Hitchens seized upon the ‘paradox’ idea and sought to extinguish it, which missed the point. The whole ‘paradox’ theme is a result of Chesterton’s recognition that the truth was so often inverse to popular wisdom.

To my mind, GKC did not simply seek out paradoxes; he wanted to see the world with fresh eyes, and the best way to do that was to turn conventional thinking on its head. That’s why parodies and critiques don’t work when they focus on his style. The style was driven by the substance.

The overriding impression for this Chesterton fan is that the man could get to the essence of an idea and free it from the tired, lazy cliches and attitudes that prevent us from fully appreciating the truth; and he would do so in a typically joyous and witty fashion.

You’ve never seen the appeal of C.S. Lewis?!? I jest, though I’m a fan of his. Thanks for your comment. I actually do quite like Chesterton—I’ve read and benefited from Orthodoxy, The Everlasting Man, Manalive, the St. Francis biography, The Man Who Was Thursday, dozens of his essays, etc.—and we’re likely to post a more, um, balanced view of him on the blog or perhaps On the Square soon.

Elliot Milco’s view is not that of all First Things staff. (David Mills, for instance, is on or at least used to be on the board of the Chesterton Review.) I believe it was mischief more than any general FT hostility to GKC that lay behind the post.

As for the Beerbohm parody, I agree with you that he doesn’t capture the substance; as a fan of Chesterton, I simply found it entertaining (actually, more like hilarious). Given this week’s other post on GKC, I can see how people would think I meant to ridicule him. That was not my intention.

Those who dislike Chesterton but embrace what he embraced, namely orthodox Christianity, I do not understand. There is certainly no accounting for taste. I’ve never really seen the appeal of C.S. Lewis, although most Christians are gaga for him. Honestly, until recently I never saw what all the fuss was concerning St. Augustine, but I’m slowly coming around.

Try talking to an Aristotalean about Plato, or a Thomist about Bonaventure. The annoyance, or the simple misunderstanding, is palpable. Didn’t St. Thomas think that St. Anselm’s proof of God’s existence was circular logic? It’s hard not to think that Aquinas was simply missing something he was not temperamentally inclined to seeing.

But it does seem that there is a certain element at First Things that enjoys prodding the Chestertonians to produce a reaction. I don’t know if it’s frustration, or condescension, or just mischief. But I would submit that Milco’s piece was not very charitable, and the quotes above seem to be subtly scolding to adoring Chestertonians.

Concerning Beerbohm’s piece – he gets the tone but is nowhere near the substance. But then again, if you’re not one of those who “gets” Chesterton (by all accounts, a minority among the readership of First Things) you wouldn’t really notice.