[Note: First Things asked to re-publish a piece I wrote, and it seems people are going to be referred here by one of the commenters there. 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.]
Some gut responses:
Some gut responses:
2. If Chesterton and I were to meet at a social event, I would ingratiate myself and try to refrain from making comments about his work. I would probably leave the event early. Fortunately, no one would think much of this.
3. If Chesterton sent me an email asking for my opinion of his works, I would reply in good humor and make a mild but insincere apology for his work, claiming that something like it is necessary "for the people" "in our times".
4. If someone I look up to were to ask me about my feelings toward Chesterton, I would hedge the question and make ambiguous comments about how full of wit he is.
5. If I were to describe Chesterton to someone who had never heard of him, I would say he was an overly bombastic apologist from the last century who is still revered by the "conservatives" of our day as a great wit, probably because he gives the impression of having destroyed the Zeitgeist with little quips, when actually he just rattles off an endless series of paralogisms and bad metaphors.
6. Were I to teach my children about Chesterton, I would tell them about Voltaire and how horrible he was, and explain that Chesterton is the 20th century Christian equivalent. And I would say how important it is to be forthright with other people, intellectually honest, and careful with your thoughts.
Croncor, I hope the commenters over there don't get you down. Literary cults are weird little things. The post needed to be written.
ReplyDeleteGKC had a good humor and fighting spirit. He could write well, had terrific wit, and was nearly always on the right side. That being said, it's hard to read ten pages of his non-fiction without wanting to toss the book for muddy thinking, logical base-stealing, or awful metaphors.
Thanks Matt. And you don't need to call me croncor. The world knows who I am. (That should be accompanied by an evil laugh, shouldn't it?)
ReplyDeleteAh, that's true - I was writing in haste!
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of haste, and lack of time, something amuses me. Like you, I'm a graduate student rushing to the December finish. I just made that reply to you and then noticed you'd written recently on Aquinas and his notion of time. In my other browser window - for the paper I'm avoiding - the summa, open to a section where I'd sought to understand his notion of the creation of time. I do believe TA is sending a clear message to get back to work.