর্ষনীয়, তবে গল্পটিতে কোন যৌক্তিকতা নেই, স্রেফ যৌন সুড়সুড়ির জন্যই জোর করে মিলিয়ে দেয়া। ফাদার ব্রাউনের গল্পের ধাঁচও এমনই। নাস্তিকের ভুল ধরিয়ে দেবার জন্য ধর্মের পথে হেঁটে ঠিক এমনই হাস্যকর ভাবে গল্পের সমাপ্তি টেনেছেন। গল্প চলেছে নেহাৎ-ই সরল রেখা ধরে; উপসংহার মেলাতে প্রায়শয়ই "নাভী"তে "আঙুল" চলে গিয়েছে অনেকটা অবধারিতভাবেই।
চেস্টারটন ফাদার ব্রাউনকে নিয়ে সর্বমোট তিপ্পান্নটি ছোট গল্প লিখেছেন পাঁচটি বইয়ে। ‘দ্যা ইনোসেন্স অফ ফাদার ব্রাউন’ হলো এই পাঁচটির প্রথমটি। আমার সংগ্রহে পাঁচটি বইই আছে, একটি অখণ্ড সংস্করণ হিসেবে। ওয়ার্ডসওয়ার্থ ক্ল্যাসিকস থেকে প্রকাশিত এই অখণ্ড সংস্করণের ভূমিকায় ডেভিড স্টুয়ার্ট ডেভিস লিখেছেন ফাদার ব্রাউনের পরবর্তী গল্পগুলো প্রথম দিকের গল্পগুলোর মতো অত সৃজনশীল নয় এবং চেস্টারটন মূলত সেসব গল্পে ধর্মীয় ও নৈতিক শিক্ষার রসে রহস্যের জিলিপী ভেজেছেন। ইনোসেন্স অফ ফাদার ব্রাউন বইটিতে সংকলিত বারোটির মাঝে প্রথম আটটি গল্প হতাশাজনকরকম বেশী সময় লাগিয়ে পড়বার পর ডেভিসের ‘অত সৃজনশীল নয়’ মতটি নিয়ে মনে মনে ঢোঁক গিলছিলাম ভীষণ। প্রথম বইয়েই এ হাল হলে পরে কি হবে? পাঠক হিসেবে হতাশা তো ছিলোই, তবে ঢোঁক গেলার কারণটা ভিন্ন। আমার যিনি আধেক ভালো-সে�� বেটার হাফ’র রক্তচক্ষু এড়িয়ে তাঁর দেখিয়ে দেয়া বইগুলো উপেক্ষা করে আটশ পৃষ্ঠার ঢাউস বইটি কিনবার ফলাফল শেষতক তবে এই? সাংসারিক আর দশটা বাজার করতে গিয়ে নিয়মিতই কাবু হচ্ছি, ভরসার সেই বইও এবার লেঙ্গি মেরে দিলো। এমন misadventure হলে বিবাহিত পুরুষ মাত্রেই জানেন বিপরীত দিক হতে আক্রমণটা কিভাবে আসবে, “আমি তো আগেই জানতাম...” অর্থাৎ, সেই intuition। মহামতি ঈশপের গল্পের মতোই গোটা এ বইয়ের শেষেও একটি ‘moral’ পেলাম তবে, ফাদার ব্রাউনের intuition যদি বা উড়িয়ে দেয়া যায়, স্ত্রীরটি কভু নয়!
এ বইয়েরউল্লেখ্যযোগ্য গল্পঃ The Wrong Shape, The Sins of Prince Saradine, The Hammer of God, The Eye of Apollo, The Sign of the Broken Sword ও The Three Tools of Death
October 18, 2024
“Do you think people dislike cheerfulness?"
"People like frequent laughter," answered Father Brown, "but I don't think they like a permanent smile. Cheerfulness without humour is a very trying thing."
I possess mingled feelings about these small-sized detective tales, as there is a lot to like and dislike at the memory of the spit-fire wording of Sir G.K. Chesterton. Yet, to be clear, I still love him, and I sense that the figure of Father Brown is one to devour distance and defy time. In fact, the character of Father Brown is so entirely entertaining, to the point of being comic, and popular, in such a manner as to be almost legendary, figure. That is high and splendid, and the heart of the matter is that that is really something that I have been overjoyed about.
"People like frequent laughter," answered Father Brown, "but I don't think they like a permanent smile. Cheerfulness without humour is a very trying thing."
I possess mingled feelings about these small-sized detective tales, as there is a lot to like and dislike at the memory of the spit-fire wording of Sir G.K. Chesterton. Yet, to be clear, I still love him, and I sense that the figure of Father Brown is one to devour distance and defy time. In fact, the character of Father Brown is so entirely entertaining, to the point of being comic, and popular, in such a manner as to be almost legendary, figure. That is high and splendid, and the heart of the matter is that that is really something that I have been overjoyed about.
June 20, 2020
“The criminal is the creative artist; the detective only the critic […]”
Is there something like an artistic crime? And if there is, might some of the stories included in G.K. Chesterton’s collection The Innocence of Father Brown not be counted as very examples of such artistic crimes? Crimes in the line of imposture and sleight of hand, to be more precise.
What would you think of In little doses, stories like these may be entertaining, but they may surely make you stop reading more often than not and ask yourself whether the author is not trying too hard to impress and amaze, and this is how these stories become more like the somersaults of an especially pert and hyperactive neighbour’s child – it’s never your own offspring, for sure – who is attempting to get some adult admiration. I could definitely hear the shrill “Look here! Look here! See what I can do!” in the background of many a Father Brown story.
What also makes these stories way inferior to the one and only Sherlock Holmes adventures is the figure of Father Brown and his methods. First of all, the man is an annoyingly smug and self-complacent person, who hardly ever refrains from making snide remarks on Calvinists and atheists in particular, and anybody non-Catholic in general. This is probably a bit Chesterton himself speaking, since the author was born a Unitarian and then later on converted to Catholicism, and now he seems to feel under the obligation of thrusting down everybody’s throat the superiority of this newly-embraced creed [1]. In a way, Chesterton seems like one of those ex-smokers who now lose no opportunity of expatiating on the dangers of their former vice and start coughing meaningfully whenever they see somebody walk by with a cigarette in their mouth on the other side of the street. You can also bet that the murderer will be either a Calvinist, or an atheist, or a Methodist, but a murderous Catholic appears to be a phenomenon beyond the range of the author’s imagination. Saying that, I also found it very unusual for a detective story’s narrative voice to give us exhaustive information on every single character’s answer to the Gretchenfrage. This made me ask myself the question whether a foot fetishist, if he were to write a novel, would also obsessively tell us every character’s shoe size.
The other thing I did not like particularly about Brown was that he remains extremely vague as a character. He is not anything like Sherlock Holmes, who always comes over as a real person to me, but more like a completely shadowy Columbo, without this latter inspector’s endearing features. He also does what Holmes was always loath to, namely build the most daring theories on very little evidence so that his conclusions would never ever hold water in court. Then there was a last little thing that annoyed me without end, although it is but a tiny detail: Father Brown is always on the scene of a crime, happening to walk into the place whenever a murder or a robbery is committed. It might work in one or two cases, but how likely is it for a normal person, not somebody who is consulted on a case and has made the detection of crime his business, like Holmes, to witness one crime – let alone 49? If I ever met Father Brown in the street, I would immediately turn tail and run because chances I should get killed with his being around would definitely explode.
And yet, there is something good that can be said for the Father Brown stories, and this is so much of an advantage that I might go on reading some other of his stories: Chesterton is surely a master of witty and interesting language. But not really a master of detective stories as I like them.
[1] Don’t get me wrong! I myself sometimes toy with the thought of becoming Catholic, but purely from an agnostic’s view, thinking that if I should profess my belief in God, I would also want to have the Mother of God, transsubstantiation and a lot of incense to go with it.
Is there something like an artistic crime? And if there is, might some of the stories included in G.K. Chesterton’s collection The Innocence of Father Brown not be counted as very examples of such artistic crimes? Crimes in the line of imposture and sleight of hand, to be more precise.
What would you think of In little doses, stories like these may be entertaining, but they may surely make you stop reading more often than not and ask yourself whether the author is not trying too hard to impress and amaze, and this is how these stories become more like the somersaults of an especially pert and hyperactive neighbour’s child – it’s never your own offspring, for sure – who is attempting to get some adult admiration. I could definitely hear the shrill “Look here! Look here! See what I can do!” in the background of many a Father Brown story.
What also makes these stories way inferior to the one and only Sherlock Holmes adventures is the figure of Father Brown and his methods. First of all, the man is an annoyingly smug and self-complacent person, who hardly ever refrains from making snide remarks on Calvinists and atheists in particular, and anybody non-Catholic in general. This is probably a bit Chesterton himself speaking, since the author was born a Unitarian and then later on converted to Catholicism, and now he seems to feel under the obligation of thrusting down everybody’s throat the superiority of this newly-embraced creed [1]. In a way, Chesterton seems like one of those ex-smokers who now lose no opportunity of expatiating on the dangers of their former vice and start coughing meaningfully whenever they see somebody walk by with a cigarette in their mouth on the other side of the street. You can also bet that the murderer will be either a Calvinist, or an atheist, or a Methodist, but a murderous Catholic appears to be a phenomenon beyond the range of the author’s imagination. Saying that, I also found it very unusual for a detective story’s narrative voice to give us exhaustive information on every single character’s answer to the Gretchenfrage. This made me ask myself the question whether a foot fetishist, if he were to write a novel, would also obsessively tell us every character’s shoe size.
The other thing I did not like particularly about Brown was that he remains extremely vague as a character. He is not anything like Sherlock Holmes, who always comes over as a real person to me, but more like a completely shadowy Columbo, without this latter inspector’s endearing features. He also does what Holmes was always loath to, namely build the most daring theories on very little evidence so that his conclusions would never ever hold water in court. Then there was a last little thing that annoyed me without end, although it is but a tiny detail: Father Brown is always on the scene of a crime, happening to walk into the place whenever a murder or a robbery is committed. It might work in one or two cases, but how likely is it for a normal person, not somebody who is consulted on a case and has made the detection of crime his business, like Holmes, to witness one crime – let alone 49? If I ever met Father Brown in the street, I would immediately turn tail and run because chances I should get killed with his being around would definitely explode.
And yet, there is something good that can be said for the Father Brown stories, and this is so much of an advantage that I might go on reading some other of his stories: Chesterton is surely a master of witty and interesting language. But not really a master of detective stories as I like them.
[1] Don’t get me wrong! I myself sometimes toy with the thought of becoming Catholic, but purely from an agnostic’s view, thinking that if I should profess my belief in God, I would also want to have the Mother of God, transsubstantiation and a lot of incense to go with it.
May 12, 2017
I had watched and loved the 2013 BBC adaptation of the Father Brown stories. Since then, I have wanted to read these books. In the first book of the collection, The Innocence of Father Brown, we are introduced to the dumpy, bigoted, narrow-minded, but ultimately smart priest, who goes around solving mysteries that flummoxes everyone else. We are also introduced to the master thief, Flambeau, who is a reformed criminal, and now helps the good Father in his crime solving.
I loved these stories. They are wild, improbable, and what I call completely cosy. There is no romance whatsoever (thank goodness!) and the setting is as quaint as any Agatha Christie book. So yes, I did like the book.
But the bigotry in the book was horrendous. At some points, it almost appears as if the author has written the book in order to promote Catholicism and not just to entertain. There is a lot of stupid spouting of Catholic "reason" and the wildness and badness of other religions. Yeah, whatever. Hahaha! Atheists are roundly abused as being impractical and fanatic. Hahaha! And good gosh, that malevolent Hindu man, how dare he sully your pure British homes? *eyeroll* Yeah, and thanks for writing out women completely. There are hardly any women of note in these books. The only one of any importance stands out in The Sins of Prince Saradine.
So thanks for the lovely setting and stuff, but no thanks. You only get three stars from me. I'd rather just watch the show again, which has attempted to modernise these attitudes, which have become more than outdated. They are offensive. Read at your own risk.
I loved these stories. They are wild, improbable, and what I call completely cosy. There is no romance whatsoever (thank goodness!) and the setting is as quaint as any Agatha Christie book. So yes, I did like the book.
But the bigotry in the book was horrendous. At some points, it almost appears as if the author has written the book in order to promote Catholicism and not just to entertain. There is a lot of stupid spouting of Catholic "reason" and the wildness and badness of other religions. Yeah, whatever. Hahaha! Atheists are roundly abused as being impractical and fanatic. Hahaha! And good gosh, that malevolent Hindu man, how dare he sully your pure British homes? *eyeroll* Yeah, and thanks for writing out women completely. There are hardly any women of note in these books. The only one of any importance stands out in The Sins of Prince Saradine.
So thanks for the lovely setting and stuff, but no thanks. You only get three stars from me. I'd rather just watch the show again, which has attempted to modernise these attitudes, which have become more than outdated. They are offensive. Read at your own risk.
July 11, 2021
Father Brown's cases are my favourite crime mysteries right now. Mind you, I could be described as something quite the opposite of a Roman Catholic, but I do love Father Brown's kindness and wisdom.
Chesterton said, 'I feel I am cheated when the last chapter hints for the first time that the vicar had a curate...', meaning that the reader should have all the cards to figure out the mystery. Most of the time I'm just enjoying the story and not trying to figure it out, but I do appreciate the attitude.
Fabourite quote: 'The most incredible thing about miracles is that they happen.'
That said, the situations described are very often grotesque. This does not subtract from the enjoyment, because the psychology is all correct.
Also, there is always a touch of humour, and I do love to have something to at least smile at in a book.
Looking forward to The Wisdom of Father Brown ;)
Chesterton said, 'I feel I am cheated when the last chapter hints for the first time that the vicar had a curate...', meaning that the reader should have all the cards to figure out the mystery. Most of the time I'm just enjoying the story and not trying to figure it out, but I do appreciate the attitude.
Fabourite quote: 'The most incredible thing about miracles is that they happen.'
That said, the situations described are very often grotesque. This does not subtract from the enjoyment, because the psychology is all correct.
Also, there is always a touch of humour, and I do love to have something to at least smile at in a book.
Looking forward to The Wisdom of Father Brown ;)
March 17, 2018
Delightful read. Murders mostly committed by anarchists and Presbyterians but still fun.
Favorite quote: “Humility is the mother of giants. One sees great things from the valley; only small things from the peak.”
Favorite quote: “Humility is the mother of giants. One sees great things from the valley; only small things from the peak.”
April 18, 2014
Alas, Chesterton! Why must you be so frustrating? Such a beautiful prose for such an insubstantial fare! Chesterton's style is so pleasant to read that I want, I really want to like these stories. I'm certainly very fond of passages like this:
Or this:
If only the plots lived up to the way they are written! I don't understand why Chesterton is considered an authority of the detective story. There are some clever ideas, but cleverness is no substitute for logical sense. His stories rely heavily on contrivance and unbelievable circumstances; his criminal masterminds consistently fail to think their schemes through; his great sleuths resort to methods that have no business working, yet they do.Perhaps I'm seeing this the wrong way? Perhaps this is not how these stories should be appreciated? Granted, my only other contact with the genre has been through Sherlock Holmes, but I can attest that even the worst Holmes story is better plotted than mostly anything in this volume. Also, Arthur Conan Doyle made the wise move of making Holmes's rational approach fallible, whereas Father Brown's often baseless intuitions end up being proven right every time. Many a mystery is solved by his miraculously noticing something that has been miraculously overlooked by everyone else. Perhaps he gets help from the Holy Ghost?
I say that only half-jokingly, as the religious apologetics is all-pervasive. Father Brown misses no chance to expound on the superiority of Catholicism, or, more annoyingly, on the evils of pretty much everything that is not Catholicism. He is supposed to be a mild-mannered, unassuming priest, yet he often comes across as rather smug and even positively bigoted. This is not necessarily a bad thing in a literary character: again, Sherlock Holmes has some unsavory flaws too. The difference is that Holmes has Watson to call him out on those. No one calls Father Brown out when he quaintly claims, for example, that the Scottish favoring Calvinism rather than Catholicism is somehow related to the alleged fact that their ancestors worshipped demons. Or consider this passage, more beautiful prose, but this time in the service of less than beautiful notions:
Whenever Sherlock Holmes lets his prejudices cloud his judgement, he fails. In "A Scandal in Bohemia," . Contrast this with "The Secret Garden," where Father Brown reasons that , and the author heartily agrees. In Chesterton's literary universe you may be a good, well-meaning person, but if you're not Catholic then you're a potential homicide. At the very least, you are suspicious enough to serve as a red herring. Because man's heart is wicked, you know, and only the Church's discipline can prevent him from going over to the devil. This is not just how Father Brown sees other characters: it's how Chesterton writes them. He doesn't acknowledge the faults of his protagonist because he shares them and considers them virtues. As a creator, G. K. Chesterton has shaped a world after the likeness of his prejudice and sent forth Father Brown to spread his word upon it.
There is in the world a very aged rioter and demagogue who breaks into the most refined retreats with the dreadful information that all men are brothers, and wherever this leveller went on his pale horse it was Father Brown's trade to follow.
Or this:
The vessel was just comfortable for two people; there was room only for necessities, and Flambeau had stocked it with such things as his special philosophy considered necessary. They reduced themselves, apparently, to four essentials: tins of salmon, if he should want to eat; loaded revolvers, if he should want to fight; a bottle of brandy, presumably in case he should faint; and a priest, presumably in case he should die.
If only the plots lived up to the way they are written! I don't understand why Chesterton is considered an authority of the detective story. There are some clever ideas, but cleverness is no substitute for logical sense. His stories rely heavily on contrivance and unbelievable circumstances; his criminal masterminds consistently fail to think their schemes through; his great sleuths resort to methods that have no business working, yet they do.Perhaps I'm seeing this the wrong way? Perhaps this is not how these stories should be appreciated? Granted, my only other contact with the genre has been through Sherlock Holmes, but I can attest that even the worst Holmes story is better plotted than mostly anything in this volume. Also, Arthur Conan Doyle made the wise move of making Holmes's rational approach fallible, whereas Father Brown's often baseless intuitions end up being proven right every time. Many a mystery is solved by his miraculously noticing something that has been miraculously overlooked by everyone else. Perhaps he gets help from the Holy Ghost?
I say that only half-jokingly, as the religious apologetics is all-pervasive. Father Brown misses no chance to expound on the superiority of Catholicism, or, more annoyingly, on the evils of pretty much everything that is not Catholicism. He is supposed to be a mild-mannered, unassuming priest, yet he often comes across as rather smug and even positively bigoted. This is not necessarily a bad thing in a literary character: again, Sherlock Holmes has some unsavory flaws too. The difference is that Holmes has Watson to call him out on those. No one calls Father Brown out when he quaintly claims, for example, that the Scottish favoring Calvinism rather than Catholicism is somehow related to the alleged fact that their ancestors worshipped demons. Or consider this passage, more beautiful prose, but this time in the service of less than beautiful notions:
"[...] Don't you ever feel that about Eastern art? The colours are intoxicatingly lovely; but the shapes are mean and bad—deliberately mean and bad. I have seen wicked things in a Turkey carpet."
"Mon Dieu!" cried Flambeau, laughing.
"They are letters and symbols in a language I don't know; but I know they stand for evil words," went on the priest, his voice growing lower and lower. "The lines go wrong on purpose—like serpents doubling to escape."
Whenever Sherlock Holmes lets his prejudices cloud his judgement, he fails. In "A Scandal in Bohemia," . Contrast this with "The Secret Garden," where Father Brown reasons that , and the author heartily agrees. In Chesterton's literary universe you may be a good, well-meaning person, but if you're not Catholic then you're a potential homicide. At the very least, you are suspicious enough to serve as a red herring. Because man's heart is wicked, you know, and only the Church's discipline can prevent him from going over to the devil. This is not just how Father Brown sees other characters: it's how Chesterton writes them. He doesn't acknowledge the faults of his protagonist because he shares them and considers them virtues. As a creator, G. K. Chesterton has shaped a world after the likeness of his prejudice and sent forth Father Brown to spread his word upon it.
July 30, 2007
Really awful Christian propaganda posing as murder mysteries. I was poised to like Chesterton, based solely on a few of his quotes I’d stumbled upon and Neil Gaiman’s good opinion. It’s true that the mysteries themselves are quite interesting. Unfortunately, Chesterton has a narrowness of view. In the first story of the collection, the clever police chief Valentin is the main character. I quite liked him, and looked forward to more interactions between him (an atheist) and Father Brown (a saintly priest). Unfortunately, Chesterton had no intention of writing a debate of any kind—in the very next story, Father Brown says,”Valentin is an honest man, if being mad for an arguable cause is honesty. But did you never see in that cold, grey eye of his that he is mad! He would do anything, anything, to break what he calls the superstition of the Cross. He has fought for it and starved for it, and now he has murdered for it.” And thence, Valentin kills himself, unable to deal with The Truth of Christianity. Father Brown’s incessant saintliness in all the stories is bad enough, but a few stories later he meets a "Hindoo." This conversation ensues,
“"It's very beautiful," said the priest in a low, dreaming voice; "the colours are very beautiful. But it's the wrong shape."
"What for?" asked Flambeau, staring.
"For anything. It's the wrong shape in the abstract. Don't you ever feel that about Eastern art? The colours are intoxicatingly lovely; but the shapes are mean and bad-- deliberately mean and bad. I have seen wicked things in a Turkey carpet."
"Mon Dieu!" cried Flambeau, laughing.
"They are letters and symbols in a language I don't know; but I know they stand for evil words," went on the priest, his voice growing lower and lower. "The lines go wrong on purpose—like serpents doubling to escape."
"What the devil are you talking about?" said the doctor with a loud laugh.
Flambeau spoke quietly to him in answer. "The Father sometimes gets this mystic's cloud on him," he said; "but I give you fair warning that I have never known him to have it except when there was some evil quite near."
"Oh, rats!" said the scientist.
"Why, look at it," cried Father Brown, holding out the crooked knife at arm's length, as if it were some glittering snake.
"Don't you see it is the wrong shape? Don't you see that it has no hearty and plain purpose? It does not point like a spear. It does not sweep like a scythe. It does not look like a weapon. It looks like an instrument of torture."”
And if *that’s* not bad enough, shortly thereafter the “scientist” is proven to be a murderer, and commits suicide, complete with a suicide note that says Father Brown and Christianity were right about everything all along.
The author pounds home the Anglo Christians=good, everyone else=bad message pretty hard. Not a story goes by without religion playing a major part, and there’s racism every single time a character of color pops up. (Note that the Asian man-servant has a “hacking” and “dreadful” accent, and “his slits of eyes almost faded from his face in one fat Chinese sneer.” The other characters feel an instinctive revulsion against him, “Merton felt an almost bodily sickness at the sight of him; and he muttered to Gilder: "Surely you would take Miss Armstrong's word against his?"” A better person might have leavened his character’s racism with an authorial tone that condemned or mocked their stance; instead, Chesterton clearly agrees.)
Dear Chesterton: I have better things to do with my life than read your bigotry.
“"It's very beautiful," said the priest in a low, dreaming voice; "the colours are very beautiful. But it's the wrong shape."
"What for?" asked Flambeau, staring.
"For anything. It's the wrong shape in the abstract. Don't you ever feel that about Eastern art? The colours are intoxicatingly lovely; but the shapes are mean and bad-- deliberately mean and bad. I have seen wicked things in a Turkey carpet."
"Mon Dieu!" cried Flambeau, laughing.
"They are letters and symbols in a language I don't know; but I know they stand for evil words," went on the priest, his voice growing lower and lower. "The lines go wrong on purpose—like serpents doubling to escape."
"What the devil are you talking about?" said the doctor with a loud laugh.
Flambeau spoke quietly to him in answer. "The Father sometimes gets this mystic's cloud on him," he said; "but I give you fair warning that I have never known him to have it except when there was some evil quite near."
"Oh, rats!" said the scientist.
"Why, look at it," cried Father Brown, holding out the crooked knife at arm's length, as if it were some glittering snake.
"Don't you see it is the wrong shape? Don't you see that it has no hearty and plain purpose? It does not point like a spear. It does not sweep like a scythe. It does not look like a weapon. It looks like an instrument of torture."”
And if *that’s* not bad enough, shortly thereafter the “scientist” is proven to be a murderer, and commits suicide, complete with a suicide note that says Father Brown and Christianity were right about everything all along.
The author pounds home the Anglo Christians=good, everyone else=bad message pretty hard. Not a story goes by without religion playing a major part, and there’s racism every single time a character of color pops up. (Note that the Asian man-servant has a “hacking” and “dreadful” accent, and “his slits of eyes almost faded from his face in one fat Chinese sneer.” The other characters feel an instinctive revulsion against him, “Merton felt an almost bodily sickness at the sight of him; and he muttered to Gilder: "Surely you would take Miss Armstrong's word against his?"” A better person might have leavened his character’s racism with an authorial tone that condemned or mocked their stance; instead, Chesterton clearly agrees.)
Dear Chesterton: I have better things to do with my life than read your bigotry.
June 16, 2020
I adore G.K. Chesterton, and he annoys the hell out of me.
He was an incredibly smart thinker, and a writer of enormous talents, but he seems to have a knack of rubbing me up the wrong way. His Father Brown stories are a perfect case in point. They are detective stories with almost no action, in which everything is told not shown - typically, our eponymous investigator arrives at the scene of a crime and, usually after the police have jumped the obvious, and wrong, conclusion, he elucidates the facts of the case that he has gleaned through a mixture of observation and encyclopaedic knowledge, in a way which would make Sherlock Holmes seem both naive and modest.
However, while the intricate puzzle-game of the crime is, as was the fashion in early- and mid-20th century mystery fiction, part of it, the point of these stories isn’t really the mystery. As with all of Chesterton’s writing, it is a discussion of ethics and spirituality - and I do mean very much a discussion, as Chesterton is the frighteningly intelligent old man sitting with his cigar and brandy, speaking aloud his thoughts as he ponders.
This is, I think, one of the things that leads to my annoyance. He is prone to contradiction - at one point he has Father Brown refer to atheists as being more intellectually honest than many Christians, and in the next tale almost the precise opposite. He makes statements that are utterly nonsensical - “every man who sleeps believes in God”, he writes (what?) and at one point the detective’s reasoning is that a man is not a Catholic as he claimed as “no Catholic would behave in that way”.
Such idiocies makes me want to throw the book across the room - at least partly as I am fairly certain Chesterton knows exactly what he’s saying. It would be perfectly possible to put contradictory statements in the voices of other characters, rather than his own mouthpiece of the priest, but the author seems perfectly happy to own his statements with full knowledge of their failings. Or perhaps I give him too much credit.
There are other problems; At first I wasn’t sure if I’d accuse Chesterton of misogyny as much as barely being aware that women exist. In the only story in this collection in which women feature, The Eye of Apollo, he is very disparaging of feminism and of women’s minds, however.
The overarching theme of the stories is redemption. This is set out in the first story, The Blue Cross - also the most action packed, where the great French detective Valentin is pursuing his arch-nemesis, the master criminal Flambeau, across London in a chase reminiscent of The Man Who Was Thursday, which actually sets up at arc that runs through the series, but redemption also features in several other individual tales.
So I get a lot out of reading Chesterton, even if some of that is exasperation. I guess that means he’s making me engage my brain. Let’s see how the next four collections go.
He was an incredibly smart thinker, and a writer of enormous talents, but he seems to have a knack of rubbing me up the wrong way. His Father Brown stories are a perfect case in point. They are detective stories with almost no action, in which everything is told not shown - typically, our eponymous investigator arrives at the scene of a crime and, usually after the police have jumped the obvious, and wrong, conclusion, he elucidates the facts of the case that he has gleaned through a mixture of observation and encyclopaedic knowledge, in a way which would make Sherlock Holmes seem both naive and modest.
However, while the intricate puzzle-game of the crime is, as was the fashion in early- and mid-20th century mystery fiction, part of it, the point of these stories isn’t really the mystery. As with all of Chesterton’s writing, it is a discussion of ethics and spirituality - and I do mean very much a discussion, as Chesterton is the frighteningly intelligent old man sitting with his cigar and brandy, speaking aloud his thoughts as he ponders.
This is, I think, one of the things that leads to my annoyance. He is prone to contradiction - at one point he has Father Brown refer to atheists as being more intellectually honest than many Christians, and in the next tale almost the precise opposite. He makes statements that are utterly nonsensical - “every man who sleeps believes in God”, he writes (what?) and at one point the detective’s reasoning is that a man is not a Catholic as he claimed as “no Catholic would behave in that way”.
Such idiocies makes me want to throw the book across the room - at least partly as I am fairly certain Chesterton knows exactly what he’s saying. It would be perfectly possible to put contradictory statements in the voices of other characters, rather than his own mouthpiece of the priest, but the author seems perfectly happy to own his statements with full knowledge of their failings. Or perhaps I give him too much credit.
There are other problems; At first I wasn’t sure if I’d accuse Chesterton of misogyny as much as barely being aware that women exist. In the only story in this collection in which women feature, The Eye of Apollo, he is very disparaging of feminism and of women’s minds, however.
The overarching theme of the stories is redemption. This is set out in the first story, The Blue Cross - also the most action packed, where the great French detective Valentin is pursuing his arch-nemesis, the master criminal Flambeau, across London in a chase reminiscent of The Man Who Was Thursday, which actually sets up at arc that runs through the series, but redemption also features in several other individual tales.
So I get a lot out of reading Chesterton, even if some of that is exasperation. I guess that means he’s making me engage my brain. Let’s see how the next four collections go.
June 25, 2023
The Innocence of Father Brown is a collection of short stories featuring the title character, who is a priest that solves mysteries. In most cases, the mystery involves a murder. In addition to Father Brown, you also have Flambeau, who starts out a criminal before becoming Father Brown's right-hand man, though you can argue that Flambeau ends up doing most of the detective work. The Innocence of Father Brown has been viewed as inspiration for future detectives, such as Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple, as well as Ellery Queen. These books are driven by the mystery, though, where as Father Brown's stories are driven by its messages, namely the use of allegory and theology that Chesterton is trying to share through his use of the mystery genre. Chesterton is known most for his philosophies and essays pertaining to Christian Orthodoxy, which later was simply a conversion into Catholicism.
My copy of The Innocence of Father Brown was 102 pages of 12 short stories, each less than 10 pages, but this is by no means light reading. The content is very dense and will take time to properly get through. Where these stories succeed are with its use of allegory and incorporation of theology. I was especially amazed with the literal and figurative incorporations in "The Eye of Apollo." Where these stories lacked were in the characters and story. The characters were very one-dimensional and I felt that Father Brown could have been more prominent throughout the stories. Flambeau was also very inconsistent, particular in this storyline and lacking a bridge between being a criminal to being on the good side. These are not stories where you can play along as detective, for they are very heavy and you have characters being thrown at you, but not enough time to sort out their situations.
The Innocence of Father Brown is interesting enough to look into and rich enough to think about. Perhaps it is even worth rereading. If you are looking for a mystery where you are primarily thinking about the story, playing the detective, or simply something cozy, this is not for you. This would be like looking for comfort food and settling for Cottage cheese with nothing in it.
My copy of The Innocence of Father Brown was 102 pages of 12 short stories, each less than 10 pages, but this is by no means light reading. The content is very dense and will take time to properly get through. Where these stories succeed are with its use of allegory and incorporation of theology. I was especially amazed with the literal and figurative incorporations in "The Eye of Apollo." Where these stories lacked were in the characters and story. The characters were very one-dimensional and I felt that Father Brown could have been more prominent throughout the stories. Flambeau was also very inconsistent, particular in this storyline and lacking a bridge between being a criminal to being on the good side. These are not stories where you can play along as detective, for they are very heavy and you have characters being thrown at you, but not enough time to sort out their situations.
The Innocence of Father Brown is interesting enough to look into and rich enough to think about. Perhaps it is even worth rereading. If you are looking for a mystery where you are primarily thinking about the story, playing the detective, or simply something cozy, this is not for you. This would be like looking for comfort food and settling for Cottage cheese with nothing in it.
May 3, 2020
lovely book. still
October 29, 2019
замечательные детективы — на мой вкус, куда интереснее что Дойля, что Кристи. во-первых, Честертон весьма изобретателен в сюжетах; конечно, искушённый современный читатель где-то разгадает убийцу — но где-то и нет.
но важнее то, что рассказы про отца Брауна — это не только детективы. почти в каждом есть некая мысль, философская или социальная идея, раскрытие некоего узнаваемого типажа. их можно читать и как просто новеллы, почти притчи.
да и сам отец Браун — нетипичный детектив. с одной стороны, он мил и трогателен в своём азартном желании разгадывать загадки; с другой же — напрочь лишён мстительности, жестокости и самолюбия. зачастую он отпускает преступника, а ещё Честертон не упускает возможности при каждом удобном случае подчеркнуть, что отец Браун соблюдает тайну исповеди: когда ему исповедуются, в тексте рассказа мы никогда не узнаём, что при этом говорилось.
в общем, кажется, никто не писал детективы — жанр произведений про тёмные стороны человеческой натуры, преступления всякие там и убийства — так светло и человеколюбиво. хотя про почтальонов мне показалось натянуто!
но важнее то, что рассказы про отца Брауна — это не только детективы. почти в каждом есть некая мысль, философская или социальная идея, раскрытие некоего узнаваемого типажа. их можно читать и как просто новеллы, почти притчи.
да и сам отец Браун — нетипичный детектив. с одной стороны, он мил и трогателен в своём азартном желании разгадывать загадки; с другой же — напрочь лишён мстительности, жестокости и самолюбия. зачастую он отпускает преступника, а ещё Честертон не упускает возможности при каждом удобном случае подчеркнуть, что отец Браун соблюдает тайну исповеди: когда ему исповедуются, в тексте рассказа мы никогда не узнаём, что при этом говорилось.
в общем, кажется, никто не писал детективы — жанр произведений про тёмные стороны человеческой натуры, преступления всякие там и убийства — так светло и человеколюбиво. хотя про почтальонов мне показалось натянуто!
November 11, 2016
After all the reading I have been doing about the Detection Club, and the fact that I have had one volume or other of Father Brown on my to-read list since 2010, it is about time I met this unusual detective! He is Sherlock Holmes meets Miss Marple...and it works in a charming way. The mysteries lack shocking twists but more than make up for it with good fun and memorable characters. I really liked Hercule Flambeau. Couples are brought together, criminals experience justice (some by repenting, others by suicide), and everywhere he goes, Father Brown clears up confusion and provides common sense by simply being himself. I especially liked The Invisible Man, The Eye of Apollo and the Three Tools of Death though almost all the stories involve unique (and over the top) twists and set ups.
Highly recommended! Father Brown would make a great read out loud.
Highly recommended! Father Brown would make a great read out loud.
October 19, 2018
Bravo! A good fast read! now i am hooked. This was such a great, easy and creative book. i was hooked after the first page.
The characters were easy to fall in love with and follow, along with the story. the author made the mental visions so easy and vivid of the surroundings and the characters actions felt so real.
i would highly recommend this author and this book.
The characters were easy to fall in love with and follow, along with the story. the author made the mental visions so easy and vivid of the surroundings and the characters actions felt so real.
i would highly recommend this author and this book.
May 5, 2020
A mystery to me...
This is the first collection of Chesterton’s stories about the little Catholic priest who not only solves inexplicable mysteries but also cures souls as he goes along. There are twelve stories and I made it through almost four of them before I decided I’d rather be cleaning the cats’ litter tray.
Sometimes when I dislike a popular book or author, I can see why the world loves them even although I don’t. But not with Father Brown, I fear. Nonsensical plots, frequently poor writing and ridiculous scenes of the priest with a few words bringing hardened criminals to repentance leave me struggling to find anything to admire in these. Throw in Chesterton’s supercilious disdain for anyone from a creed other than his own – i.e., Roman Catholicism – with his sanctimonious sneering reserved especially for atheists and Jews, and I find the stories often actively unpleasant as well as unentertaining.
Let me give you an example, which includes major spoilers for one of the stories, The Queer Feet. A group of rich gentlemen have a monthly dining club during which they use their own valuable set of fish knives and forks. On this evening, while they dine in one room of a restaurant, Father Brown sits locked in in another, writing a letter on behalf of a dying man. (Why locked in? No idea, other than that the plot requires him to be unable to open the door and look out.) Hearing footsteps outside in the corridor, he miraculously extrapolates from the sound of them a) that something queer is going on b) that it must be someone pretending to be a gentleman part of the time and a waiter the other part and c) that therefore this individual must be stealing the valuable cutlery about which Brown miraculously seems to know and d) that the criminal is getting way with this imposture because gentlemen and waiters all wear black jackets and it is therefore impossible to tell them apart. Having worked all this out on the basis of the sound of the footsteps, and having then discovered that there’s a second door in his locked room which has been unlocked all along *eyeroll*, Brown tackles the dangerous criminal, and with a few words persuades him to repent, turn over the loot and depart to lead a better life. I think my favourite line, showing Chesterton’s poor grasp of either writing or arithmetic – perhaps both – must be:
Still, at least that line made me smile, unlike this, from the following story, one of several snide remarks about Jews and their supposed love of money:
Other reviews inform me he’s even worse later about Indians and Chinese people. Of its time, of course, and I’d doubtless have been able to overlook it had I been enjoying the stories more.
Then there are the moments when he reaches for the heights of grandiose melodrama, and misses by a mile:
What can I say? Obviously other people see something quite different when they read these stories or they wouldn’t be as lastingly popular as they are. For me, they’re a 1-star fail but, looking at the Goodreads ratings, statistically speaking there’s a good chance you’d love them. Go figure.
www.fictionfanblog.wordpress.com
This is the first collection of Chesterton’s stories about the little Catholic priest who not only solves inexplicable mysteries but also cures souls as he goes along. There are twelve stories and I made it through almost four of them before I decided I’d rather be cleaning the cats’ litter tray.
Sometimes when I dislike a popular book or author, I can see why the world loves them even although I don’t. But not with Father Brown, I fear. Nonsensical plots, frequently poor writing and ridiculous scenes of the priest with a few words bringing hardened criminals to repentance leave me struggling to find anything to admire in these. Throw in Chesterton’s supercilious disdain for anyone from a creed other than his own – i.e., Roman Catholicism – with his sanctimonious sneering reserved especially for atheists and Jews, and I find the stories often actively unpleasant as well as unentertaining.
Let me give you an example, which includes major spoilers for one of the stories, The Queer Feet. A group of rich gentlemen have a monthly dining club during which they use their own valuable set of fish knives and forks. On this evening, while they dine in one room of a restaurant, Father Brown sits locked in in another, writing a letter on behalf of a dying man. (Why locked in? No idea, other than that the plot requires him to be unable to open the door and look out.) Hearing footsteps outside in the corridor, he miraculously extrapolates from the sound of them a) that something queer is going on b) that it must be someone pretending to be a gentleman part of the time and a waiter the other part and c) that therefore this individual must be stealing the valuable cutlery about which Brown miraculously seems to know and d) that the criminal is getting way with this imposture because gentlemen and waiters all wear black jackets and it is therefore impossible to tell them apart. Having worked all this out on the basis of the sound of the footsteps, and having then discovered that there’s a second door in his locked room which has been unlocked all along *eyeroll*, Brown tackles the dangerous criminal, and with a few words persuades him to repent, turn over the loot and depart to lead a better life. I think my favourite line, showing Chesterton’s poor grasp of either writing or arithmetic – perhaps both – must be:
The proprietor knew all his waiters like the fingers on his hand; there were only fifteen of them all told.
Still, at least that line made me smile, unlike this, from the following story, one of several snide remarks about Jews and their supposed love of money:
...squires should be swindled in long rooms panelled with oak; while Jews, on the other hand, should rather find themselves unexpectedly penniless among the lights and screens of the Café Riche.
Other reviews inform me he’s even worse later about Indians and Chinese people. Of its time, of course, and I’d doubtless have been able to overlook it had I been enjoying the stories more.
Then there are the moments when he reaches for the heights of grandiose melodrama, and misses by a mile:
Lady Galloway screamed. Everyone else sat tingling at the touch of those satanic tragedies that have been between lovers before now. They saw the proud, white face of the Scotch aristocrat and her lover, the Irish adventurer, like old portraits in a dark house. The long silence was full of formless historical memories of murdered husbands and poisonous paramours.
What can I say? Obviously other people see something quite different when they read these stories or they wouldn’t be as lastingly popular as they are. For me, they’re a 1-star fail but, looking at the Goodreads ratings, statistically speaking there’s a good chance you’d love them. Go figure.
www.fictionfanblog.wordpress.com
February 5, 2024
"When will people understand that it is useless for a man to read his Bible unless he also reads everybody else's Bible?"
Is binge-reading what people did before binge-watching was a thing? Back in the days of Brideshead Revisited—in which the Father Brown stories do actually feature. The dozen stories in this collection are absolutely bingeable—formulaic (comfortably familiar) but full of variety as well as atmosphere—sometimes to the detriment of the mystery. The settings are always excellently drawn and Father Brown (of course) always happens to be conveniently nearby. Chesterton is not always interested in the brilliance of a crime, but rather in what is reveals about the state od society or about human nature. Father Brown is as happy to save a soul as to unravel a mystery, and he's often accompanied by the pretty much useless Frenchman, Flambeau.
The Blue Cross - 4
The Secret Garden - 4
The Queer Feet - 4
The Flying Stars - 4
The Invisible Man - 4
The Honor of Israel Gow - 5
The Wrong Shape - 3
The Sins of Prince Saradine - 4
The Hammer of God - 3
The Eye of Apollo - 3
The Sign of the Broken Sword - 5
The Three Tools of Death - 4
May 12, 2022
I don't know whether it was because the stories were written in the early 1900s or because the author's prose was quite lyrical and flowery but this offering wasn't really my cup of 🫖.
March 8, 2011
I have, at this point, gone through the first nine of this collection of twelve stories, and I am now fully convinced that Chesterton was not only a man of a brilliant mind, but of a very singular mind. His paradox is well known, his way of looking at things in an entirely novel light, his self-deprecation, his humor and wit and sheer genius are all legendary, but these stories are a glimpse into the workings of his mind when he decided to amuse himself with a train of thought, and are fascinating.
They are mysteries, a la Sherlock Holmes, but the protagonist is a small, unremarkable priest with a tremendous knowledge of the depths of human nature and an almost obtuse optimism that, combined with the sacred and private nature of confession, allows him not only to solve the crime but to save the criminal. As character studies, they are astonishing. I once commented of a Cormac McCarthy novel that I had met half of his characters. The same and often more is true of these: not only have I met these characters, these lovable cynics, tunnel-visioned atheists and abstruse agnostics, but I have been and am them more often than I would care to admit.
And the crimes? The crimes committed are fantastic, impossible; crimes that defy every imagination's attempts to reconcile them with reality save that singular mind of Chesterton's which can see in reality nothing but the fantastic and impossible, and thusly marries the two with uncanny ease. This has several times caused me to utter ejaculations with a sound, as Wodehouse puts it, of Chesterton falling on a sheet of tin due to the incurably shy simplicity that would reveal itself to none but the lovable Priest.
They are mysteries, a la Sherlock Holmes, but the protagonist is a small, unremarkable priest with a tremendous knowledge of the depths of human nature and an almost obtuse optimism that, combined with the sacred and private nature of confession, allows him not only to solve the crime but to save the criminal. As character studies, they are astonishing. I once commented of a Cormac McCarthy novel that I had met half of his characters. The same and often more is true of these: not only have I met these characters, these lovable cynics, tunnel-visioned atheists and abstruse agnostics, but I have been and am them more often than I would care to admit.
And the crimes? The crimes committed are fantastic, impossible; crimes that defy every imagination's attempts to reconcile them with reality save that singular mind of Chesterton's which can see in reality nothing but the fantastic and impossible, and thusly marries the two with uncanny ease. This has several times caused me to utter ejaculations with a sound, as Wodehouse puts it, of Chesterton falling on a sheet of tin due to the incurably shy simplicity that would reveal itself to none but the lovable Priest.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,606 reviews