/lit/ - Literature

>>12417763
>>12417950
Remember, Anons. When a man ceases to believe in God, he doesn't believe in nothing. He believes in everything.

>>12376205
Hitchens bit his pillow at night wishing he could write something as good as The Napoleon of Notting Hill.

>great essayist
>great poet
>great short story writer
>great novelist
>great playwright
>great aphorist
>great critic
>great analyst

We can all only ever hope to be a tenth as talented as Chesterton was.

>tfw you finally "get" Chesterton

It's ridiculous that people call him a philosopher. That's not what his aim is.

>>11629707
>citing an Israeli newspaper on matters of the Blessed Virgin

>>11287967
Honestly you should consider reading some works by Chesterton next, maybe Orthodoxy.

You can absolutely go drink with your friends, just be careful of doing anything against the Church's teachings.

>all the atheist alt-righters are falling back into neopaganism, racial science, eugenics, and everything else that was stupid and backwards about the end of the 19th/beginning of the 20th century

"When a man ceases to believe in God, he does not believe in nothing. He believes in everything."

I think he's just a normal guy from Stratford-Upon-Avon who happened to be a genius. Chesterton talks a little about this, the idea that some people can't comprehend how somebody could be so ordinary, and come from such humble beginnings, and still be so brilliant, so they're compelled to invent fictions and conspiracies.

>no Chesterton

TRASH LISTS

Considering the way the average online moron fawns over guys like Peterson, Molyneux, Sam Harris, etc., just how hard can it be to be a public intellectual? This isn't even new, they're all essentially doing exactly what Chesterton and George Bernard Shaw did in Britain at the beginning of the 20th Century. So how do you pull it off? Is there a formula?

Heretics by G.K. Chesterton. It gets more fun the more /lit/ you are, because it's essentially Chesterton respectfully dunking all over some of his famous literary peers, like Rudyard Kipling and George Bernard Shaw. There's also an essay about the family in it that I particularly love.

The whole reason Spinoza and all Jews are subversive shits is because they're no longer God's chosen people. Christians are now the People of God, and the Jews have been butthurt about it for centuries.

Of course it is. It dawns on any honest student of Nietzsche sooner or later that he's a massive hypocrite.

The whole thing about Gore Vidal is that he's horribly, overwhelmingly middlebrow. Or at least all his WORKS are, all his historical fiction, all his essays, his entire body of actual literary output. The most interesting thing about him was his persona, and, in fact, it's the persona that's survived in the minds of most people. He's a bit like Chesterton, really, except that it feels like Chesterton's stuck around a bit more than Vidal has, and Chesterton wound up influencing people who have stuck around a lot more than the people Vidal influenced.

>>9837715
They said it was "too broad" and didn't suit them. Which, you know, is all well and good, because the article is about Chesterton and his conception of liberty. I leaned pretty heavily on a Christian conception of liberty, drawing from an essay Chesterton wrote called "The Free Man." So it's full of references to Christianity and in general takes a very Christian and classics-centered perspective on liberty. So on the one hand I can't blame them for not wanting it since they're kind of a neoreaction, accelerationist site. It really isn't their vibe. On the other hand, writing about Chesterton and liberty was their idea in the first place, so I'm not really sure what they were expecting. I even had to fudge the beginning of it to make it fit what I thought they wanted, such that according to a professor of mine whom I showed the article to I actually wound up misrepresenting Chesterton a little. So, in light of that, I'm kind of glad it didn't run.

>>9633286
>Peterson has made some excellent arguments about this, saying that when you strip away all illusions and all religion you don't suddenly turn people instantly into freethinking Cartesians. Rather they become so stupid and superstitious that they'll believe virtually anything

Chesterton said this almost a century ago, and far more charmingly and wittily.

Chesterton in general seems primed to be a huge fat meteor that crashes this entire party.

>>9601036
Really, so much of what Orwell did and thought was a reaction to Chesterton--who, after all, gave him his first job.

>>9465431
Reading Hitchens on Chesterton is offensive, especially when you know that if the situations were reversed Chesterton would be much more charitable and appreciative towards Hitchens.

Chesterton is everything Dostoevsky tries to be. Not even memeing.

Who /gradschool/ here? This board can't be ALL undergrads, can it?

Chesterton, probably.

>>9128908
I'm not sure full Jihad is necessary, but clearly some repossession of old ways of thinking would be nice.

I think that, insofar as Land presents us with a future that rushes faster and faster forward, the way to combat it is, in a certain way, to go backward.

Reminder that Orwell was super butthurt for the rest of his life because Chesterton thought his ideas were bad.

>>8998431
You can always tell how sane someone is by how much they like Chesterton.