Reading Chesterton is a jerky experience, like being stuck on a subway train that keeps lurching forward and shuddering to a stop for no apparent reason (yes, Toronto Transit Commission, you’re still on my shit list). One minute he’s giving you these little starts of wonder or excitement, and the next he has you recoiling in dismay.
This effect can be partly explained by Chesterton’s crazy, bipolar politics. It’s almost unbelievable to me that a single brain, even one as capacious as Chesterton’s, could hold so many antithetical ideas without exploding. From a certain angle, he looks like your garden variety proto-fascist. Anti-Semitic, anti-modern and anti-secular, he voiced a lot of opinions that wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow in a Weimar-era beer hall. At the same time, he could be as pink and fiery as any socialist in his denunciations of big business, the aristocracy and imperialism (he was an outspoken opponent of the Boer War). Even more surprisingly, he was a democrat to the core, placing unlimited faith in the wisdom of the people, and instinctively siding with the working classes in their long struggle against oppression.
In short, I don’t even know if there’s a name for his particular ideological orientation, apart from ‘screwy’.
Although Chesterton exasperates me to no end, he’s one of the few writers I keep going back to year after year because, for all his claptrap, he handled words with such casual aplomb. Here was this pudgy, wheezy, walrus-faced man, beer-sodden and sedentary, who would sit down heavily at his desk and dash off some of the most graceful, dancing prose you’ll ever read. The contrast is somehow encouraging. It’s like watching some fat slob effortlessly pick up the hottest chick in the bar.
Just in A Miscellany of Men -- a slender collection of old newspaper columns -- Chesterton gets off more great lines than most writers manage in an entire career:
On the super-rich: To be smart enough to get all that money you must be dull enough to want it.
On cultural decline: It is the final sign of imbecility in a people that it calls cats dogs and describes the sun as the moon – and is very particular about the preciseness of these pseudonyms. To be wrong, and to be carefully wrong: that is the definition of decadence.
And then there’s my favourite, a passage that seems to anticipate the last fifty years of Continental philosophy and settle its hash in advance:
Whenever you hear much of things being unutterable and indefinable and impalpable and unnameable and subtly indescribable, then elevate your aristocratic nose towards heaven and snuff up the smell of decay. It is perfectly true that there is something in all good things that is beyond all speech or figure of speech. But it is also true that there is in all good things a perpetual desire for expression and concrete embodiment; and though the attempt to embody it is always inadequate, the attempt is always made.
So what does Chesterton do with this small but genuine insight? He uses it to beat up on Picasso and the post-Impressionists, like any lettered yahoo of the popular press.
See what I mean? Maddening. Don’t get me wrong: a wonderful writer and all that, but sometimes you just want to smack him one upside the head.