Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
May 23, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

Czeslaw Milosz: A Life

Truthdig Bazaar
The First Tycoon

The First Tycoon

By T.J. Stiles

The Face of Justice

The Face of Justice

Bill Blum

more items

Arts and Culture
Email this item Print this item

A Writer for All Time

Posted on Sep 30, 2011

By Allen Barra

“G.K. Chesterton, A Biography”
A book by Ian Ker

“The Everyman Chesterton”
A book edited and with an introduction by Ian Ker

Gilbert Keith Chesterton, to paraphrase Georges Clemenceau on Brazil, is the writer of the future—and always will be. Over the years, I have made numerous friends with whom I had little else in common except a knowledge and affinity for the works of Chesterton. After we discovered Chesterton, we thought it just a matter of time before his clear-minded, unquenchable good will conquered the earth. It has never happened; it has never come close to happening, and in fact, in the 75 years since his death, Chesterton has become less of a major cult figure than an inhabitant of—and this phrase may have come from Chesterton himself, written in a notebook when I was in college and never pinned down—the twilight realm of the praised but unread.

Two huge new much-appreciated volumes—“G.K. Chesterton, A Biography” by Ian Ker (Oxford University Press) and “The Everyman Chesterton,” edited by and with an introduction by Ian Ker (Everyman’s Library/Alfred A. Knopf)—will not make Chesterton famous, though they go a long way toward bringing his life and enormous oeuvre into focus. (I’ve been working at reading all of him for nearly 35 years, and I have no way of knowing how close I am to completing the task.)

To see a sampler of GKC aphorisms, click here.

Born in Kensington, London, in 1874 into a middle-class family of secular liberals, GKC—as he was often referred to in the press—retained some of his parents’ principles, but as a young man he found liberalism to be thin soup for the soul. He became a Catholic convert in 1922, but to many friends, before and after, his lifelong temperament was constant. His religious faith was first expressed in “Orthodoxy,” published in 1908, which, wrote its author, was not “an ecclesiastical treatise but a sort of slovenly autobiography.” The book established the cornerstones of Chesterton’s philosophy, which were simple and enduring throughout his life: faith and patriotism.

Most people who recognize his name do so because of his ever-popular “Father Brown” mysteries, which still delight and have seldom been out of print. Then, of course, there is his most popular single work, the novel—or, as some prefer, fable – “The Man Who Was Thursday,” first published in 1908 and republished in at least three new editions on its centennial. And then, as several admirers have noted, he should be most famous for his journalism, for which he is now probably least well known.


book cover


G. K. Chesterton: A Biography


By Ian Ker


Oxford University Press, 688 pages


Buy the book

book cover


The Everyman Chesterton


By G.K. Chesterton (Author), Ian Ker (Editor, Introduction)


Everyman’s Library, 952 pages


Buy the book

The Rev. Ker, noted teacher of theology at Oxford and author of a superb biography of John Henry Newman, is, as we would expect, concerned largely with Chesterton the Catholic convert and apologist. This Chesterton’s most widely read volumes, “The Everlasting Man”—a book that had enormous influence on the century’s most influential Christian apologist, C.S. Lewis—“Orthodoxy” and biographies of St. Francis of Assisi and St. Thomas Aquinas, have never been allowed to go out of print by Catholic presses in Britain and the U.S.

“I think I can claim,” Ker writes, “to be writing the first full-length intellect and literary life of Chesterton.” Though I have not read a couple of others, including a much-praised work by Maisie Ward (which is roughly a third of the length), I’m going to let Ker’s claim stand without challenge. His book is simply too richly detailed and includes too much in-depth analysis to be challenged. For anyone interested in Chesterton’s Edwardian background and his intellectual, literary and religious development, “G.K. Chesterton, A Biography” will prove to be definitive.

Nor can it be said that Ker is not unmindful of Chesterton’s stature in other literary areas. He is a good critic, one capable of casting a cold eye on his subject. He is a bit puzzled that GKC is dismissed as a “minor writer” by many admirers of Newman, Thomas Carlyle, John Ruskin and Matthew Arnold. He is clear that Chesterton’s great literary works are not the once-famous novels and poems but “Charles Dickens,” “Orthodoxy,” “The Victorian Age of Literature,” “St. Francis of Assisi,” “The Everlasting Man,” “St. Thomas Aquinas” and the “Autobiography.” I intend to add to that list of secular titles later, but it’s clear that the religious books were Ker’s primary focus in undertaking this huge and impressive work.

This will no doubt satisfy many of the faithful, but there are a great many more of us who are interested in Chesterton for reasons other than his religious writings, and they may feel, as I often did, somewhat shut out of the discussion. Let me put it this way: Whatever Chesterton’s shortcomings as a writer, it’s doubtful that any 20th century author amassed such an amazing list of literary groupies. In fact, the roster of his most famous readers is nothing short of astonishing in its diversity.

George Orwell, whose thought was alien to much of the Catholic conservative principles of Chesterton, admired his integrity and his criticisms of both capitalism and socialism. Much the same could be said for H.G. Wells. “I love GKC,” Wells wrote, “and I hate the Catholicism of [Hilaire] Belloc. If Catholicism is still to run about the world giving tongue, it can have no better spokesman than GKC. But I grudge Catholicism GKC.”

George Bernard Shaw, a committed socialist and lifelong vegetarian who was as different from GKC’s beef and ale temperament as it was possible to be, nonetheless maintained a warm friendship with him, kept warm by their private and public debates. “I might say that [Chesterton] is seen at his best when he is wrong,” Shaw said. Ker states that GKC “had argued on practically every subject with Shaw … without ever quarreling.” Chesterton wrote a brilliant little book on Shaw, to which Shaw contributed the cover blurb: ” … the best work of literary art I have yet provoked.”

Belloc was impressed by his friend GKC’s characteristic mastery of paradox; William James found him to be, according to Ker, “a tremendously strong writer and true thinker, despite his mannerism of paradox.”  Evelyn Waugh embraced the Catholic treatises but was put off by the gloomy foreboding of anarchism in “The Man Who Was Thursday.” T.S. Eliot saw a kindred spirit in the author who created the air of impending dread that pervades “Thursday.” Clive James loves his journalism. A lady once remarked to GKC, “You seem to know everything.” “On the contrary,” he retorted, “I know nothing, madam, I am a journalist.” Jorge Luis Borges, who did not care for journalism, was delighted by the cleverness of the detective stories. Wilfrid Sheed appreciated GKC’s utter lack of hyperbole when discussing the most heated social and political issues of his century.

Michael Collins—yes, that Michael Collins, the revolutionary who made modern Ireland, was an avid reader of the novels, particularly “The Napoleon of Notting Hill” and “The Man Who Was Thursday,” books that, among other things, taught him the lesson that, as one commentator put it, “If you don’t seem to be hiding, nobody hunted you out.” According to Ker, Lloyd George gave copies of Chesterton’s novels to his cabinet members before they negotiated with the Irish rebels. “For insights into the mind of the Irish nationalist leader,” he said.

Chesterton also had his critics. Ezra Pound once grumbled that “Chesterton is the mob.” Ker answers the charge: “He was … a solitary defender … of the despised suburbs where the masses lived.”

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By Mine's A Newt, November 16, 2011 at 8:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m with Anarcissie. The “wisdom” is roughly what you’d expect from an ultra-
conservative Catholic antisemite who was initially attracted to fascism, though
he abandoned fascism in time not to be a traitor when WWII broke out.

Chesterton’s “humour” has never struck me as anything but fatuous. I read “The
Man Who Was Thursday” without a laugh, or even a smile out of any of its
dreary pages. I’ve also read more or less all of “The Napoleon of Notting Hill”,
though with increasing boredom and irritation so that I was skimming by the
last 20 pages or so. And it’s a short book.

In the Father Brown mysteries, once you’ve noticed that the person who isn’t an
ultra-orthodox Catholic always turns out to be the murderer, there’s little point
in reading them as detective stories, and, given the thin quality of the writing
and the characterisation, there’s no other reason to read them.

So no thanks. There’s a reason why Chesterton’s been largely forgotten. He
wasn’t much of a writer.

Report this

By MeHere, October 2, 2011 at 6:23 pm Link to this comment

I read some of Chesterton’s work a long time ago. Interesting writer. My favorite
book was Manalive.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 1, 2011 at 8:34 am Link to this comment

Someone gave me a copy of Orthodoxy when I was yet a teenager.  I dutifully read as much of it as I could.  Even in my wayward youth I could see how specious his philosophical and critical ideas were; he seemed to be attracted far too strongly to the clever (he thought) quip, and ‘paradoxes’ which were no more than reversals or inversions of already incoherent common prejudices.  The writing itself was all right, I suppose, but I could not abide the confident, indeed, fatuous tone of self- and class-superiority which emanated from it.  I doubt if I managed to get through the book to the end, but I don’t remember.  My reaction to it was so averse that I have never read any of his other works, which I suppose might at least serve as moderate entertainments.

Report this

By Larry Tribe, September 30, 2011 at 12:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Thanks! If you’re not a fan of Chesterson’s wit and wisdom you’re missing pleasant moments.

Report this
Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook