Heretics

By G. K. Chesterton

Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5

Enjoyability: 5 of 5

I've had less time to read recently, due to my new job not being on a bus route, but I did still manage to squeeze in "Heretics" over the last month or so, and I have to say, I was very impressed.  It's somewhat dated, to a degree, since the people discussed by Chesterton in the book are dead now, but I'd say it's one of the most entertaining works by him that I've read; making several essential points along the way.

In this book, Chesterton addresses the works of such men as Rudyard Kipling, Whistler, George Bernard Shaw and H. G. Wells.  Even if you're not very familiar with the works of these men, Chesterton's humor and wit in explaining the problems with them provide both an explanation of who they were and where they went wrong, and also quite a number of good jokes and humorous comparisons, which makes you want to keep reading.

I don't recall that many instances in this book that upset me, which is telling by itself, but I do remember a few of the best points that Chesterton made in this work.

To start with, when talking about Wells, he addressed the issue of scientific humility; which can be identified by the fact that those who possess it imagine grand things, recognizing themselves to be small.  Adventuring, he said, is for the unadventurous.  I admit, there's probably a lot of truth to that.  The more adventurous a protagonist is, the harder it is to get excited about his adventure, or to be impressed by it, which may be part of the reason why the fiction of (for example) Tolkien and Lewis was so magnificent, and remains so popular to this day.

Later in the book, he replies to the notion that "there are many different moralities all over the world, all different from each other" by making a comparison.

He said "suppose you were to say 'camels are different all over the world, some have six legs, some are green, some have scales, some are triangular, etc...  They're so different!'  Well, why do you call them all camels in the first place?  How do you know a camel when you see one?"

The point, clearly, is that just because we -call- something a morality, doesn't mean that it -is- a morality, nor should we refer to everything as "morality" which we do.  I love this stuff.

After making many good points, similar to these, Chesterton ends the book by responding to the "Art for Art's Sake" crowd, by pointing out that no really good art ever exists for its own sake.  They wanted to remove all dogmas from art.  He pointed out that the only really good and popular artists were the dogmatic ones, whether their dogmas were right or not.

I have almost nothing to add to this book.  Chesterton's writings were so exceptionally good, and advocated such exceptional good sense, that they didn't become popular among the public as a whole, but I think he's one of the finest authors I've ever read, and this book is one of his finest works.