Talk:G. K. Chesterton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the G. K. Chesterton article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Contents 1 Dickens 2 Broken links 3 Irish Independence 4 Need for more input 5 Inspiration for 1984? 6 Gandhi 7 Anti-Semitism? 7.1 Chesterton on Jews 7.2 Proportionality 8 Reminiscent 9 Chesterton the debater 10 Chesterton and Wilde 11 Influence section 12 Jewish Problem 13 Messed up edits? 14 Criticisms section 15 The Everlasting Man 16 Racism 17 Major revisions needed 18 Writing 19 is/are 20 "probably best remembered for his Father Brown short stories" 21 Chesterton vs Nietzsche

[edit] Dickens

This says that Dickens' popularity has never really waned much, but the article says that Chesterton was responsible for popular revival of his work, as well as claiming that T. S. Eliot et al all believe that Chesterton wrote the best book on Dickens. Given the questionable nature of the host of other claims that were made here about what Chesterton inspired, is anyone aware of any support for these claims? Actual quotes from Eliot? FireWorks 20:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Broken links

The link to "An extensive collection of e-text links" ( http://www.dur.ac.uk/martin.ward/gkc/books/ ) seems to be broken. If it still does not work two weeks from 27/12/2003, perhaps it should be removed.

A replacement link would be: http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/author?name=Chesterton%2c%20G%2e%20K%2e%20%28Gilbert%20Keith%29%2c%201874%2d1936

It worked when I tried it just now. —Paul A 05:38, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Independence

The claim that a Chesterton novel "inspired Michael Collins to lead a movement for Irish Independence" is somewhat fanciful. Serious historians would not contend that a Chesterton novel was the sole or central influence on Michael Collins' career as a revolutionary.

Many of these passages bear a curious resemblance, word for word (including the disputed phrase above concerning Collins), to the descriptions on www.chesterton.org. I admit that I am new at this, but if I wanted to, I'd just go to that "fansite" rather than the Wiki entry, which I expect to be more independent. - Reflect

[edit] Need for more input

I guess the American Chesterton Society put this article together, and good for them. But if people want more voices represented they should add theirs. I plan to add some things once I have a moment and can get the hang of the process. (I have only just discovered Wikipedia.) - Stratford Caldecott (G.K. Chesterton Institute)

[edit] Inspiration for 1984?

I have read a large proportion of Orwell's letters and notes, and I'm afraid I have never come across any evidence to sugest that The Napolean of Notting Hill was the inspiration for 1984, nor can I see any references to the earlier book in 1984 itself. The most Orwell ever said about Chesterton was that he was a talented novelist whose later works decended into Catholic propaganda.

If somebody can offer some evidence to substantiate the claim that TNONH was the inspiration for 1984 then I would be happy to concede, otherwise I will remove this claim from the article. Iron Ghost

I found that it was entered here on 9/2/04 by an anonymous user under the comment "Chesterton's influence". I left a message at 130.89.1.19's talk page asking for a reply within a week. If he/she doesn't respond by then, axe it. David Bergan 21:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

They are both set in the same year, so I'm sure thats a basis for such an idea. See [1]. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 22:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that seems the most likely explaination. However only the early part of the book is set in 1984 and in any case, its a pretty tenuous link. Iron Ghost

But a real one none the less. Perhaps it should be reworded, but the mention should probably stay. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 05:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

As a veteran of long debates over Orwell's inspiration over in the 1984 article, I have seen no evidence whatsoever for Chesterton actually inspiring 1984 -- remember that inspiration is a specific historical claim that needs to be supported by something more than "hey, this other book was similar". I say remove the claim, and demand attribution (i.e. a quote from Orwell or one of his biographers) before it gets inserted again. -Ben 13:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the Orwell referrence from the influences section, as its now been a week and no response. Iron Ghost 21:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

-Saying that George Orwell "gave no indication" that he was influenced by GK Chesterton is fairly biased, because no one can be perfectly sure that Orwell never, even in passing, mentioned this influence. Jontveit

It is not biased in the least. Orwell was never shy about naming his influences (for example, he gave credit to Zamayatin for his influence on 1984) and yet he never once wrote anything to suggest that Chesterton was an influence on his work.

The claim that 1984 was inspired by THONH is based entirely on the fact that part of the book is set in 1984. The year is not even mentioned by name, Chesterton mearly states that the story begins eighty years in the future (the book was published in 1904). This is a very obscure a tenuous link and the only reason that the Orwell reference appears in the article in any form is as a compromise with the people who insist that Chesterton influenced Orwell. Iron Ghost 03:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've studied both books rather closely. There are tremendous differences in theme and message. It seems unlikely that the mere suggested date in which the events of Napolean took place could have 'inspired' Orwell's book. In the light of no further evidence, we should take this out. Ross Lawhead 11:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

fwiw I agree: take it out. --Lavintzin 20:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. Iron Ghost 21:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gandhi

Chesterton and Gandhi - Could we add a few details as well as change it to Gandhi was aware and perhaps influenced by Chesterton? It was a little more complex than suggested here.User:Mohan_ravichandran

The claim that: "An essay that Chesterton wrote for the Illustrated London News inspired Mohandas Gandhi to lead the movement to end British colonial rule in India" is rather vague, it dosn't even give the name of the essay in question. Also it is phrased in such a way as to suggest that this essay was Gandhi's sole inspiration.

Additionally a slightly different claim that Gandhi was inspired by The Napoleon of Notting Hill has appeared on that book's page. In my opinion these claims should be removed unless some evidence to back them up is provided. Iron Ghost 5 August 2005

Seems to be true, I found a couple of cite for it and stopped looking. The better of the two was chesterton.org.

¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 06:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but do they actually give the name of the article in question? Or where Gandhi said that it inspired him? It isn't very encyclopedic as it stands.

I emailed the American Chesterton Society to ask if they could throw some light on it, If I don't hear from them by next week I'll take it down. Iron Ghost 13:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

All we need to do is attribute it to the American Chesterton Society. Thats plenty encyclopedic. if you want to go and do the research, and cite another POV on the historocity of this, feel free. The American Chesterton Society is more than good enough a reference for our purposes here. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 04:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I find it a little bit questionable to have such a momentous claim backed up only by an organization devoted to creating interest in Chesterton. I'm not sure that it's fair to leave it in a factual article without another reference or POV.

Agreed. I emailed the ACS to ask if they could throw some light on this claim but they didn't get back to me. I'm removing the Gandhi claim, it can be restored if and when some more detail is provided. Iron Ghost 14:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Semitism?

Is there any source for the accusations of anti-Semitism? Chip Unicorn 00:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, in 1934 Chesterton wrote the following:

"In our early days Hilaire Belloc and myself were accused of being uncompromising Anti-Semites. Today, although I still think there is a Jewish problem, I am appalled by the Hitlerite atrocities."

Iron Ghost 12:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Where's that quote from? -Caufman 05:58, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Things in The New Jerusalem are often cited. Charles Matthews 08:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

It is from page 216 of Gilbert: The Man Who Was G. K. Chesterton, by Michael Coren (1990, Paragon House). Iron Ghost 12:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The anti-Semitism accusations should not have been included without reference to their spuriousness. See the Dale Ahlquist Lecture on "Irish Impressions" on the Chesterton Society's website. Primary source references to follow.

That's wrong. Chesterton said some things that are anti-Semitic. Ahlquist is hardly unbiased. Charles Matthews 08:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll put the Ahlquist link on the page. It's not a very cogent argument. Charles Matthews 13:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Then reference his supposed anti-Semitic statements and make sure you are not quoting A.K. Chesterton.

Bernard Levin's article references the third verse of [2] (sometimes suppressed) and the second verse of [3]. Levin writes '… since Mr. G. C. Heseltine … even has the gall to claim that Chesterton was not anti-semitic, I had better stop for a moment and demonstrate that he was'. I can't see why any fan of Chesterton would want to have all this on the page. No one here is in the slightest confused between G. K. and A. K. Contesting the point all the way will merely fill the page with more quotes. This has already happened over at Hilaire Belloc. Those in denial about what these guys did wrote (in GKC's case, rather casually) end up making this issue more and more central. Charles Matthews 09:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that a debate about this will just inflame the issue out of proportion, which is why I think it should stay on the discussion page before something like a concensus can be reached. I agree the sentiments expressed in the first poem are unseemly, but the poem is being spoken by a character (The Logical Vegetarian), not the writer. Should Shakespeare be blamed for the attitudes of Iago? The second poem isn't anti-Semitic at all. It uses the expression "Jew" instead of "Jewish person", but that was the parlance of the time. Was Martin Luther King a racist for using the term "negro" or the NAACP for using the term "colored"? BTW - many people (not necessarily here) do confuse AKC and GKC.

I for one am very tired of the anti-semite tarbaby being foisted on as many wiki-bios as possible, often in the intro or TOC. Sam Spade 23:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The point is not the settle the issue; but to report, proportionately and fairly, on controversy over it. So, editing the page to say 'the issue is settled' is out. Debating on the page whether the late Bernard Levin is wrong about anti-semitic content is not what we do. He was Jewish, as no one will be surprised to find out, and is clearly entitled to an opinion on the matter. He is right to say that Chesterton and Belloc are different cases; I believe strongly that one cannot understand what is being said without being clear about what they did and did not have in common on this. (I also think that the timing matters; the early 1920s and the late 1930s are the key times; but going into all that is too much in Chesterton's case - he was casual about anti-Semitic remarks, which was common enough at the time and looks quite bad now. Cf. for example W. N. Ewer.) Charles Matthews 08:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting debating it on the page; I'm saying that we should talk it out here. Even the accusation of anti-Semiticism can be devastating to one's reputation. If GKC was falsely accused of it, then the spuriousness of the charge must be included. I keep asking for quotes from GKC that are anti-Semitic and all I get in reply is 'well so and so said he was anti-Semitic'.

Well, it's in our charter that we handle it that way. It is part, though obviously not the whole, of NPOV. Charles Matthews 22:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I would have thought that the quote I gave above proves fairly conclusively that although he did not regard himself as anti-semetic, he held opinions that today would be regarded as such. Iron Ghost 23:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, its been about a century. This conversation reminds me of a page (it may have been deleted by now) called "list of white supremacists". That may or may not seem an acceptable article title to you, but I would hope we could agree that a certain editor was in the wrong when they insisted Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln be included as white supremacists. Times change, as do acceptable opinions. The fact is G. K. Chesterton was not a notable anti-semite. Sam Spade 16:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I like what A. N. Wilson writes: by treating him as a sage, we lose a lot of his essentially playful flavour. I think this applies. Those like Dale Ahlquist who have a stake in GKC as a sage (I have his book on my shelves) have to deny the clay feet. Wilson is correct that setting him up that way you actually do him no favours, and a pedestal is the wrong place. Charles Matthews 17:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know of any authentic sages who are utterly humorless. Either way, if he was or was not an anti-semite is anything but clear, well sourced or notable. Sam Spade 18:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The page currently alludes to the topic and then moves on. Believe me, you really don't want what Edmund Wilson, rather than A. N., said (1946). Charles Matthews 18:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

What we want and need is what Chesterton said. So far no one has produced any actual anti-Semitic statements from the man. Without them we are simply accomplices in slander.

I am trying, quite hard, to stop this going to 'Chesterton's day in court'. So, firstly, please, the legalism is counterproductive, and slander against the dead is not possible. The point about not saying make the case on the page is twofold: firstly it is entirely against Wikipedia policy to draw a conclusion such as GKC was/was not an anti-Semite. That is not what we do; we do a 'judge's summing up' rather than the 'foreman of the jury speaks', if you must have it that way. Secondly, any contest to see what evidence inevitably involves digging up the strongest arguments; it will be adversarial, and it will stay on the page, and it will tend to dominate the page. Sam is quite right to say that is undesirable. But, if there are enough people around trying 'refutation', it will happen. Bernard Levin was probably the UK's top columnist for a period in the 1970s and 1980s. Here's Bernard Bergonzi, a literary critic: Chesterton's attitude to the Jews doesn't seem to have developed much beyond a kind of rowdy schoolboy prejudice. A few lines before, thoug, he says that his and Belloc's anti-semitism was obvious and deplorable. But adds, As Orwell once remarked, there have been very few English writers who were not to some degree anti-semitic. Charles Lamb is a good example, the darling of a previous generation. There is no controversy about it, because he wrote (too honestly for our tastes) about going to a London synagogue and feeling uncomfortable about it. There is no controversy, because people don't try to defend him. Charles Matthews 19:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

As much as I detest the argument that the more we fight injustice, the worse it will be, I concede that the allegation can be included in brief if it is well referenced. Sam Spade 21:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I did not use the word "slander" in its narrow legal sense, as anyone can see from the context. I've also refrained, for the moment, from making any changes to the article itself to prevent the anti-Semiticism charge from being blown out of proportion. However, if the charge is groundless, then the lack of evidence in support of it must also be stated. Anyone can accuse anyone else of anything; that doesn't mean it should be included in an article. For example, some people insist Bill Clinton killed Vince Foster. The Clinton article handles that point well by saying, "some talk show personalities fomented conspiracy theories about Clinton's involvement in the death of long-time friend and aide Vince Foster, which was later ruled a suicide in an extensive investigation". Something like that is appropriate here - a single sentence that notes the utter lack of credible evidence of anti-Semiticism. After all, I'm still waiting for the actual anti-Semitic quotes from Chesterton himself - to be placed here in the discussion page. Instead I get 'Orwell said there were lots of anti-Semites' and 'Charles Lamb was an anti-Semite and no one tries to defend that' and Bergonzi and Levin . . . but no proof it was anything but groundless nonsense.

Well, there is the song of quoodle, a rather damning semination of virulent antisemitism... or not... ;) Sam Spade 02:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Just for sake of perspective: On the Jews and their Lies by Martin Luther. Sam Spade 02:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually it probably is a libel on (i.e. an attack on the professional standing of) Bernard Bergonzi, who has written extensively on early twentieth literature including Chesterton, to say that he would so express himself on no evidence. Charles Matthews 08:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Your argument is based on the premise that such a claim is being made, and that if it were it would be inaccurate. That has not occured here however, and I suggest you refrain from hinting at legal threats when making fallacious arguments. If someone makes an observation, it isn't libel against some other person who made an opposite observation, regardless of their standing. Sam Spade 20:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Come on now, I explained exactly what sense I was applying to the word. Charles Matthews 22:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand you wern't making a legal threat, but I still think it was rather hyperbolic. Sam Spade 00:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

---

If I could just change the mood a bit: I yesterday added G. K.'s Weekly, which I think would be of interest to Chesterton fans. Charles Matthews 07:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Very much so. Just curious, are you one? Sam Spade 14:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, you could look who compiled List of books by G. K. Chesterton. Actually I think he was never the same after 1914, and I'm selective in my admiration. Charles Matthews 21:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, lets wrap this up. I am fine w including:

"In our early days Hilaire Belloc and myself were accused of being uncompromising Anti-Semites. Today, although I still think there is a Jewish problem, I am appalled by the Hitlerite atrocities."

Wherever it fits, so long as it can be cited.

This whole anti-semite tossup is silly however, and potentially neverending. For example, I was watching Shakespeare w the kids today (a normal event in our household) and decided to look uo the wiki article. The wikipedia article informed me that not only was shakespeare an antisemite, but he was also likely a pederast as well!

This sort of thing eventually shocks the readers so early and so often that they become desensitized, and either end up becoming more accustumed to such aspects in others, mistrusting your information, or both. I'm not so sure this is the path we want to follow w some of these (less then notable) accusations. Sam Spade 00:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chesterton on Jews

I happen to be reading Everlasting Man now. It seems Chesterton has a high regard of Jews and Judaism. E.g.,

It is true in this sense, humanly speaking, that the world owes God to the Jews. It owes that truth to much that is blamed on the Jews, possibly to much that is blameable in the Jews. We have already noted the nomadic position of the Jews amid the other pastoral peoples upon the fringe of the Babylonian Empire, and something of the strange erratic course of theirs blazed across the dark territory of extreme antiquity, as they passed from the seat of Abraham and the shepherd princes into Egypt and doubled back into the Palestinian hills and held them against the Philistines from Crete and fell into captivity in Babylon; and yet again returned to their mountain city by the Zionist policy of the Persian conquerors; and so continued that amazing romance of restlessness of which we have not yet seen the end. But through all their wanderings, and especially through all their early wanderings, they indeed carry the fate of the world in that wooden tabernacle, that held perhaps a featureless symbol and certainly an invisible god. We must say that one most essential feature was that it was featureless… (p. 95)

…The more we really understand of the ancient conditions that contributed to the final culture of the Faith, the more we shall have a real and even a realistic reverence for the greatness of the Prophets of Israel. As it was, while the whole world melted into this mass of confused mythology, this Diety who is called tribal and narrow, precisely because he was what is called tribal and narrow, preserved the primary religion of all mankind. He was tribal enough to be universal. He was as narrow as the universe. (p. 97)

…What civilization meant we shall consider more fully in the chapter that follows; when we note how the power of demons nearly destroyed Europe and even the heathen heath of the world. But the world’s destiny would have been distorted still more fatally if monotheism had failed in the Mosaic tradition. I hope in a subsequent section to show that I am not without sympathy with al that heath in the heathen world that made its fairy-tales and its fanciful romances of religion… (p. 97)

I spent time typing this since it doesn't seem to make sense to call a man anti-whatever when there are a lot of his writings that seem to show the opposite and there is very little to show that he is anti.--Nino Gonzales 15:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Look at it this way. Chesterton, consistently, would argue for Home Rule for the Irish, and Zionism for the Jews. However, he didn't manage to treat the cases equally. You won't find him putting the same conditions on the Irish as the Jews. And that, pretty much, is a religious and economic matter for him. He's not prepared to treat Jews as Europeans, on the same footing. Bryan Cheyette's recent book shows how GKC went on about the 'Jewish International' to Rufus Isaacs, made a big deal of Jews anglicising their names, and so on. Charles Matthews 16:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proportionality

On the editing side, it seems better if the anti-semitism section is proportional to its volume in the author's writing, or its impact to society. For instance, Mark Twain was a anti-imperialist who supported Philippine Independence. The article on him mentions this in one paragraph, and probably rightly so, since Mark Twain is primarily a novelist rather than a political writer. Chesterton is primarily known as a Christian apologist (I think). I guess he has a lot of writings on politics. He is also anti-a lot of things (check out Heretics[4]). I think these should probably be given more space than the anti-semitism that he is accused of. He is very vocal and unambiguous with these other antis while the anti-semitism thing, from the New Jerusalem quotation above, seems to be something which he though some people accused him of, rather than a clear political stance. If no one objects, I'll try to do this, or at least put some proportion, to the article... once I have the time--Nino Gonzales 15:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The way to maintain the proportion is to expand the rest of the article, obviously. Charles Matthews 16:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree at either making cuts from the article or, if none can or will be made, then even putting it into a different article in which Chesterton and Belloc can be refered to fairly and equally, without having to naturally bias GKC. Out of the sixteen books that I've read that were written by Chesterton, both fiction, non-fiction, and biography, the only things that might be considered Anti-semetic were in the one book referred to, and one line in his autobiography where he says himself that what he says was out of proportion and misconstrued.Ross Lawhead 12:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No, that would be extremely bad for NPOV. And putting GKC and Belloc in the same boat is undoubtedly unfair to GKC. Belloc basically raved on about Jews in private conversation. He was an obsessive bore on the subject, and had opinions of the French type. There is nothing very like that in Chesterton. By the way, there is a 50 page chapter on this in the book I referenced above, which is a very solid academic treatment. The reason the section here grows is the obvious one: people say 'fuss about nothing', and within WP policy all that can be done is to report on the opinions of others. (Selective quotation is treacherous, so longer quotes are safer). Charles Matthews 13:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

But why can not what what you basically said above not be put into the article? Why spend so much time defending a charge which was ungrounded to begin with, and of which had very negligible influence or interference with Chesterton's life? Even 50 pages within the vast sum total of what has been written about Chesterton could be argued disproportionate. (I'll add here that I am not directly challenging you or demanding you remove something or make changes you don't want, I am interested in you perspective on this case, as you obviously are very knowledgable about it and it isn't something that I have come up against much)Ross Lawhead 13:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Reading the quotes in closer and more critical detail, I think it would be quite easy to take them down and still give the full meaning of what was intended. For GKC's quote, and as much as I love reading him and the eccentricity of that quote in particular, all of the salient information is contained in the first two sentences. For the second, I think that a creative use of ellipses could be used to bridge some of the political statments to bring the focus to GKC and his alleged 'illness'.Ross Lawhead 13:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No, the 'charge' was not 'ungrounded'. However there is a Wikipedia way of dealing with controversial matters. Which is that the matter should be presented to the reader without any serious slant, with opinions on both sides. A scholarly opinion exonerating GKC here would of course be most welcome.

By all means try to boil down the quote from The New Jerusalem. Quoting Chesterton at length ought to be most fair. Bryan Cheyette, Constructions of 'the Jew' in English literature and society (CUP 1993) is what I was talking about above. It is very thoroughly researched, and I largely agree with the conclusions, but too prosecutorial in detail to be good to include here (in my opinion). Charles Matthews 13:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your fairness and candor. Ultimately we need to give people a swift and neutral account. There's a way to be fair, comprehensive, and brief (I hope). We'll get there, we just need to keep batting it around a bit.Ross Lawhead 13:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the bits on Wilde and Shaw, by the way. It all helps to improve the article. Charles Matthews 14:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'll just say one more thing, after considering this during lunch, which is that if we had written as much on one of GKC's books, then that would justify a seperate article. I'm really going to try to encourage you to make another article to give you (and others) the amount of space this subject deserves to hash this out and 1) not to worry about length and 2) to be able to pull in contrasts between Belloc, etc. I'm beginning to see that a lot has been said on this (which is not even one book, but one article) and I would like to see a good article on this. I think you're the guy to do it. (In other words, go forth and multiply ;) )Ross Lawhead 14:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reminiscent

Reminiscent means recalling things past, given to or concerned with retrospection. Not the meaning its insertion in the article can carry. Please don't insist. Charles Matthews 12:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As all of the people under discussion are historical figures, then arguably we only can be reminded of them. I accept your disputation however. It is not the remeniscince I am insisting on, merely the fact that GKC did not follow Wilde and Shaw. Please do not insist on that. -RL --Ross Lawhead 13:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think in the deployment of paradox he did. The cases are otherwise very different. Reading what Maisie Ward says about Shaw and GKC, it is hard to escape the conclusion that GKC took plenty from Shaw, up to around 1909 when he wrote a whole book on Shaw, got it out of his system, and made a clean break with the Fabians. Charles Matthews 16:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

But a shared artistic style or form of speech is not the same thing as a shared viewpoint or perspective. Further, I don't think that you could argue that the use of paradox or irony originated with Shaw or Wilde. I agree completely that there are many similarities, but nearly all of them are superficial in nature, and to say that Chesterton 'followed' them is to badly state the case, and hint that Chesterton was an acolyte or inferior to OW & GBS, when for purposes of clarity and fair-handedness, we must describe him as a contemporary. On the surface you could state the case above, but to actually read GKC's writings, Heretics and his GBS biography in particular, is to show how much he disagreed with GBS on a very fundamental level.

Shaw born 1856, GKC 1874. No, not a real contemporary. Charles Matthews 16:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Shaw's first work was 1892, Chesterton's was 1900... that's fairly close. Plus, Chesterton died a couple decades before Shaw. There was probably a little cross-influencing going on there. My only point is that, although they are similar stylistically, underneath it, they are saying two very different things.Ross Lawhead 16:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think anyone would confuse their directions. Wasn't Cashel Byron's Profession 1885? Charles Matthews 17:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

People would confuse their directions if we confuse them. Aren't we to assume people are not familiar with the subjects in the articles we edit? Should we not aim for accuracy in our descriptions?Ross Lawhead 18:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've worked on that paragraph some more. Charles Matthews 20:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Ross Lawhead 09:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chesterton the debater

It says "Chesterton was usually considered the winner". I would like to know more about this. What is the source of this claim? I wonder about the truth of this. Eiler7 11:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. It seems that this page is the source. Does not seem like an unbiased source. How about I expand this claim to make it more specific? Eiler7 11:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You can just cut it. WP should be understated: it adds to credibility. Charles Matthews 15:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, "Chesterton loved to debate, often engaging in friendly public debates with such men as George Bernard Shaw, H. G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, and Clarence Darrow. According to his autobiography, he and Shaw played cowboys in a silent movie that was never released."

...seems to me to be a non-sequitor. Maybe an additional line in there to make the segue from his debate partners, to the fact that he considered most of them his friends and using the (unreleased) film as an example. Also, we should cite the film perhaps? Is an IMDB citation enough? [5] Or should we go LOC? --66.107.93.194 18:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think its best not to include a referrence to Rosy Rapture, as it is unclear whether or not this was the film that Chesterton was referring to in his autobiography (there could have been more than one film). Best simply to cite Chesterton's autobiography, where the claim comes from. --Iron Ghost 21:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chesterton and Wilde

"As a Christian, and in the end a Catholic, his conclusions were often diametrically opposite those of Wilde and Shaw."

Wilde was also a Christian (and eventually a Catholic) so this doesn't really make much sense. Should I get rid of this sentence? Iron Ghost 03:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The edit by User:Lavintzin adding Wilde and Shaw to the sentence seems to be negative. The 'opposite' conclusions were opposite to the tone of the satire: against the extremity of the aesthetes' approach, pro 'ordinary life'. Yes, there is a bit more common ground with Wilde, and with Shaw. That got lost in trying to accommodate what User:Ross Lawhead was arguing. I think I'll move the para on Dickens up, so that the whole thing can give a reasonably balanced view. Charles Matthews 08:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The evidence that Wilde's point of view is different enough from GKC to be completely distinct can be shown in Heretics by GKC. He describes Wilde's POV thus:

'In this cult of the pessimistic pleasure-seeker the Rubaiyat stands first in our time; but it does not stand alone. Many of the most brilliant intellects of our time have urged us to the same self-conscious snatching at a rare delight. Walter Pater said that we were all under sentence of death, and the only course was to enjoy exquisite moments simply for those moments' sake. The same lesson was taught by the very powerful and very desolate philosophy of Oscar Wilde. It is the carpe diem religion; but the carpe diem religion is not the religion of happy people, but of very unhappy people.'

This is far, far from Chesterton following in Wilde's footsteps, this is GKC pointing out a fundamental flaw in Wilde's thinking. From our point in history, it is easy to look back and see that yes, Wilde was a witty speaker and a converted Catholic and that yes, GKC was a witty speaker and a converted Catholic, they must have shared the same viewpoints, but this really is not true if you have really read Wilde, and really read GKC. Shall we create a heading expalining this in the article body?Ross Lawhead 11:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I never suggested that Wilde and Chesterton shared the same views, only that the text, as it stood, suggested that Chesterton's differences of opinion with Wilde were due to his Catholicism, which is plainly not the case. Iron Ghost 00:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand, and I see it was unclear. Is it better now? Ross Lawhead 07:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have no problem with the text as it now stands. Iron Ghost 15:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Influence section

Now that the main part of the article is in better shape, I think those bullet points can be sorted out. Some should go into the existing sections (eg the Dickens comment with the quote on GKC and Dickens), and the others can form a 'trivia' section. Charles Matthews 07:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish Problem

It is stated in the article that Chesterton thought there was a 'Jewish Problem', but it is not stated what he thought that problem was. It could be anything from how badly the Jews were being treated to his believing they wanted to take over the world. Could whoever wrote that please explain what Chesterton throught he 'problem' was? DJ Clayworth 05:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

In 1901 in The Speaker he was writing about the 'Jewish plutocratic problem'. (Bryan Cheyette, Constructions of 'the Jew' in English literature and society, p.189, asserts this). Charles Matthews 09:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

OK found a reference and added it in. DJ Clayworth 14:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Messed up edits?

Something's wrong at the end of the section on Chesterton and his contemporaries. (Searchs for "the great Gales of Ireland", which I suppose was Gaels anyway.) I don't have the time to track down where that came from or what happened, but it should be fixed. --Lavintzin 19:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've tidied up, fixed and formatted that odd sentence. It looks like a residual edit, but I don't know from where. It looks nice, but I'm ambivalent as to wether it should stay or go. I think someone added it just because they liked the quote, not necessarily that it throws a different light on GKC... although it does show him having a view on history, race, art, etc. I'll let someone else make the call. (you're right about 'Gaels' incidently. Let's keep an eye on this word) Ross Lawhead 08:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. What you said is true, and relevant, that GKC could hardly write without dropping epigrams along the way. There are dozens of other quotes I might have preferred, but I have no objection to this one. --Lavintzin 14:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms section

I note that there are no criticisms of Chesterton's books, notably Orthodoxy. If it is indeed a religious classic, I suspect that someone will have written about the fallacies and other flaws they see in it. Does anyone plan to add a criticisms section with details of ideas countering Chesterton's views? Eiler7 21:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If there is to be a section criticizing his views, it might be good to first have a section expounding them. And Orthodoxy would indeed be a good place to start. This could get pretty long even for an encyclopedia article, but it should be fun.

How about, for starters: "...scientific men do muddle their heads, until they imagine a necessary mental connection between an apple leaving the tree and an apple reaching the ground. ... They feel that because one incomprehensible thing constantly follows another incomprehensible thing the two together somehow make up a comprehensible thing. Two black riddles make a white answer." So how should one respond instead? "Granted, then, that certain transformations do happen, it is essential that we should regard them in the philosophic manner of fairy tales, not in the unphilosophic manner of science and the 'Laws of Nature'. When we are asked why eggs turn to birds or fruits fall in autumn, we must answer exactly as the fairy godmother would answer if Cinderella asked her why mice turned to horses or her clothes fell from her at twelve o'clock. We must answer that it is magic. ... A tree grows fuit because it is a magic tree. Water runs downhill because it is bewitched. ...I deny that this is fantastic or even mystical ... this fairy-tale language about things is simply rational and agnostic. ... the materialist professor (though he conceals his tears) is yet a sentimentalist, because, by a dark association of his own, apple-blossoms remind him of apples. But the cool rationalist from fairyland does not see why, in the abstract, the apple tree should not grow crimson tulips; it sometimes does in his country." Somebody want to argue with that!?

--Lavintzin 22:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Everlasting Man

I drafted an article for The Everlasting Man. It would doubtless benefit from review, criticism and/or editing by the rest of you interested in Chesterton. --Lavintzin 18:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Racism

Is this racist?

for example in the short story The God of the Gongs a Negro is described as having "apish teeth", and "the brains of a European, with the instincts of a cannibal". The boxer called Nigger Ned is head of a voodoo cult among his "fellow-barbarians" and murders people at crowded events as a sacrifice.

Please explain why this is racist. I think only the PC-hypersensitive-Americans find this racist. --Nino Gonzales 05:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You'd be wrong about that. Charles Matthews 15:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be considered racist by most peoples' definition (including mine). Iron Ghost 19:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I suppose most of the 21st century west would find this racist. But I'm really sincere in asking for an explanation. Is it the usage of "Nigger" or "brains of a European"?--Nino Gonzales 01:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Using words like nigger, apish and barbarian in relation to a black person demonstrates a racist attitude. It was just as racist then as it is now, the only difference being, that when Chesterton was writing racism was more accepted. Iron Ghost 02:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Will it be racist if you use them to describe a white person? I am asking this because it seems the racist usage of these words is based on some context--a context which not everyone in the world shares. I don't think I share this context, coming from a people who have not been part in the atrocities against the African people. I think Chesterton also doesn't share this context, in spite of his being English, since it seems the conciousness of this evil is not as strong as today (according to the racism article the word racism came to being only in the 1930's). If he lived today, I'm pretty sure he woulnd't use these terms. Isn't our labeling these writings as racist similar to a Christian in the Middle Ages calling the Ancient Greeks a bunch of Sodomites?--Nino Gonzales 03:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me put it another way: From what you are saying and from the racism article, it seems there are two ways one could be a racist:

1. Declaring that there is such a thing as race, that there are significant differences between races, and that some races are superior
2. Using racist slurs

I do not know if Chesterton declared the 3 things in #1, but the quotation above definitely does not qualify as a declaration of support for racism.

Nigger is clearly a racist slur in contemporary English. But was it a racial slur in Chesterton’s time? Negro, it seems, is also a racial slur in contemporary English. My 10 year old cousin uses Negro to refer to black people all the time. But in her mother tongue (Cebuano), Negro doesn’t carry all the historical baggage it does in English; it just means “black person.” I don’t think it’s right to call my 10-year cousin, as well as Chesterton, a racist.--Nino Gonzales 07:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I've answered the question once. Chesterton was writing in the idiom of his time, which was certainly racist. Don't try to exculpate him just because you think highly of him in other ways. (I have just spent two weeks in Uganda - please don't tell me that this is all some artefact of 'European' imagination.) --Charles Matthews 12:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but I totally have no idea of what you mean by “artifact of ‘European’ imagination.” Chesterton may have used language which we now consider racist, but I don’t feel it is right that the morality of a person’s writing should be judged by the criteria of another age. If racism is to be pointed out in early 20th century English language, it shouldn’t be with regards to one man’s writing but the entire language and society. And I don’t see how my opinions about other aspects of Chesterton have to do with whether or not some of his writing should be labeled racist.--Nino Gonzales 16:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, try to explain that to my African, Catholic friends, before telling us that GKC was some sort of great apologist. without the clay feet. --Charles Matthews 10:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, I do not think that you can determine a racist attitude by the description of 1 or 2 fictional characters. He describes a red-headed character in the Man Who Was Thursday as looking like a cross between an ape and an angel... but this isn't meant to be a slur against all red-heads. He describes another in that book as looking supernaturally evil because the character is wearing a pair of sunglasses... which isn't meant to say that all sunglasses-wearers are supernaturally evil. Or to leave GK alone for a minute, Shakespeare describes all kinds of white people as fools and idiots in his plays, with no intention of saying that white people on the whole are all fools and idiots. If I write a story with a fictional antagonist who happens to be a black person, that doesn't make me racist. If my story needs an bad, dumb or ugly character, it needs a person, of which I have only a handful of races to choose from, and my arbitrary decision to make him black or Chinese or white (or a lawyer or a banker or a doctor or a king) is by no means to say that all people of his race (or class) are evil, stupid, or homely. The charge of racism simply cannot be supported by that singular quote. What would be required is some sort of quote where GK says that all Black people are bad/dumb/ugly. Or better yet, to satisfy NOR, find an outside source that calls GK racist and quote that. Don't just pick a line or two from one of his short stories and report how it made you feel, that violates the OR policy. David Bergan 21:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the section to make it clearer that its being offensive is a POV. However, it still sounds like OR. As David Bergan says, it needs a source of someone accusing Chesterton of racism. The previous paragraph about the source of the accusations of anti-semitism also sounds OR.--Nino Gonzales 07:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I say, go ahead, be bold and remove both. We should never keep unsourced accusations in an article. David Bergan 15:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I have restored the disputed paragraphs and provided references to suport the fact the Chesterton was accused of being an anti-semite, both in his own time and today. In future please do not make such drastic changes to the text without giving people adequate time to respond to your concerns. Iron Ghost 18:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the anti-Semitism, I was out of line in my removal. However, regarding racism, you haven't added anything new to the singular quote from a short story besides a link to where one can find the complete story. The text isn't prima facie racism. It's merely a description of one Negro character, which cannot be generalized as his opinion of the whole race. And without an outside source, the charge of racism based on one (or two) wikipedian's reading of a story is a violation of the OR policy. Kindly, David Bergan 04:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that racism is anything like as important an aspect of Chesterton as the anti-Semitism discussion (which certainly matters). When he is writing about Africans, it is hard to see his as doing other than writing out of complete ignorance (and therefore from prejudice). If I read some of the things he wrote in the 1920s about the Japanese, for example, I get the feeling that he is a mere journalist spinning out material from very little (and this diminishes him). Perhaps the article doesn't need to say all that. --Charles Matthews 10:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major revisions needed

Now that we've (hopefully) reached a conclusion to the ongoing saga of the Anti-semitism section, perhaps we can make some headway with the rest of the article. In the last couple of days I've reworked the introduction and bulked out the Life section but there is still alot more work to do. In particular the Writing section, which should form the core of the article, has barely been touched in over eight months and is in dire need of attention. With a writer of Chesterton's importance and prolificacy it really should be much longer and ideally contain sub-headings for poetry, prose fiction, journalism, biography ect.

Additionally the Views and Contemporaries section is currently disproportionately long and contains to many block quotes (none of which are referenced) and doesn't really deal with his views (Eugenics, Imperialism, Irish Independence ect).

There are a great deal of quotations and anecdotes throughout the article, almost none of which are referenced. Perhaps the people who added them could add the references in, or at least give the details of where they are from on this page so that I can do it. Also there is a great deal of information in the influences section that needs referencing.

I will get to work on the Writing section tonight, but obviously, the more people who contribute the better. If we all start pulling in the same direction I'm sure that before long we can work this article up to Good Article Status, and eventually to Featured Article Status where it belongs. --Iron Ghost 17:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Writing

The sentence "Ker treats in Chapter 4 of that book Chesterton's thought as largely growing out of his true appreciation of Dickens, a somewhat shop-soiled property in the view of other literary opinions of the time." seems odd to me. What exactly is the "shop-soiled property" being referenced here? In fact, what is this sentence suggested at all? --66.107.93.194 19:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the "shop soiled property" is a reference to Dickens' reputation at the time. However I agree with you, that whole writing section, which should be the focus of the article, is in pretty grim condition and, in my opinion, needs a complete rewrite. --Iron Ghost 21:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] is/are

The following sentence:

He is one of the few Christian thinkers who are admired and quoted equally by liberal and conservative Christians, and indeed by many non-Christians.

has been changed twice to read "thinkers who is admired". 142.27.69.27 and dbergan, who made the changes, seem to think this grammatically necessary or at least better. dbergan says: 'grammar, "are" --> "is" What's the subject? "Who" Does who refer to a singular or plural noun? "Singular" Which one? "He" So do we use are or is for a singular subject? "is" Q.E.D.'

I've reverted it twice. Putting "is" in instead of "are" gives the following result: "There are few Christian thinkers. C is one of those few. Additionally (and this is awkwardly expressed), C *is* admired and quoted by all sides." This is factually incorrect (there are in fact not just a few Christian thinkers), besides grammatically awkward. (Would you write "She is one of the few surviving Ainu who was educated at the University of Kyoto"?)

Leaving "are" is much more coherent and more probably what was originally intended. "There are few Christian thinkers who *are* admired and quoted by all sides. C is one of those few." "Who" does indeed refer to a plural noun, "thinkers". This is (at least relatively) graceful syntax, and has the added advantage of being true. --Lavintzin 15:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

See, and I read the sentence as:

Chesterton is admired and quoted equally by liberal and conservative Christians, and indeed by many non-Christians.

"Thinkers" cannot be the subject because it is the object of the prepositional phrase "of the few Christian thinkers." Therefore, "is" would be correct in that sentence.

But rather than bicker about one particular verb, let's just rewrite the sentence in such a way that satisfies us both. I propose:

Unlike most modern Christian thinkers, Chesterton is admired and quoted by both liberal and conservative Christians, and even by many non-Christians.

What do you say, Lavintzin? Kind regards, David Bergan 20:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If GKC is one of the thinkers who are admired and quoted, of course it follows that he is admired and quoted. So are the rest of them. What ever does being the object of a prepositional phrase have to do with being the referent of a relative clause (a "who/which/that" adjectival clause)? ("Thinkers" is object of "of" in the first sentence in this paragraph, and is modified by a relative clause. No problem with that.) "Michael Jordan is one of the few athletes who are(/*is) supreme in their(/*his) sport(s)." Jordan is supreme in his sport, the (few) others are supreme in theirs. It's a perfectly good and normal structure. The version with singular verb and possessor is bad. It implies there are few athletes.

If the sentence is to be recast, I'd leave out the "Unlike ..." phrase, and just say he is admired and quoted. But I'd prefer to leave it as is.

--Lavintzin 22:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I put the question to the smartest English teacher I know, and this was his response:

Good morning, David, and thank you for waking my brain with this interesting grammar problem. My conversational urge is to go for the singular verb, since G.K. Chesterton is the subject of the sentence and the only specific noun to figure prominently in our thinking as we say it. However, I will argue that the plural verb is the correct form. The dependent clause "who are admired..." grammatically modifies "thinkers," not "Chesterton." Proof: if the dependent clause were not present, the sentence would read "G.K. Chesterton is one of the few Christian thinkers," a position held only by snarky secularists. We are using the dependent clause to limit the class of Christian thinkers to which Chesterton belongs; therefore, the antecedent of "who" is "thinkers," plural, and the clause's verb must thus agree in number with that plural noun.

Which is basically the same thing you had been saying. I am willing to go with both of you, and stick with "are". Thanks for your patience, David Bergan 16:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is a restrictive relative clause, "limit[ing] the class of Christian thinkers to which Chesterton belongs". Glad your English teacher, and now you, agree. --Lavintzin 18:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "probably best remembered for his Father Brown short stories"

What are the bases for this judgment? It's difficult to imagine. Falling back on anecdotal sources for illuminating the question, I note that this Google search: ("g k chesterton" -"father brown") yields 1.2 million hits, and this one: ("g k chesterton" "father brown") merely 100 k. An identical usenet search of Google's archive yields about 43 k for the former, and a mere 426 hits for the latter. Sorting an Amazon search by bestsellers[6] finds Father Brown nowhere in the top 12 books. An unambitious search for similar assertions[7] finds a lot of "probably" and "perhaps," but little enough evidence that one suspects the claim is a serial one, uncritically received and passed on. I would urge that this particular claim be dropped unless anything stronger than the anecdotal evidence I cite can be raised in its defense.

rasqual 21:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I support this. I have read this sort of thing since back in the 70's, on the covers or introductory essays of Father Brown collections and perhaps elsewhere, but I also doubt its truth. The evidence given above is more than enough to warrant refraining from making the claim. I'll go ahead and delete it. --Lavintzin 23:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chesterton vs Nietzsche

The Chesterton's misunderstanding of Nietzsche comes from words mismatch: he reads 'will' as 'direction', Nietzscheans and such more like 'energy', 'libido'. Chesterton puts pressure on decision, ways, choice (this is a result of mind dominated by the free will idea; and consequently: sense, thought, values and imaginations, turning will innerwards), Nietzsche on outward energy and real social power (whether political, business or just ideological; but always leads to having people do what you want, i.e. the will *propagates* and doesn't die out in a single), as opposed to putting your will to being better only in holy imagination. (You can tell that such dying out also propagates amongst people, like with Christianity; well, yes, but exactly this whole thing is what the german philosopher fights with for aesthetical reasons, or for self-growth, 'will to power', which turns to the same.) Not the vanity of "I'm good, I'm honest", but the real influences and possibilities in the world outside (so yes, even morality as a social force, but not the internal hidden involution of a single; although he seems to think the morality has to be loosed for many years before it should be used again, to get rid of Christianity he strongly opposes). The Nietzschean view of will is like "the raising line of life", i.e. the life energy which as its result involves even more energy, and so on. Within this context, 'life', 'will to power', 'energy' (you can translate this very well to Freud's libido, or even to neurotransmiters, according to today's science) and 'egoism' become synonymes. He considers will as a bow between suffering on the one side and pleasure on the other: how is it actually directed doesn't matter (it depends on your personality), only the higher tension. Actually, the meaning mismatch "problem" mentioned by Chesterton is already foreseen by Nietzsche in La Gaya Scienza 360, just read. So if Chesterton cites "act is great because of the will behind it", then well, if will level is great, then the act is considered great, yes. But the act can have some very weak will behind it, and then it's not preached. Simple, isn't it? Man acts are determined at least in their level by the quantum of energy behind them: the energy doesn't disappear (you might turn it into thinking, morality, into outside world: but the energy is generally always used somehow). For the philosophy of life, this quantum is the only important thing, and consequently the only unjust thing in this world, which then comes directly from physiological sources.

But ok, let's assume 'will' means mainly 'direction'. Then Chesterton says Nietzsche accepts any direction, "do will anything". No. Sorry, you didn't understand a bit of Nietzsche, then! also, you didn't understand why he strongly disliked Christianity. Here's his motto. Put your will outwards (that doesn't mean be a social animal; he admires solitude, but within limits: see the first sentences of Zarathustra: "Thou great star! What would be thy happiness if thou hadst not those for whom thou shinest!"). Do not focus on your inner, because then you do not have stimulus necessary to increase your energy (at least unless you're sexually unsatisfied, which Nietzsche silently recommends e.g. in Zarathustra). Care about your body and health. Care to be able to cope with any past act of yours: failure to do so is already a sign of decadence, he says (against "bad conscience"). Remember that the first sign of strength is your ability to NOT react. (Now, from scientific viewpoint, we could say that the world plays on our instincts in the inner-brain, i.e. lymbic system or so, which then produce appropriate neurotransmiters like dopamine or adrenaline; which then make your neural transmission, heart rhythm etc. faster, and consequently produce more energy and make life richer; or that e.g. sustaining from sexual satisfaction greatly increases your tension, your 'will bow', also on neurological basis. As an opposition, it's highly likely that even the sole words connected with God etc. are connected, through training of course, with narcotic-alike neurotransmiters who slow down neural transmission and generally drowse the outward energy stream, wherever is it directed.) These are some directions which are suggested by the philosophy of life. It IS a direction, it preaches 'will', and it IS generalized; that's no contradiction. Why does someone want to increase the level of energy in society? Because otherwise he (meaning this higher level of him) will be lost: so anyone with more 'will' has no other option to survive with his identity than to preach 'will'. The society, like nature, tends to equalize all gradients, in this matter too (energy level is catching): that's another thing Chesterton, a freewill confessor, fails to recognize.

Now, even understanding this, one could say that Nietzsche accepts any *outward* will, therefore himself he doesn't have any. That's actually true; as he states that even dialecticts and argumentation is already decadent and non-pagan. Yes: he lived in that epoch, in those circumstances who built him and he could not be otherwise: but at least his inner energy, 'libido', finally turning into books, noticed and diagnosed the problem. He surely would prefer a society where he does not have or want to write. But writing is also a great real, not imagined power: measuring by influences, he was one of the mightest men of XIXth century, because of the amount of his followers! In one book (Twilight of the Idols?) he writes clearly, that he aims at building the new ruling caste for Europe. Now, isn't this will to power? Is this altruism? Well, then call it whatever! (Remember he often stated that altruism is only a form of egoism - a less focused, self-directed form, but still driven primarily by your advantage, which only seeks a target to vent on.) Or would it be possible if he wrote exact instructions, "do this", "put your interest in this"? Would the world remember him for ages then? (Although he still instructs us slightly by each word: because each word is a suggestion what you might think about...)

Other Chesterton ideas, not connected with Nietzsche, might look smart as well, but they're usually just failed. Like e.g. the observation that Christianity matches the world in an amasing level. If he read Twilight of the Idols more carefully, he could perhaps notice that it's already summarized there as cause/result mismatch... But I doubt he read many Nietzsche's books, and even more doubt if he did it carefully... Or like the idea of distributism, which is indeed "work hardly, but don't grow much", so actually a form of socialism with practically all its vices. But that's a subject for another article... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.31.5.144 (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Ah! my head a' splode! --– Emperor Walter Humala · ^{( talk? · help! )} 23:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)