Defiling Our Beloved G.K. Chesterton

Austin Bramwell

I am a freelance opinion-monger living in New York City.

Related Post Roulette

35 Responses

  1. Winston says:

    A side note, almost unworthy of mention: What turned me off to Chesterton (and as a child I loved the Father Brown stories) was his rather extreme anti-semitism.Report

    • valdemar in reply to Winston says:

      @Winston, Yes, but not just that. As Orwell pointed out, Chesterton had to prove – over and over again – that Catholics are superior to everyone else, which is why so many of the Father Brown stories are bent out of shape by bigotry.Report

  2. Pub Editor says:

    Adam Gopnik had a good piece on Chesterton in the New Yorker back in 2008; it’s behind a paywall, but the abstract is here. Sample:

    A Frenchman or an Italian, even a devout one, can see the Catholic Church as a normal bureaucratic human institution, the way patriotic Americans see the post office, recognizing the frailty and even the occasional psychosis of its employees without doubting its necessity or its ability to deliver the message. Chesterton writing about the Church is like someone who has just made his first trip to the post office. Look, it delivers letters for the tiny price of a stamp! You write an address on a label, and they will send it anywhere, literally anywhere you like, across a continent and an ocean, in any weather! The fact that the post office attracts time-servers, or has produced an occasional gun massacre, is only proof of the mystical enthusiasm that the post office alone provides! Glorifying the post office beyond what the postman can bear is what you do only if you’re new to mail.

    Gopnik also discusses Chesterton’s anti-Semitism.Report

  3. Pub Editor says:

    Strange thing: I have always liked C.S. Lewis; and it is clear from Mere Christianity and other sources that Chesterton was a big influence on Lewsi; but I have never liked Chesterton. I guess transitive properties do not hold in cases like this.Report

  4. Austin Bramwell says:

    Googling around, it seems that the Gopnik essay is the cutting edge of Chesterton criticism. Pub Ed’s excerpt of the essay I think is spot on.

    I have nothing to say about Chesterton’s alleged anti-semitism, since I haven’t read any of the relevant texts. You can find plenty of arguments out there pro and con. I would just add that, for better or worse, for jewish and gentile writers alike, the “jewish question” in Chesterton’s day was a live question about which all writers were expected to have opinions. It is not surprising that about 97% of those opinions offend us today, since for us very premise that there should be public discussion of it at all makes us squirm. There are plenty of other beloved figures of that era who also had offensive views — Churchill, for example.Report

  5. Jason Kuznicki says:

    Chesterton was a first-rate writer. Hardly a day goes by when I don’t at some point think, “Damn, I wish I’d written The Man Who Was Thursday.”

    Only I’d have subtitled it “A Farce.”Report

    • Mike Schilling in reply to Jason Kuznicki says:

      @Jason Kuznicki,

      In other words, Chesterton is an irrationalist. His seeks to paralyze the intellect in order to make room for awe.

      This is a perfect description of TMWWT, and a large part of what makes it so special. Manalive is far less satisfying, because the meticulous explaining away of Innocent Smith’s “crimes” leaves no room for awe: it reduces Smith to a clever play-actor.Report

  6. I’m surprised no one has brought up TS Eliot’s line on Chesterton: “Mr. Chesterton’s brain swarms with ideas. I see no evidence that it thinks.”

    It’s incredibly frustrating to try to read Chesterton as if he’s a philosopher, but I can (and do) read him for his brilliant imagination. You quote Cowling as saying, “All he had — though he had this to the point of genius — was a talent for compressing long arguments into short paradoxes which left the reader to suggest the application for himself.” That’s enough for me, really.Report

    • DM in reply to William Brafford says:

      @William Brafford, I very much agree. Although I’m a great fan of Chesterton’s writing, I find almost nothing in his politics or religion that I agree with. Jorge Luis Borges was an admirer of Chesterton’s, but felt that Chesterton’s intent in writing and his effect were quite dissimilar (to paraphrase, Chesterton intended to write fairy tales where the moral centre is exalted, but inadvertently wrote horrific stories – labyrinths with no centres).Report

  7. John says:

    I grew up in an evangelical, conservative home and first approached Chesterton with great excited, with the anticipation of the kind of awe you describe. The reading experience was very airy, though I remember feeling a bit guilty, chastising myself that I must be missing something.

    Andrew, I would love to hear your thoughts on Walter Percy’s Lost in the Cosmos, which has much fluffier exterior, but seems to have a more solid center, though it ends with a sort of 1980s version of a Chestertonian paradox.Report

  8. Bert says:

    The difference in Eliot and Chesterton is one of literary taste, not necessarily soundness of logic. It doesn’t make anyone less of a Christian because they can’t enjoy Chesterton. Tastes vary. I don’t like Eliot’s theories of poetry or his dismissal of Shelley, Blake, and Swinburne, but I still recognize that he was a great thinker, just not to my own tastes. I think the argument that Chesterton was some kind of reactionary incapable of profound thought is just wrong. Is there any better defense of the Sermon on the Mount than when Chesterton says “It is certainly not the morality of another age, but it might be of another world.”Report

  9. Mr. Derp says:

    Sounds like a lot of bloviating about effluvia to me.Report

  10. John C says:

    Re: John – The first time I read Walker Percy’s Lost in the Cosmos, I was a little bewildered and unimpressed – but it grows on you. Percy never struck me as an incredible writer, but he managed to combine both the types of pithy sayings for which Chesterton is famous with, as you say, a strong center. Lost in the Cosmos seems to have a set of pretty cogent thoughts on the limits of rationality, the relationship of mind and body, and semiotics, among other topics. It’s a pretty underappreciated book.Report

  11. Jaybird says:

    Chesterton strikes me as someone literary folks would read when they want to be reassured that they reached the proper conclusion but not someone that folks would be moved by if they didn’t already buy into everything.

    Sort of like Lee Strobel except with a high school reading level.Report

  12. M Moran says:

    I think people like Chesterton, even find him lovable, not because they think he’s a philosopher who makes sense of Christianity, but because he’s a wonderful person and writer who tries, despite his equally wonderful flaws, to make sense of it, and in doing so encourages others. That’s why he has lasted, a writer with a big heart and a big sense of humour, unlike his friend Belloc.Report

    • @M Moran,
      Belloc survives. THe reason Belloc has dimmed is that it is more difficult for non-Catholics to enjoy someone so militant. Also, his histories, while full of genuinely valuable insight are also riddled with errors.

      I like Belloc even more than Chesterton because I enjoy his fighting spirit, his willingness to make enemies for his cause, and well, while Chesterton sparkles like fireworks, occasionally Belloc’s prose shines like the aurora borealis.Report

  13. O. Rodgers says:

    We’d be a lot better off if people gave up Chesterton for Wodehouse.Report

  14. spinther says:

    Just wanted to note that several commenters mentioned Adam Gopnik’s New Yorker pieces. While he’s a very charming writer, I’m not sure that he states as explicitly as he might his own apparent bias against Christianity; I felt, for example, that his piece on C. S. Lewis was weighted too heavily toward a kind of subtle suggestion that Lewis was a bit of a sexual pervert, whatever his other struggles and complexities and remarkable abilities might have been…the impression a casual reader might have taken from the piece was that everything about Lewis was a bit compromised, including the subconscious motives behind his belief in Christianity. I have long felt Lewis was glib in certain ways, and too reliant on rhetorical sleight of hand rather than substance in his apologetics, but these are entirely different types of criticism–ones that might also, perhaps, be leveled against Chesterton.Report

  15. David says:

    I’d recommend two studies of Chesterton as a thinker:

    Kenner, Hugh. Paradox in Chesterton. Introd. by Herbert Marshall McLuhan. New York: Sheed & Ward, 1947.

    and more recently,

    Wills, Garry. Chesterton. Revised Edition. New York: Random House, 2001.Report

  16. David says:

    If you’re interested in argumentative apologetics without the rhetorical flourishes, I’d suggest anything by Richard Swinburne, of Oxford University.

    His writing style–argumentative and clear– couldn’t be any more different than Chesterton’s.

    Chesterton, you might say, tries to show the goodness and beauty of Christianity. Swinburne tries to show its truth.

    See any of the books listed at his Web site:

  17. jordan says:

    I feel compelled to ask why so many think of Chesterton as a writer of ideas (failed or otherwise,) rather than as an artist. No one here has mentioned, for instance, Chesterton’s literary-visual genius: his skill at “painting” sunsets, his use of color, the dreamlike imagery that often saturates his stories. His best work is brilliant as art, regardless of it’s philosophical qualities.

    And what of his work as a critic? The same aesthetic bent that compromised his apologetics gave him a natural insight into literature and the arts.Report

    • Rufus F. in reply to jordan says:

      @jordan, He’s also got a knack for synthesis and explanation. I remember reading his book on Aquinas and being somewhat impressed by the prose and the interesting ideas it inspired. Then I read Aquinas and wondered how he’d managed to explain him so clearly and succinctly in so few pages. Not too many Aquinas scholars have pulled that trick off.Report

      • Roger Evans in reply to Rufus F. says:

        @Rufus F., But it isn’t the rôle of an Aquinas scholar to reduce some of the most subtle thinking in the history of our culture to something simple.Report

      • @Rufus F.,

        Here’s what the Thomist Etienne Gilson had to say about Chesterton:

        “Etienne Gilson . . . [w]hen St. Thomas appeared . . . said to a friend of mine ‘Chesterton makes one despair. I have been studying St. Thomas all my life and I could never have written such a book.’ After Gilbert’s death, asked to give an appreciation, he returned to the same topic—‘I consider it as being without possible comparison the best book ever written on St. Thomas. Nothing short of genius can account for such an achievement. Everybody will no doubt admit that it is a “clever” book, but the few readers who have spent twenty or thirty years in studying St. Thomas Aquinas, and who, perhaps, have themselves published two or three volumes on the subject, cannot fail to perceive that the so-called “wit” of Chesterton has put their scholarship to shame. He has guessed all that which they had tried to demonstrate, and he has said all that which they were more or less clumsily attempting to express in academic formulas. Chesterton was one of the deepest thinkers who ever existed; he was deep because he was right; and he could not help being right; but he could not either help being modest and charitable, so he left it to those who could understand him to know that he was right, and deep; to the others, he apologized for being right, and he made up for being deep by being witty. That is all they can see of him.’” (Maisie Ward, Gilbert Keith Chesterton (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1943 619 – 20)Report

  18. Adam Greenwood says:

    I’m glad I’m not the only one who, while not going so far as to say that the Emperor has no clothes, at least thinks you can see his boxers in places through them.Report

  19. KFofB says:

    Seems an odd way of demonstrating that he doesn’t understand Chesterton’s purpose. There are people who want to take GKC down a few notches, but they never quite seem to figure out how.Report

  20. vvl says:

    So the book Orthodoxy fails entirely to be a certain thing it never tried to be: A set of syllogisms comprising a coherent and entirely logical philosophical argument. And I needed this article to tell me that…Report

  21. BP says:

    YES, YES, the emperor has never been more naked.
    Orthodoxy is unbearable. Circular reasoning, florid as heck, and so empty. Christians should hide him in a closet because he does a disservice to the faith.Report

  22. I found Chesterton’s Orthodoxy a very great read, particularly the quote that “man can understand everything by the help of what he does not understand”. I then went on to make a video on it, because I found it so interesting – and truthful in my opinion. I find the statement is true also in my background in the sciences.

    I think Orthodoxy is a great book for insight into Christian ideas and the merit of Christianity. I do NOT view it as a cohesive or necessarily convincing, reason to convert to Christianity, however. I find other arguments, such as the historical one, much more convincing.Report

Discover more from Ordinary Times

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue Reading