What do you think?
Rate this book
A Room in Chelsea Square
Patrick, fabulously wealthy and with a good eye for pictures and young men, brings the impressionable Nicholas to London, intent on reducing him to utter dependence by playing on his naivety and greed. But Nicholas proves to be not quite as pliable as hoped, and a witty social comedy develops as he struggles with the web that Patrick has so richly woven for him.
208 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1958
3 people are currently reading
237 people want to read
About the author
Michael Nelson
9 books2 followersMichael Nelson (known as ‘Mickey’) was born in 1921. He worked as a journalist before the Second World War, and during the war worked as secretary to John Lehmann, a prominent publisher and man of letters, and served as a captain in the Royal Army Service Corps. After his demobilisation, he lived with his boyfriend in Winchester and owned a bookstore there before meeting Rachel Holland, who knew Nelson was gay but married him anyway; the two remained married the rest of their lives. Nelson and his wife relocated to London, where he was well known in the drinking establishments of Soho. Nelson’s first novel, Knock or Ring (1957), which concerned the illegal practices of the ‘ring’, a group of booksellers who conspired to fix auctions and share profits among themselves, drew on Nelson’s own experiences as a bookseller and received good reviews. His second book, A Room in Chelsea Square (1958), also available from Valancourt Books, was published anonymously, and has gone on to become a gay classic. His other books are Blanket (1959) (published under the pseudonym ‘Henry Stratton’), When the Bed Broke (1961), Captain Blossom (1973), Captain Blossom Soldiers On (1974), Nobs & Snobs (1976), Captain Blossom in Civvy Street (1978), and Fear No More (1989). Michael Nelson died in 1990.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
May 22, 2010
Imagine Wodehouse set in the 1940′s with a gay main character as rich as Bertie and used to getting his own way in all things. It’s not a comedy, as such, although it has some amusing moments, it’s more a witty satire and an exploration of a particular set of men–gay and otherwise–in 1940′s London.
Patrick is, as the first line describes: “very, very rich.” He’s currently single, and, as the book opens, he’s shopping for presents for a handsome young man he’s recently met in the country. With ease, using a wide net of ex-boyfriends, he arranges Nicholas a job at a tabloid newspaper to tempt him to London, and when he arrives, meets him at the station and inveigles excuse after excuse to prevent the young man starting work, moving him into his suite at a hotel, and lavishing an expensive lifestyle on him.
The book takes place over the space of a week, following Nicholas’ introduction into Patrick’s lifestyle, meeting his friends and resisting Patrick’s advances. He’s not entirely the ingénue that Patrick imagines him to be however:
Nicholas had a thoroughly miserable bath. He knew that he couldn’t evade Patrick’s advances much longer. It was no good pretending that Patrick was going to support him from purely altruistic motives. Patrick wanted his pound of flesh, he was was going to make sure he got it. What did sex matter anyway? It was a small price to pay for all the things that Patrick could offer him in exchange.
The novel was published entirely anonymously when it first came out and from the frank portrayal of gay characters you would think you could understand why, but it goes a little deeper than that. In fact, it’s semi-autobiographical. The introduction in the 1986 reissued GMP version by Philip Core explains that “Patrick” is a thinly veiled portrait of Peter Watson: associated for a long while with Cecil Beaton, co-founder of the ICA and wealthy homosexual sponsor of Bacon, Colquhoun, MacBryde, Vaughan, Minton and other homosexual painters. Michael Nelson (the “Nicholas” of the book) was in reality pursued by Watson, who bought him Picassos and Sutherlands as part of his seduction technique.
Nicholas–like the real life Nelson–is prevented from starting at his Tabloid newspaper by the dangling of a greater carrot, a job on a new arts magazine “Eleven” (which was “Horizon” in real life) together with his friend Michael, Christopher Pyre (Stephen Spender in reality) and a former protégé of Patrick’s: the bon-viveur Ronnie Gras (Cyril Connolly). It is Nicholas’ constant prevarication as to whether to succumb to Patrick’s gentle but lavish onslaught that eventually causes his downfall.
But aside for the historical interest, it’s a highly enjoyable and entertaining read, particularly because it’s written in the rather affected slang of the upper middle and upper class of the time.
And some dialogue must have been positively shocking at the time, although it probably went over the head of many, just as the outrageous double-entendres of Julian and Sandy slid past the censors in Round the Horne. There’s one scene where Nicholas says he’s tired and Patrick advises he should rest, saying:
"An hour on your back with your legs up will do you the world of good."
Much of the dialogue is hugely bitchy too, and I loved it, because that’s no exclusivity of being gay – that’s how people really talk.
I highly recommend this: It might be rather too English for many, but if you enjoy any films of Noel Coward or in fact any film that deals with this era of the aesthete then you’ll enjoy it as much as I did. It’s also very interesting to compare and contrast with Mr Page and Mr Clive, which concentrates more on unhappiness and closeted misery, but then this book was written in the era, not about the era, so one wonders which one is nearer to the truth.
Patrick is, as the first line describes: “very, very rich.” He’s currently single, and, as the book opens, he’s shopping for presents for a handsome young man he’s recently met in the country. With ease, using a wide net of ex-boyfriends, he arranges Nicholas a job at a tabloid newspaper to tempt him to London, and when he arrives, meets him at the station and inveigles excuse after excuse to prevent the young man starting work, moving him into his suite at a hotel, and lavishing an expensive lifestyle on him.
The book takes place over the space of a week, following Nicholas’ introduction into Patrick’s lifestyle, meeting his friends and resisting Patrick’s advances. He’s not entirely the ingénue that Patrick imagines him to be however:
Nicholas had a thoroughly miserable bath. He knew that he couldn’t evade Patrick’s advances much longer. It was no good pretending that Patrick was going to support him from purely altruistic motives. Patrick wanted his pound of flesh, he was was going to make sure he got it. What did sex matter anyway? It was a small price to pay for all the things that Patrick could offer him in exchange.
The novel was published entirely anonymously when it first came out and from the frank portrayal of gay characters you would think you could understand why, but it goes a little deeper than that. In fact, it’s semi-autobiographical. The introduction in the 1986 reissued GMP version by Philip Core explains that “Patrick” is a thinly veiled portrait of Peter Watson: associated for a long while with Cecil Beaton, co-founder of the ICA and wealthy homosexual sponsor of Bacon, Colquhoun, MacBryde, Vaughan, Minton and other homosexual painters. Michael Nelson (the “Nicholas” of the book) was in reality pursued by Watson, who bought him Picassos and Sutherlands as part of his seduction technique.
Nicholas–like the real life Nelson–is prevented from starting at his Tabloid newspaper by the dangling of a greater carrot, a job on a new arts magazine “Eleven” (which was “Horizon” in real life) together with his friend Michael, Christopher Pyre (Stephen Spender in reality) and a former protégé of Patrick’s: the bon-viveur Ronnie Gras (Cyril Connolly). It is Nicholas’ constant prevarication as to whether to succumb to Patrick’s gentle but lavish onslaught that eventually causes his downfall.
But aside for the historical interest, it’s a highly enjoyable and entertaining read, particularly because it’s written in the rather affected slang of the upper middle and upper class of the time.
And some dialogue must have been positively shocking at the time, although it probably went over the head of many, just as the outrageous double-entendres of Julian and Sandy slid past the censors in Round the Horne. There’s one scene where Nicholas says he’s tired and Patrick advises he should rest, saying:
"An hour on your back with your legs up will do you the world of good."
Much of the dialogue is hugely bitchy too, and I loved it, because that’s no exclusivity of being gay – that’s how people really talk.
I highly recommend this: It might be rather too English for many, but if you enjoy any films of Noel Coward or in fact any film that deals with this era of the aesthete then you’ll enjoy it as much as I did. It’s also very interesting to compare and contrast with Mr Page and Mr Clive, which concentrates more on unhappiness and closeted misery, but then this book was written in the era, not about the era, so one wonders which one is nearer to the truth.
February 17, 2021
Oh my my…. how times have changed! There's absolutely no sex in this story, but unless you have spent the last 25 years of your life in a convent you will surely recognize the “INTENT”. Take lots and lots and lots of fancy presents being bought by two rich old men for the cute young men they think are just waiting for them to “buy”… add the lure of job offers that most people at that time would have killed for…. throw in a fancy suite in the best hotel in the entire country…and you can figure out…probably faster than Nicholas did…exactly what these “two old sugar daddies” were after. I really didn’t understand some of it. I think it was the case of “two countries speaking the same language but with different meanings in so many different ways” syndrome. I also didn’t like any of the characters… not even a little bit. The entire story just felt too “dated”...for lack of a better word.
June 13, 2022
A deliciously witty, but ultimately rather silly little bagatelle that can be read in a couple of hours. The antagonist is something of a mix of Quentin Crisp and Sheridan Whiteside, with a couple of his quips worthy of Master Coward. Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of this 1958 novelty is that - only a year after the Wolfenden Report - all of the characters are living their lives fairly openly and authentically, no one moans about how tragic being gay is - it's rather a romp for most of the characters. Lack of sufficient funds and unrequited loves are the main obstacles to happiness. And though the book does end with a possible suicide - it is of the ONE decidedly hetero character! How refreshing!
October 5, 2016
Published in 1958 but written much earlier. It is set pre WWII. A period piece perhaps. The characters are generally effete hedonists who people a world that I rather hope doesn't exist anymore. Patrick is Rich Queen Bitch par excellence. There are other characters here who rank pretty high up on the obnoxiousness list too.
This is the sort of book that can give a queen a bad name..but it is probably worth reading for the times in which it is set and the particular breed depicted here. There are shades of Mapp and Lucia I guess.
As I was reading it I kept thinking of the line attributed to the late Queen Mother. She supposedly greeted a hissy fit of a racket proceeding from her kitchen one morning by standing in the doorway, and saying very quietly: “When you two queens are quite finished this Queen is ready for her breakfast”. The scene would not have been out of place here.
This is the sort of book that can give a queen a bad name..but it is probably worth reading for the times in which it is set and the particular breed depicted here. There are shades of Mapp and Lucia I guess.
As I was reading it I kept thinking of the line attributed to the late Queen Mother. She supposedly greeted a hissy fit of a racket proceeding from her kitchen one morning by standing in the doorway, and saying very quietly: “When you two queens are quite finished this Queen is ready for her breakfast”. The scene would not have been out of place here.
February 10, 2020
An odd little book. In the 1958 edition I have it was still written by Anonymous.
July 6, 2018
A sort of Dangerous Liaisons via The Boys in the Band (excuse the anachronisms), this short work tells of rich and manipulative Patrick and his select victims and associates in post-WWII London. Nicholas is his new target and Patrick sets him up as his new boy-toy, but Nicholas is (deservedly) hesitant.
Patrick toys with his colleagues about starting a magazine. Among those he enlists are the eccentric fashion, wine & cuisine snob Ronnie, the bumbling painter Christopher (who, despite his self-deprecation and poverty, is the only character with a career or any artistic talent) and Christopher's muse, the irritable Michael. Patrick toys with everyone's goals and plans with the magazine idea, whips them into a frenzy of backstabbing and conniving, until, well, a few unfortunate things happen, some revolving around Michael's plans for Lily, Ronnie's subservient paramour (one of few characters who lacks ulterior motives).
The historic relevance of Nelson's semi-autobiographical tale in the canon of gay literature leaves it a brief and often overlooked work. That it dramatizes the sheer bitchiness of desperate gay men and their trade, without any grandstanding pleas for compassion, may leave some readers cold. But it's more of an honest and cruel depiction of the desperation of the poor, the decadence of the rich, and how deception as a hobby leaves some damaged with a harsh lesson learned.
Patrick toys with his colleagues about starting a magazine. Among those he enlists are the eccentric fashion, wine & cuisine snob Ronnie, the bumbling painter Christopher (who, despite his self-deprecation and poverty, is the only character with a career or any artistic talent) and Christopher's muse, the irritable Michael. Patrick toys with everyone's goals and plans with the magazine idea, whips them into a frenzy of backstabbing and conniving, until, well, a few unfortunate things happen, some revolving around Michael's plans for Lily, Ronnie's subservient paramour (one of few characters who lacks ulterior motives).
The historic relevance of Nelson's semi-autobiographical tale in the canon of gay literature leaves it a brief and often overlooked work. That it dramatizes the sheer bitchiness of desperate gay men and their trade, without any grandstanding pleas for compassion, may leave some readers cold. But it's more of an honest and cruel depiction of the desperation of the poor, the decadence of the rich, and how deception as a hobby leaves some damaged with a harsh lesson learned.
December 25, 2023
in many ways feels like a precursor to contemporary fiction: a gossip novel about bad faith players you can't seem to get to the heart of. I liked that it was dialogue-heavy, like a stage play or an episode of Girls transposed to gay post-war London, where we hear what the characters are thinking only sparsely and to frame an upcoming shift in the action. I found myself feeling for pathetic artist and bleeding heart Christopher, who confesses, weirdly honestly, he doesn't mind when people make a fool of him: "If it gives them pleasure I'm pleased to be of use to them"; Michael, too, who seems like he's stepped out of Joseph Heller, is a fun disturbance to the ‘friend’ group’s ecosystem of cattiness because he's too direct to adhere to it. I like that he carries around a gun half-facetiously threatening to kill himself, and that he admits his cruelty, which is uniquely straightforward in his circle, is motivated by boredom.
and there's certainly enough cruelty and boredom to go around: nobody really likes each other, everybody accuses everybody else of being a viper. though they all know their kingpin Patrick, who stirs shit like a professional and with great relish, is the real poison, they can't stop dancing around him simply because he's obscenely rich and nobody's willing to go without. you could take this as a portrait of a rich guy who, far from resenting that none of his friendships are founded on anything but people wanting things from him, cherishes, cultivates, exploits this fact to the best of his abilities, which are boundless.
that Nelson's prose is so focused on a particular affect, subculture, way of speaking, of a particular class of people in a particular time and place, that it mostly describes what people are doing and saying without much commenting on it, obscures the very real critique of wealth you could pretty easily draw out from the novel. if what he's saying, however, is "money makes people act crazy," or "a bad person with money is an even worse person," it's not exactly groundbreaking. so maybe the real triumph of the novel is one of realism, getting a group of people 'down pat'; people are laughably, predictably selfish, says Nelson here, and so the novel is also funny and prescient.
I make no mention of the Waughian protagonist Nicholas, who makes not one single decision and possesses not one salient quality apart from youth and beauty, which, for Patrick, aren’t hard to come by. money, on the other hand, is—unless you’re one of the special few, and that he is.
and there's certainly enough cruelty and boredom to go around: nobody really likes each other, everybody accuses everybody else of being a viper. though they all know their kingpin Patrick, who stirs shit like a professional and with great relish, is the real poison, they can't stop dancing around him simply because he's obscenely rich and nobody's willing to go without. you could take this as a portrait of a rich guy who, far from resenting that none of his friendships are founded on anything but people wanting things from him, cherishes, cultivates, exploits this fact to the best of his abilities, which are boundless.
that Nelson's prose is so focused on a particular affect, subculture, way of speaking, of a particular class of people in a particular time and place, that it mostly describes what people are doing and saying without much commenting on it, obscures the very real critique of wealth you could pretty easily draw out from the novel. if what he's saying, however, is "money makes people act crazy," or "a bad person with money is an even worse person," it's not exactly groundbreaking. so maybe the real triumph of the novel is one of realism, getting a group of people 'down pat'; people are laughably, predictably selfish, says Nelson here, and so the novel is also funny and prescient.
I make no mention of the Waughian protagonist Nicholas, who makes not one single decision and possesses not one salient quality apart from youth and beauty, which, for Patrick, aren’t hard to come by. money, on the other hand, is—unless you’re one of the special few, and that he is.
April 30, 2018
Very funny yet very sad. It reminds me of "The Catcher in the Rye." It is a very real story. I have known many women that get into similar situations. Very modern even if the book was written in 1958.
February 9, 2020
I found this a great and entertaining read. ‘There continually occur moments in one’s life when one has to choose between possessions and integrity.’
A bit of a dark view in the human, gay soul. As much as I would like to deny it, there is a lot of insight in this book.
Nice pageturner!
A bit of a dark view in the human, gay soul. As much as I would like to deny it, there is a lot of insight in this book.
Nice pageturner!
March 14, 2015
You know those dreams where you're running through quicksand trying to catch a bus that you just can't get to? That's what reading this is like.
August 31, 2020
Bit of a shaggy-dog tale, this. It's like one of those dreams where things keep not happening. From page to page to page, very little unfolded. While that may have been intentional, it sapped my investment in the narrative. When I thought stuff might actually be happening, or when it focused on Patrick and Nicholas (the two best-written characters in the novel), I got excited. But ultimately, it left me hanging, with the characters pretty much in the same position where they started (except for one character, who gets killed off in what seems like an attempt to make this novel more serious). C'mon, book! I want to like you! You've got crisp, workmanlike prose which sometimes gets very good! You make me laugh at times! You've got an appealingly lighthearted tone and a cast that feels like real people! Alas.
Given the moral uproar, I also thought it would be gayer than it ended up being. It was more haunted by the ghost of homosexuality than fully possessed of it. There were some parts where I was surprised at the candidness of its treatment, and it was refreshing to not see it vilified, but there were other times that I thought it could have gone further. Its very frankness led me to believe that we might get an actual sex scene somewhere down the line, but it was pretty tame. Yes, I know it was the 50s and maybe I'm asking for too much from a book that had to be published anonymously because of its subject matter.
But it was pretty decent. Equal number of good parts and bad, and I'd recommend it for the sheer novelty of a fun, camp, mostly upbeat gay novel written and set in the 50s.
Given the moral uproar, I also thought it would be gayer than it ended up being. It was more haunted by the ghost of homosexuality than fully possessed of it. There were some parts where I was surprised at the candidness of its treatment, and it was refreshing to not see it vilified, but there were other times that I thought it could have gone further. Its very frankness led me to believe that we might get an actual sex scene somewhere down the line, but it was pretty tame. Yes, I know it was the 50s and maybe I'm asking for too much from a book that had to be published anonymously because of its subject matter.
But it was pretty decent. Equal number of good parts and bad, and I'd recommend it for the sheer novelty of a fun, camp, mostly upbeat gay novel written and set in the 50s.
June 14, 2022
So unexpected. Essentially a comedy of manners featuring (as far as I can recall) a mostly relatively unabashed cast of gay characters, from the 1950s—I was stunned (and appreciative). Nowadays of course I now know that other novelists had ventured into similar territory, but I suppose I'd always thought it was a fairly recent phenomenon. As a young gay man (at the time) I'd have been thrilled to see something remotely approximating my life (without the inevitable suicide at the end), so this book was a real treat.
And simply as a story, I thought it was pretty good! A bit like a Barbara Pym amongst another set of people. It was a while ago, but I have fond recollections.
Note: I have written a novel (not yet published), so now I will suffer pangs of guilt every time I offer less than five stars. In my subjective opinion, the stars suggest:
(5* = one of my all-time favourites, 4* = really enjoyed it, 3* = readable but not thrilling, 2* = actually disappointing, and 1* = hated it. As a statistician I know most books are 3s, but I am biased in my selection and end up mostly with 4s, thank goodness.)
And simply as a story, I thought it was pretty good! A bit like a Barbara Pym amongst another set of people. It was a while ago, but I have fond recollections.
Note: I have written a novel (not yet published), so now I will suffer pangs of guilt every time I offer less than five stars. In my subjective opinion, the stars suggest:
(5* = one of my all-time favourites, 4* = really enjoyed it, 3* = readable but not thrilling, 2* = actually disappointing, and 1* = hated it. As a statistician I know most books are 3s, but I am biased in my selection and end up mostly with 4s, thank goodness.)
March 27, 2018
Funny rather than witty. My Gay Men’s Press edition from the 1980s has an illuminating introduction clarifying the book’s autobiographical basis. It was, apparently, his own experience that the author portrayed in the character of Nicholas — a young journalist whose sexual favours Patrick (a fantastically rich man in his 40s) courts through not-so-subtle financial inducements.
The kept boy’s perspective comes across so effectively in Nicholas’s musings that at times I found myself almost persuaded by it! So much so, in fact, that when I saw a picture of the man on whom the character of Patrick was modelled — the handsome Peter Watson (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...) — my first reaction was to wonder why Nicholas played hard to get!
The kept boy’s perspective comes across so effectively in Nicholas’s musings that at times I found myself almost persuaded by it! So much so, in fact, that when I saw a picture of the man on whom the character of Patrick was modelled — the handsome Peter Watson (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...) — my first reaction was to wonder why Nicholas played hard to get!
January 30, 2022
Un libro che non va letto alla ricerca di una trama densa di avvenimenti, ma che è in grado di offrire uno spaccato ancora attualissimo di una - ahimè ampia - parte della società. Situazioni simili avvengono anche oggi...eccome. Patrick è solo uno dei tanti: tutti i personaggi sono mossi da egoismo ed egocentrismo (anche Michael e Christopher, con i loro ultimi gesti, seppur non sembri). In un certo qual modo, tuttavia, nel corso delle 200 pagine si riesce incredibilmente a empatizzare con i personaggi, alla luce delle loro sofferenze, insicurezze e difficoltà: se sono brutti (per vederla alla Dorian Gray), spregevoli, c'è sempre un motivo (quasi mai una giustificazione), anche se talvolta molto sottile. Lettura piacevole.
June 9, 2025
I am always fascinated to read gay themed books from well before Stonewall. This is no exception. Nelson captured the idea of a wealthy English gentleman in middle age determined to have the love of a much younger man. The book is humorous, though at times the theme feels sad.
My one complaint is the number of characters we follow in the book. At times it is difficult to know who is speaking as the person talking is sometimes not identified and scenes shift from one group of characters to another with no warning.
Nelson was a talented writer who was forced to hide his homosexuality since it was a crime during his lifetime. It is a pity he is not better appreciated.
My one complaint is the number of characters we follow in the book. At times it is difficult to know who is speaking as the person talking is sometimes not identified and scenes shift from one group of characters to another with no warning.
Nelson was a talented writer who was forced to hide his homosexuality since it was a crime during his lifetime. It is a pity he is not better appreciated.
July 11, 2017
"You see, humanity is ugly at the best of times. But it's ugliest when it tries to be beautiful, because it's being dishonest. Everyone in here is dishonest. They upset me terribly."
"Remark the pure paleness of the amber with its suspicion of green."
"You observe the absence of a spirit lamp," he said. "A senseless and barbaric Victorian innovation."
"I only ask one thing of you," said Patrick. "Do be careful of the pictures. If you don't like them turn them to the wall. But please don't throw things at them."
"Remark the pure paleness of the amber with its suspicion of green."
"You observe the absence of a spirit lamp," he said. "A senseless and barbaric Victorian innovation."
"I only ask one thing of you," said Patrick. "Do be careful of the pictures. If you don't like them turn them to the wall. But please don't throw things at them."
February 13, 2019
This is an old fashioned (written in 1958) gay comedy of manners. It is the story of a handsome and naive young man recruited from the provinces by a rich and sophisticated older gay man. Need I say more. It reminded me of early Patrick Dennis and a prologue in the GSV edition that I read explained the whom the leading characters were based upon. I first heard of this book in the Edward Gorey biography because Gorey designed the cover for the earliest American edition. I think it has been recently reissued by Valancourt Books
July 10, 2021
Something very Dorian Gray about it. A camp take on ennui and corruption
July 4, 2023
Such biting wit. And maybe a little too close to reality…
This is would make a fantastic queer film.
I shall be thinking about this book often.
This is would make a fantastic queer film.
I shall be thinking about this book often.
October 5, 2025
Patrick is such a diva
February 18, 2015
Merito della copertina se ho notato questo libro fra i tanti che affollano gli scaffali di una grande libreria della città; e a questa bella copertina (di chi è l'immagine? Non c'è scritto nulla nel libro) ho scoperto che corrispondeva anche un contenuto potenzialmente interessante, perciò, dopo qualche mese di attesa che comparisse nel mercato dell'usato, ecco che il libro è stato acquistato, letto in poco più di un pomeriggio e ora recensito.
Questo romanzo uscì anonimo nel 1958, quando ancora nel Regno Unito l'omosessualità era considerata reato: oggi sappiamo che l'autore fu il tale Michael Nelson. Si potrebbe pensare a un coraggioso libro di denuncia e di rivendicazione di diritti, in un periodo in cui, come è spiegato nella Prefazione di Riccardo Reim, l'opinione pubblica britannica si stava seriamente interrogando se fosse lecito regolare la morale privata dell'individuo con gli strumenti della legge. Invece, gli avvertimenti del curatore e la lettura dello stesso romanzo ci fanno subito capire che non siamo di fronte a nulla di così "nobile": A Room in Chelsea Square è un romanzo che ha voluto astutamente sfruttare il clamore per un tema così scottante e attuale (in origine il protagonista, Patrick, era una donna!) e che semplicemente si fa beffe crudeli di tutto e di tutti, con un cinismo molto compiaciuto (Reim lo definisce "farneticamente gay e al tempo stesso omofobo"). Tanto vale, quindi, leggerlo con il proposito di farsi quattro cattivissime e politicamente scorrettissime risate, confidando nel più classico e tagliente del british humour e senza dar peso alle esagerazioni più kitsch.
Il ricchissimo, elegantissimo, spudoratissimo, "frocissimo" e non più giovanissimo Patrick ha messo gli occhi sul bel Nicholas, appena arrivato a Londra dal paesello con l'aspirazione di diventare giornalista. Nel suo tentativo di seduzione utilizza ogni mezzo possibile per vincere l'ostinata resistenza della sua preda, dai regali più costosi e pacchiani fino alle promesse di appoggio per la sua carriera, manipolando abilmente con la forza del suo denaro e con astuzia machiavellica tutto il suo circolo di amici, ex amanti, "protetti" per giungere all'obiettivo. Nicholas non è così ingenuo da non capire perfettamente cosa il suo mecenate desidera in cambio, e si rende conto benissimo di dipendere in tutto e per tutto dal favore di Patrick, ma i suoi continui tentennamenti, dovuti di volta in volta agli scrupoli morali, all'orgoglio ferito o semplicemente alla sua dabbenaggine, rischiano di fargli perdere tutto, perché, per quanto la sua fortuna sia nelle sue mani, non è affatto lui a condurre il gioco. La conclusione è quanto mai perfida: il lettore si aspetterebbe o la "rovina" completa di Nicholas che cede finalmente alle lusinghe del suo tentatore o il suo riscatto, e invece Nelson pensa a un finale molto più ambiguo e cinico. Proprio quando Nicholas, che non è affatto un santo, finalmente si decide, si trova costretto a ritirarsi, da solo, nell'umile cameretta a Chelsea Square che ha preso in affitto e che fino ad allora, ospitato in alberghi di lusso, non aveva mai raggiunto, invece di partire per le Bermuda con Patrick, che l'ha scaricato per un altro giovanotto più disponibile, a rimuginare sul fatto che, se avesse giocato meglio le sue carte, non avrebbe perso quell'occasione. Il finale l'ho nascosto, ma in pratica è tutto rivelato nella stessa Prefazione: se non volete saperlo, leggetela solo dopo aver letto il romanzo.
Non è certo un capolavoro (anzi, le situazioni sono un po' ripetitive e la struttura tenue), ma scorre via alla velocità della luce e regala un pomeriggio di gradevole intrattenimento scacciapensieri.
3,5/5
http://moloch981.wordpress.com/2013/0...
Questo romanzo uscì anonimo nel 1958, quando ancora nel Regno Unito l'omosessualità era considerata reato: oggi sappiamo che l'autore fu il tale Michael Nelson. Si potrebbe pensare a un coraggioso libro di denuncia e di rivendicazione di diritti, in un periodo in cui, come è spiegato nella Prefazione di Riccardo Reim, l'opinione pubblica britannica si stava seriamente interrogando se fosse lecito regolare la morale privata dell'individuo con gli strumenti della legge. Invece, gli avvertimenti del curatore e la lettura dello stesso romanzo ci fanno subito capire che non siamo di fronte a nulla di così "nobile": A Room in Chelsea Square è un romanzo che ha voluto astutamente sfruttare il clamore per un tema così scottante e attuale (in origine il protagonista, Patrick, era una donna!) e che semplicemente si fa beffe crudeli di tutto e di tutti, con un cinismo molto compiaciuto (Reim lo definisce "farneticamente gay e al tempo stesso omofobo"). Tanto vale, quindi, leggerlo con il proposito di farsi quattro cattivissime e politicamente scorrettissime risate, confidando nel più classico e tagliente del british humour e senza dar peso alle esagerazioni più kitsch.
Il ricchissimo, elegantissimo, spudoratissimo, "frocissimo" e non più giovanissimo Patrick ha messo gli occhi sul bel Nicholas, appena arrivato a Londra dal paesello con l'aspirazione di diventare giornalista. Nel suo tentativo di seduzione utilizza ogni mezzo possibile per vincere l'ostinata resistenza della sua preda, dai regali più costosi e pacchiani fino alle promesse di appoggio per la sua carriera, manipolando abilmente con la forza del suo denaro e con astuzia machiavellica tutto il suo circolo di amici, ex amanti, "protetti" per giungere all'obiettivo. Nicholas non è così ingenuo da non capire perfettamente cosa il suo mecenate desidera in cambio, e si rende conto benissimo di dipendere in tutto e per tutto dal favore di Patrick, ma i suoi continui tentennamenti, dovuti di volta in volta agli scrupoli morali, all'orgoglio ferito o semplicemente alla sua dabbenaggine, rischiano di fargli perdere tutto, perché, per quanto la sua fortuna sia nelle sue mani, non è affatto lui a condurre il gioco. La conclusione è quanto mai perfida: il lettore si aspetterebbe o la "rovina" completa di Nicholas che cede finalmente alle lusinghe del suo tentatore o il suo riscatto, e invece Nelson pensa a un finale molto più ambiguo e cinico. Proprio quando Nicholas, che non è affatto un santo, finalmente si decide, si trova costretto a ritirarsi, da solo, nell'umile cameretta a Chelsea Square che ha preso in affitto e che fino ad allora, ospitato in alberghi di lusso, non aveva mai raggiunto, invece di partire per le Bermuda con Patrick, che l'ha scaricato per un altro giovanotto più disponibile, a rimuginare sul fatto che, se avesse giocato meglio le sue carte, non avrebbe perso quell'occasione. Il finale l'ho nascosto, ma in pratica è tutto rivelato nella stessa Prefazione: se non volete saperlo, leggetela solo dopo aver letto il romanzo.
Non è certo un capolavoro (anzi, le situazioni sono un po' ripetitive e la struttura tenue), ma scorre via alla velocità della luce e regala un pomeriggio di gradevole intrattenimento scacciapensieri.
3,5/5
http://moloch981.wordpress.com/2013/0...
September 19, 2014
Boo.
Got to 46% and happily gave up.
Lines like "That wasn't first prize for the largest marrow at the Four Square Gospellers' flower show." make no flipping sense.
The book is described as camp. Maybe in the 1940's when it was written and everyone was still being rationed and rebuilding after the war this was camp, but not now. The Green Carnation is a much better example of camp in a much older book. Choose that one instead.
I couldn't keep the characters straight, didn't care what happened to them, they were all spoiled and ridiculous with no redeeming features.
Boo.
Got to 46% and happily gave up.
Lines like "That wasn't first prize for the largest marrow at the Four Square Gospellers' flower show." make no flipping sense.
The book is described as camp. Maybe in the 1940's when it was written and everyone was still being rationed and rebuilding after the war this was camp, but not now. The Green Carnation is a much better example of camp in a much older book. Choose that one instead.
I couldn't keep the characters straight, didn't care what happened to them, they were all spoiled and ridiculous with no redeeming features.
Boo.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews