I don't get it.

The trouble with men is they're full of Thursday, dear me I'm terribly clever

God something Jesus something something

File: 8764.jpg (29KB, 368x314px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 368x314px

>entire point of previously not specifically religious work hinges on your in-depth knowledge of a specific Bible quote

Goddamn so much of the Western canon is gonna be obsolete and irrelevant in a hundred years...

>>9619870

deep

>>9619839
I read this two weeks ago and while I'm glad I read it I didn't particularly care for it. I didn't get it either. I'm probably too stupid, too much of a pleb, should go back to /reddit/, etc.

>>9619839
That's because it does not pause, it does not rest. Nor does it come up for air until the end.

>>9619839
Have this book because I'm a fan of Chesterton but have not read it. Bought it for a quarter at a ReStore warehouse.

>>9619839
Why don't you just enjoy it, instead of wondering if you got it and whether those meanies on lit are going to mock you for misunderstanding the themes?

>>9620842
It is like a Bach, no rests.

>>9619839
It's an argument for the Christian God. The Christian God is the only one that actually loves its subjects, so Chesterton wrote this novel to figure out, what would the Christian God be like if we removed Love, that is, the one thing that makes it unique.

>>9619885
That quote hardly requires in-depth knowledge. The basic concept of Jesus would cover it.