/lit/ - Literature

>>22644245

>>22505952
I beg your pardon?

I read an amusing anecdote but idk if I really understand why it's amusing

>it's the height of WW2
>churchill is walking around
>he sees a staffer reading chesterton
>churchill says "Put down your Chesterton he can't help you"

What means?

>>19918957
>It's that moustache and you know it.
Indeed.

>>19811959
>Of course, this shrinking from the brutal vivacity and brutal variety of common men is a perfectly reasonable and excusable thing as long as it does not pretend to any point of superiority. It is when it calls itself aristocracy or aestheticism or a superiority to the bourgeoisie that its inherent weakness has in justice to be pointed out. Fastidiousness is the most pardonable of vices; but it is the most unpardonable of virtues. Nietzsche, who represents most prominently this pretentious claim of the fastidious, has a description somewhere — a very powerful description in the purely literary sense — of the disgust and disdain which consume him at the sight of the common people with their common faces, their common voices, and their common minds. As I have said, this attitude is almost beautiful if we may regard it as pathetic. Nietzsche’s aristocracy has about it all the sacredness that belongs to the weak. When he makes us feel that he cannot endure the innumerable faces, the incessant voices, the overpowering omnipresence which belongs to the mob, he will have the sympathy of anybody who has ever been sick on a steamer or tired in a crowded omnibus. Every man has hated mankind when he was less than a man. Every man has had humanity in his eyes like a blinding fog, humanity in his nostrils like a suffocating smell. But when Nietzsche has the incredible lack of humour and lack of imagination to ask us to believe that his aristocracy is an aristocracy of strong muscles or an aristocracy of strong wills, it is necessary to point out the truth. It is an aristocracy of weak nerves.

>>16322463
>Guenon [...] underwent an actual initiation

>>13989756
But Chesterton drank tea... I suppose Orwell was too autistic to detect someone taking the piss.

>>9023881
Which books did you read that convinced you to become Catholic? Like more recent Scott Hahn type of stuff? Or like the classic St. Augustine/ Thomas of Aquinas type of stuff?

To keep this related to topic I have a confession:
My favorite Catholic author is G.K. Chesterton.

What does /lit/ think of this memer?

>>8147220
>If we said what we felt, we should say, “So you are the Creator and Redeemer of the world: but what a small world it must be! What a little Heaven you must inhabit, with angels no bigger than butterflies! How sad it must be to be God; and an inadequate God! Is there really no life fuller and no love more marvelous than yours; and is it really in your small and painful pity that all flesh must put its faith? How much happier you would be, how much more of you there would be, if the hammer of a higher God could smash your small cosmos, scattering the stars like spangles, and leave you in the open, free like other men to look up as well as down!”

>If we said what we felt, we should say, “So you are the Creator and Redeemer of the world: but what a small world it must be! What a little Heaven you must inhabit, with angels no bigger than butterflies! How sad it must be to be God; and an inadequate God! Is there really no life fuller and no love more marvelous than yours; and is it really in your small and painful pity that all flesh must put its faith? How much happier you would be, how much more of you there would be, if the hammer of a higher God could smash your small cosmos, scattering the stars like spangles, and leave you in the open, free like other men to look up as well as down!”

Where are the modern Chesterons? Where are the polyglot writers who can move from theology to editorial, from prose to verse, from critic to philosopher and do it with a light heart and a cheerful disposition that lifts the soul to read?