This, to me, is a good example of a book that is primarily premise. The idea of London being broken up into little city states is amusing, but Chesterton doesn't do enough with the comic possibilities. It was difficult for me to enjoy this book, while constantly being reminded of "Passport to Pimlico," a much more whimsical take on the notion.

The theme of the Napoleon of Nottingham Hill is that it is better to live a short exciting life than a long boring one. GKC would argue that the moment when you are most lucid and the world is convinced that you are mad is exactly when you are the most sane. The Napoleon of Nottingham Hill is the story of how an irrational war among London's suburbs finally gives meaning to the lives of moderns who have become so board with living. The book also explains what humor is and how man can stand proud without sinning. If you read one book by GKC, let it be this book.

G.K. Chesterton has seen the future of men.
Auberon Quin, a man who takes nothing seriously. He is chosen as a leader that runs his country as a joke.
Mr. Buck, a man who takes himself too seriously. He accepts Quin's eccentric leadership as long as it doesn't stand in the way of progress.
Adam Wayne, a man who takes everything and everybody (except himself) too seriously. He believes Quin's way of the world is not a joke, but romantic and truthful. He fights for it with all his might!
These men help take the reader on an adventure of exploration of our life, our actions & our deepest beliefs. And what's more ?
-- a defense of our sense of "home" and our sense of "humor"!

Since Chesterton and Shaw so vehemently disagreed with each other on many topics, one would expect this quick text to be filled with antagonism. Instead, it is a delightful explanation of Shaw's background, biography and beliefs, told in a gentle, light-hearted manner. Chesterton shows a great respect for his adversary, while making clear his own views through quite a few of the one-sentence quotables for which he is well known.

Jeffrey Barnard was (in)famous in England for being a notorious inebriate, columnist, raconteur and wit. This persona informs the play's setting and content, with Barnard waking up at 5 a.m., locked in a pub having fallen asleep in the lavatory (the set at the celebrated Old Vic production with Peter O'Toole was angled and distorted like a set for 'the Cabinet of Dr. Caligari', presumably to represent Barnard's mentally blasted mindset).

Barnard proceeds to relate the story of his life as would a particularly entertaining drunk, through anecdotes and stream-of-consciousness memories. We learn about his relationships with women, his impotence, his haunting the Soho world of Francis Bacon et al, his gambling and alcoholism, his professional life, his ill-health. The various figures in his life referred to take part in his stories, some specific, if fictionalised, some generalised (e.g. 'Woman'), some hypothetical.

There is some suggestion that Bernard is in Limbo as he looks back on his life. Certainly, despite the garrulous 'old boy' humour and relentless verbosity, one feels Waterhouse is straining for Beckett territory here, not just in the reference to 'Waiting for Godot'. Like many Beckett protagonists, Barnard is an old man trapped in a failing body, trying to recuperate an identity or purpose from scattered stories that have become so polished in the telling that his humanity seems wiped out. It's there too in the unconvincing silences of reflective deceleration that punctuate the general hi-jinx.

Unfortunately, because Waterhouse was a personal friend of Barnard's (and appears here in a lovely anecdote), he is too indulgent , and the closing accusations levelled at him, as much fragments of his life as flaws in his personality, sound like a cosy valediction. The play is often very funny, but the rambling structure means that it can be sometimes wearying and increasingly inert.