Comments on: Against Chesterton Quotations

By: John Hinshaw

John Hinshaw — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 15:44:57 +0000

The only frivolity of Chesterton was that he was a journalist – something he considered completely frivolous.

By: David

David — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:55:44 +0000

“A woman uses her intelligence to find reasons to support her intuition.”

More times than I care to count my wife will suggest Z to a problem, when I am in the midst of if A then B, then C,, to find a solution..

I’ve learned not to dismiss Z, but to thoughtfully consider, and more often than not -she’s right. I am not alone in this experience. I cannot explain it, but it is certainly not misogyny to point this out. It’s praise of the feminine nature. It only appears to be misogyny because it is not hard masculine which our society tells us “all must be”.

Ah gender, male and female He made them, viva la difference.

By: andrew

andrew — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 18:18:26 +0000

I think the world of Chesterton, but the ire that this post has drawn from his defenders calls to mind Lewis’ concept of the “inner ring.” God have mercy on those outside the GKC ring!

By: tommyhawkinsmus

tommyhawkinsmus — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:09:27 +0000

Your criticism of Chesterton, those who read him and/or those who quote him has no base. I don’t mean that you’re wrong to make fun of all of those parties, I mean that you don’t have a point. There is no concise element to either this spread or the spread on your blog or anything that actually says what your issue is… unless it is simply that you do not like how famous the man is.

Because you don’t have a point you can’t be challenged on any of your opinions. You slither away from all of the responses because you have not made any real claims. There is nothing for criticisms of your article to object to.

Do a three part analysis – attack first the man, then the followers and then the blind quoters. Fire on all cylinders, make your voice heard! I am certain your books will fly of the shelves! But please, next time you decide to tackle a giant (and it can be done) enlist more of your mental capacity than Ad Hominem.

By: Katie

Katie — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:46:17 +0000

Thanks for being brave on Chesterton. Now how about lists for his progeny Milbank and Zizek?

By: TJA

TJA — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 06:14:33 +0000

Peter, you are right: if being compared unfavorably to GKC means that I’m pithy, clear, and funny, then it would most assuredly test my humility. That being said, I suspect there is still room for flippancy in the kingdom of Heaven; if St. Jerome managed to get in, so can we poor souls who, despite the howls of outrage or the ponderous and condescending replies of the Chertetariate, do not like Chesterton, and are willing to joke at his expense (my feelings towards my experience of Trad-culture being besides the point). Though, I must say that Prof. Lewis’s categories there are sufficiently vague enough as to be easily applicable to any situation in which someone makes a joke we don’t like.

Thankfully, in the end, the Church is large enough to embrace all of us, while providing writers and thinkers that speak to the soul. God speed to the folks manage something out of GKC.

Finally, I can’t help but mention that I took the same tone as yourself and other commenters on this thread, so that begs the question as to whether you ought to ignore the speck in my eye. I thank you for your concern though, old boy!

By: mandamum

mandamum — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:02:07 +0000

Regarding this one:

‘ “Without education, we are in a horrible and deadly danger of taking educated people seriously.”
Maybe it’s because Chesterton wasn’t educated that he believed this, but I find that educated people tend to take each other much more seriously than uneducated people take them. ‘

I see what you’re saying, but on the other hand, I think the anecdote in “Expecting Adam” about the Smurf Pool is something those who have done graduate work can sympathize with: A friend of the author is doing psych research involving swimming animals, and they were swimming in the cheap kids’ wading pool with smurfs on it. So the author referred to it in passing, in conversation with fellow students and professors, as “watching mice swim in a Smurf pool”. They all nodded knowingly, and someone made reference to “Professor Smurf” and the good work he was doing. Sometimes you have to be there to see people faking it :)

By: PeterG

PeterG — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:31:24 +0000

@TJA A certain uncle Screwtape once gave good advice concerning jokes. In letter 11, Screwtape delineates humor into the categories of Joy, Fun, the Joke proper, and Flippancy. Chesterton had a gift for the first and second of these, whereas Mr. Milco’s post missed the target of the Joke Proper (was the post intended to be Fun? I can’t imagine so), and then plunked down in Flippancy. Your own excursus against the Trads followed suit. I am no Trad, but I would caution you to avoid any further situations where your wit might be compared to Chesterton’s (unless you are trying to grow in humility).
@Brandon,
I award you the trophy for the finest post of the entire exchange: indeed the larger and happier soul!
@Milco,
Chesterton happily slogged it out against the writers of his day and begged no quarter. You started this fray with some bold strokes, but I find the milquetoast-esque “It may be prudent for me to remind readers that they don’t know me, that this blog is something I write primarily for myself, and that my sense of humor is rather unusual. It’s true, I don’t like G.K. Chesterton. Yes, in your eyes that probably means I deserve to be burned alive, or eaten by a million vermin less repulsive than myself. But for God’s sake, please remember that I’m just a grad student who wrote a satirical blog post and not the anti-Christ.”, or again “Chesterton’s line about tolerance is true, but I think mine is more needed[Tolerance is the virtue of a man who is sympathetic with those who are wrong, because he knows how difficult their lot is].” either unseemly, lacking conviction, or maybe just too inconsistent. Take courage; I am not as bothered that you dislike Chesterton as much as by what I perceive to be a lack of resolve. You have posted your writing at First Things; remember that we like a robust discussion here.

By: The Hebdomadarian

The Hebdomadarian — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 04:21:00 +0000

All of this is quite amusing. Those with an appetite for even more appalling Chesterton quotations (albeit with slightly more context) might make their way over to The Hebdomadal Chesterton from time to time. Exercise your wit by taking GKC down a notch every week.

By: Cady Crosby

Cady Crosby — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 01:54:24 +0000

As a young (15 years old) Chestertonian, I’m thrilled to see so many responses to this post. Having been linked to the blog post by Mark Shea, my “neighbor down the road”, it’s interesting to see how many people I know reply to this post -Nancy Brown, whom I met at the Chesterton conference in Reno, and Martin Cothran, my logic teacher via DVD, to name a few.
For myself, I’m an avid lover of Chesterton and am disappointed to see the result of a common misconception among individuals…namely, that Chesterton with context is just as good as Chesterton without. This blog post shows that context is actually deeply important. I would argue, along with multiple other commentators, that simply reading some of Chesterton’s work would clear up much of the confusion.
I believe fans of Chesterton can do him a disservice by simply throwing out quotes without any explanation or context. Chesterton never meant for his work to be an easy read or simple quote- it’s so much more than that. Mr. Milco, I would strongly encourage you to look at the American Chesterton Society’s work (www.chesterton.org) and simply pick up one of GK’s essays. You may find that instead of being “unbelievaby stupid,” that there is actually quite a lot of common sense in what he has to say.
And I would agree, Chesterton was of course a titanic-sized man! But I would argue that he was also a Titanic Hero in the eyes of the literary world.