What do you think?
Rate this book
Lo que vi en América
En 1922, unos quince anos antes de su muerte, el escritor britanico Gilbert Keith Chesterton, ya consumado narrador y polemista, viajo a Estados Unidos de America, y los textos de Lo que vi en America son el fruto de este encuentro con la nacion que desde entonces se encontraba a la cabeza de la economia mundial. Las meditaciones que dan cuenta de este viaje suceden en hoteles impersonales y repetitivos, en ciudades nuevas que parecen querer desaparecer y quedar en ruinas solo para ser reconstruidas al instante (y volver a empezar), en calles cuyas majestuosas luces dejan aturdido al distraido caminante. En cada estacion del viaje, Chesterton busca colectar las pistas que lo lleven a descifrar su propio camino.
384 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1922
219 people are currently reading
860 people want to read
About the author
G.K. Chesterton
4,664 books5,766 followersGilbert Keith Chesterton was an English writer, philosopher, lay theologian, and literary and art critic.
He was educated at St. Paul’s, and went to art school at University College London. In 1900, he was asked to contribute a few magazine articles on art criticism, and went on to become one of the most prolific writers of all time. He wrote a hundred books, contributions to 200 more, hundreds of poems, including the epic Ballad of the White Horse, five plays, five novels, and some two hundred short stories, including a popular series featuring the priest-detective, Father Brown. In spite of his literary accomplishments, he considered himself primarily a journalist. He wrote over 4000 newspaper essays, including 30 years worth of weekly columns for the Illustrated London News, and 13 years of weekly columns for the Daily News. He also edited his own newspaper, G.K.’s Weekly.
Chesterton was equally at ease with literary and social criticism, history, politics, economics, philosophy, and theology.
He was educated at St. Paul’s, and went to art school at University College London. In 1900, he was asked to contribute a few magazine articles on art criticism, and went on to become one of the most prolific writers of all time. He wrote a hundred books, contributions to 200 more, hundreds of poems, including the epic Ballad of the White Horse, five plays, five novels, and some two hundred short stories, including a popular series featuring the priest-detective, Father Brown. In spite of his literary accomplishments, he considered himself primarily a journalist. He wrote over 4000 newspaper essays, including 30 years worth of weekly columns for the Illustrated London News, and 13 years of weekly columns for the Daily News. He also edited his own newspaper, G.K.’s Weekly.
Chesterton was equally at ease with literary and social criticism, history, politics, economics, philosophy, and theology.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews
February 4, 2016
What I Saw in America is less about what G.K. Chesterton saw in America than what the idea of America meant to him as an Englishman. Not a word is said about whether GKC took the train or any Mississippi River steamboats, what he ate, whether he visited anyone at home, whether he saw any of the country's vaunted beauty spots, or anything of the sort that would appear in a Lonely Planet guidebook.
What we have in this book are a series of essays on the subject of America. Chesterton was here on a lecture tour, so he really did not act the part of a tourist.
One thing I found interesting is that the author thinks (from his vantage point during the Harding Administration) that lip service was paid to democracy, but that many Americans are being ground into wage slavery if not actual slavery:
One thing on which we can always rely on Chesterton for is his very genuine sense of democracy. It is possible to read on for page after page, only to be stopped dead in one's tracks with some truism expressed with style and verve.
What we have in this book are a series of essays on the subject of America. Chesterton was here on a lecture tour, so he really did not act the part of a tourist.
One thing I found interesting is that the author thinks (from his vantage point during the Harding Administration) that lip service was paid to democracy, but that many Americans are being ground into wage slavery if not actual slavery:
So far as democracy becomes or remains Catholic and Christian, that democracy will remain democratic. In so far as it does not, it will become wildly and wickedly undemocratic. Its rich will riot with a brutal indifference far beyond the feeble feudalism which retains some shadow of responsibility or at least of patronage. Its wage-slaves will either sink into heathen slavery, or seek relief in theories that are destructive not merely in method but in aim; since they are but the negation of the human appetites of property and personality.Given the 2016 Presidential Race now in progress, these seem prophetic words.
One thing on which we can always rely on Chesterton for is his very genuine sense of democracy. It is possible to read on for page after page, only to be stopped dead in one's tracks with some truism expressed with style and verve.
November 16, 2011
I do enjoy Chesterton. That said, this book was somewhat more dated than some of his others. Some of his specific allusions were lost on me. But he had very good insights into how to understand others, particularly those of other cultures. "Nobody should be ashamed of thinking a thing funny because it is foreign; ... he should be ashamed of thinking it wrong because it is funny." He discourses on hotels, jokes, neon signs, machinery, and even world government, all with his unique philosophy and flair.
July 4, 2021
“We cannot be certain of being right about the future; but we can be almost certain of being wrong about the future, if we are wrong about the past.”
I learned a lot from this book and though some of the issues he addressed, like Prohibition, were specific to what was happening during his life 100 years ago, the principled thinking is helpful in interpreting our own day and age. I look forward to reading more of Chesterton because I’m assuming that this is not the best of his writings. I give it 3 stars. To read, or not to read, that is the question.
I learned a lot from this book and though some of the issues he addressed, like Prohibition, were specific to what was happening during his life 100 years ago, the principled thinking is helpful in interpreting our own day and age. I look forward to reading more of Chesterton because I’m assuming that this is not the best of his writings. I give it 3 stars. To read, or not to read, that is the question.
June 3, 2010
Did I mention I love Chesterton? In many ways this book is quite out of date (Chesterton toured American during prohibition), but, as always with Chesterton, many of his insights are timeless. What makes this book so interesting, however, is not what he has to say about the differences between the English and Americans, but what he has to say about cultural understanding and misunderstanding. It is these insights that remain very true today.
August 9, 2017
What I Saw In America was a delight, certainly the best and most interesting book I've read this year so far. Highly recommended--if you read any Chesterton, you must read this book.
It's full of penetrating insight into both American psychology and British psychology. It's dated, having been published in 1922, but Chesterton's observations of the American character seem mostly still valid and, in any case, fascinating even if referring to an American character that existed ninety-three years ago. I haven't read Democracy in America yet, but clearly, What I Saw In America is an English counterpart to it. Chsterton probably isn't completely right in all is observations: for instance, he strongly suggests that Prohibition was a scheme cooked up by the rich to reserve alcohol to themselves, and completely ignores the huge and probably driving role played by temperance organizations. But even the opinions that are wrong are still fascinating for their outside perspective and for what they suggest about the English character.
I suppose nobody's perfect, and so even a genius such as Chesterton and a book such as this has some sort of flaw. Here it's something I began to notice in Chesterton's The Everlasting Man: Chesterton's rhetoric and possibly attitude toward racial minorities is embarrassingly ignorant by 2015 standards. It's not just that Chesterton uses the n-word once (clearly because he doesn't know any better), but that he spent a full year traveling through America, evaluating it from his outside perspective, but had absolutely nothing to say about the Jim Crow system or more generally the condition of blacks at the time. If you read the book closely enough and reflect on it enough to discern Chesterton's attitude toward the brotherhood of man, you can figure out that actual racism is unlikely, but...like I said, ignorance. Disappointing for such a brilliant man.
Chesterton's books tend to have many cheap, low-quality editions; avoid buying the one with ISBN 1533627606 (https://www.amazon.com/What-I-Saw-Ame...). The pages are not numbered; they all display "Page [x]" throughout. The text appears to be a printout of the Project Gutenberg file on this work. The clincher is that the publisher is "CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform." Fly-by-night operator making a quick buck on the Gutenberg contributors' work.
It's full of penetrating insight into both American psychology and British psychology. It's dated, having been published in 1922, but Chesterton's observations of the American character seem mostly still valid and, in any case, fascinating even if referring to an American character that existed ninety-three years ago. I haven't read Democracy in America yet, but clearly, What I Saw In America is an English counterpart to it. Chsterton probably isn't completely right in all is observations: for instance, he strongly suggests that Prohibition was a scheme cooked up by the rich to reserve alcohol to themselves, and completely ignores the huge and probably driving role played by temperance organizations. But even the opinions that are wrong are still fascinating for their outside perspective and for what they suggest about the English character.
I suppose nobody's perfect, and so even a genius such as Chesterton and a book such as this has some sort of flaw. Here it's something I began to notice in Chesterton's The Everlasting Man: Chesterton's rhetoric and possibly attitude toward racial minorities is embarrassingly ignorant by 2015 standards. It's not just that Chesterton uses the n-word once (clearly because he doesn't know any better), but that he spent a full year traveling through America, evaluating it from his outside perspective, but had absolutely nothing to say about the Jim Crow system or more generally the condition of blacks at the time. If you read the book closely enough and reflect on it enough to discern Chesterton's attitude toward the brotherhood of man, you can figure out that actual racism is unlikely, but...like I said, ignorance. Disappointing for such a brilliant man.
Chesterton's books tend to have many cheap, low-quality editions; avoid buying the one with ISBN 1533627606 (https://www.amazon.com/What-I-Saw-Ame...). The pages are not numbered; they all display "Page [x]" throughout. The text appears to be a printout of the Project Gutenberg file on this work. The clincher is that the publisher is "CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform." Fly-by-night operator making a quick buck on the Gutenberg contributors' work.
December 12, 2011
First off, 'What I saw in America' is not a travel commentary relating humorous anecdotes about his journeys in the style of, say, Twain. Chesterton tells only a handful of stories of his time in the States but then, in his inimitable manner, uses those as springboards to write about 'big ideas,' many of them relating to then-current political controversies but some on more general themes as well. I found it surprising how the 'then-current' political controversies are often still current. For instance, Chesterton warns against the trend of 'internationalism' in which differences between countries are papered over for the sake of political unity, a situation that just begs to be compared to the current meltdown in the EU. Also, I was quite surprised to find Chesterton railing against capitalism and unequal resource distribution; he sounded like an Occupy Wall Street type (he apparently yearns for a return to the peasantry of the Middle Ages).
Overall, an enjoyable read with interesting insights, especially as he compares America and England. Chesterton's prose is so fluid that even the less interesting, more dated bits fly by.
Overall, an enjoyable read with interesting insights, especially as he compares America and England. Chesterton's prose is so fluid that even the less interesting, more dated bits fly by.
December 19, 2014
Chesterton would have made an astonishingly good online troll, and in many ways that is essentially what he does here. But his target is not just the U.S.; it is Britain, it is women, it is Jews, it is his readers, it is the attendees of his lectures. And like most trolls, behind half of his trolling is real disgust: his open anti-semitism is cringe-inducing and not incidental.
On the other hand, the book has numerous passages of penetrating insight which I would happily share with my class on "American civilization," only I fear someone might look the rest of the book up. It is a pity that there are indeed witty bigots and perspicacious cranks.
On the other hand, the book has numerous passages of penetrating insight which I would happily share with my class on "American civilization," only I fear someone might look the rest of the book up. It is a pity that there are indeed witty bigots and perspicacious cranks.
March 14, 2021
This book is terrible. The author is arrogant, elitist, pretentious and pompous. He is blind to his own prejudices and biases and has zero awareness of the limitations of his worldview. He sincerely believes that he is "correct" in his attitudes towards people who are different from himself and believes that his perspective is common, popular, and normal. Chesterton would probably die of shock if he came to America today. However, he'd probably feel comfortable at a Trump rally, where the attitudes are closer to what Chesterton felt and wrote 100 years ago.
I'd like to hear John Oliver rant about this guy....
I'd like to hear John Oliver rant about this guy....
April 3, 2024
Inteligentísimo por donde se le lea, tanto que a veces hay que descansar de él.
Eso sí: como toda gran crónica, en algún momento se vuelve un lúcido ensayo.
Eso sí: como toda gran crónica, en algún momento se vuelve un lúcido ensayo.
February 15, 2015
This is the 2nd book I've read by him and I flew through both books with ease especially this one . There are some authors who's writing regardless of the topic that whatever they write flows easily .You either like a style and it reads quickly and satisfyingly or it doesn't . I ate this book up and found myself reading it faster and faster as I finished it in a rush . Some of my favorite lines of wisdom.
" the same American atmosphere that permits prohibition permits of people being punished for kissing each other.in other words there are states psychologically capable of making a man a convict for wearing a blue neck tie or having a green front door or anything else that anybody choses to fancy .there is an American atmosphere in which many people may some day be shot for shaking hands or writing a post card) .
How prophetic are those words written in 1924 ?! Today in America you can't drink or smoke outdoors and God help your ass if you say something that will offend anyone . I live in japan and I can drink in a park on a train platform, anywhere . People here who smoke aren't forbidden like in America they build beautiful smoking rooms or designate smoking areas for those who do ...here's another
"There is nothing that an american likes so much as to have a secret society and then make no secret of it " ( my thoughts go to some people who belong to the elks lodge or the Knights of Columbus etc ). One more
" Shooting in America is liable to take a free form as when private bravos were hired to kill workmen in the capitalistic interests of that pure patron of disarmament Carnegie " Shooting is liable to take a free form !
Anyway the man can write and has lots of wisdom and it's now time to plough through his works
" the same American atmosphere that permits prohibition permits of people being punished for kissing each other.in other words there are states psychologically capable of making a man a convict for wearing a blue neck tie or having a green front door or anything else that anybody choses to fancy .there is an American atmosphere in which many people may some day be shot for shaking hands or writing a post card) .
How prophetic are those words written in 1924 ?! Today in America you can't drink or smoke outdoors and God help your ass if you say something that will offend anyone . I live in japan and I can drink in a park on a train platform, anywhere . People here who smoke aren't forbidden like in America they build beautiful smoking rooms or designate smoking areas for those who do ...here's another
"There is nothing that an american likes so much as to have a secret society and then make no secret of it " ( my thoughts go to some people who belong to the elks lodge or the Knights of Columbus etc ). One more
" Shooting in America is liable to take a free form as when private bravos were hired to kill workmen in the capitalistic interests of that pure patron of disarmament Carnegie " Shooting is liable to take a free form !
Anyway the man can write and has lots of wisdom and it's now time to plough through his works
Want to read
November 12, 2009Recommended by James Schall in Another Sort of Learning, Chapter 9, as one of Seven Books of G. K. Chesterton, beside Orthodoxy and Heretics, Not to Be Missed, Even Though He Wrote about a Hundred More, Not to Be Missed Either.
September 6, 2021
This book really deserves 3.5 stars. It’s based on a trip G.K. Chesterton took to America in 1922 to deliver some lectures. He is certainly a beautiful writer, but this is not an easy read, give some references are out-of-date or most folks won’t be familiar with. I love his discussion of applying for a visa to visit the USA and the questions on the form: “Are you an anarchist?” “Are you an atheist?” ���Are you in favour of subverting the government of the US by force?” “Are you a polygamist?” Most foreigners will laugh at the thought of anyone answering any of these in the affirmative. But Chesterton argues you have to think it through:
“The American Constitution does resemble the Spanish Inquisition in this: that it is founded on a creed. America is the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed. America invites all men to become citizens; but it implies the dogma that there is such a thing as citizenship. So far as its primary ideal is concerned, its exclusiveness is religious because it is not racial. [In that] same spirit the American may exclude a polygamist, precisely because he cannot exclude a Turk."
His chapter on “A Meditation in a New York Hotel” is delightful, and I won’t provide any spoilers. Suffice to say, it’s full of observations that only an perceptive foreigner would notice. Looking at the lights of Broadway by night, he remarks to friends: “What a glorious garden of wonders this would be, to anyone who was lucky enough to be unable to read.” Chesterton is known for saying that “Tradition is the democracy of the dead.” Here he applies it to the New York City:
Tradition does not mean a dead town; it does not mean that the living are dead but that the dead are alive. It means that it still matters what Penn did two hundred years ago or what Franklin did a hundred years ago; I never could feel in New York that it mattered what anybody did an hour ago."
There’s a chapter on American President’s that is just fascinating. The English love their King, and therefore can hate their politicians. Of course, this visit coincided with Prohibition and Chesterton devotes a chapter to this law, basically saying it does not exist, let alone prohibit, if you are rich, but certainly does if you are poor. He didn’t like the argument that it made people more productive and capitalists richer. How about this observation about Feminism:
"…women have always been in the position of despots. They have been despotic because they ruled in an area where they had too much common sense to attempt to be constitutional. You cannot grant a constitution to a nursery; nor can babies assemble like barons and extort a Great Charter. Tommy cannot plead a Habeas Corpus against going to bed; and an infant cannot be tried by twelve other infants before he is put in the corner. And as there can be no laws or liberties in a nursery, the extension of feminism means that there shall be no more laws or liberties in a state than there are in a nursery. The woman does not really regard men as citizens but as children."
There’s a chapter on Lincoln, Slavery and the Civil War. I love this point from the last chapter, “The Future of Democracy”: “I am no Futurist; and any conjectures I make must be taken with the grain of salt which is indeed the salt of the earth; I do not believe in any of the scientific predictions about mankind; I notice that they always fail to predict any of the purely human developments of men…” As for the American democratic experiment, “So far as that democracy becomes or remains Catholic and Christian, that democracy will remain democratic. In so far as it does not, it will become wildly and wickedly undemocratic.”
A shout out to my Dad on England’s “The Compulsory Haircutting Act,” which the British Barber’s Association had lobbied for in the past, but has never been enacted.
Now for the complicated part of Chesterton. He didn’t really have many good things to say about capitalism, in this book or elsewhere. Does this make him a socialist? No, not at all. But his views are complicated, and his economic views are especially fallacious. Start with this: “Modern Man has made a great many mistakes. One is sometimes tempted to say that he has made nothing but mistakes. Calvinism was a mistake, and Capitalism was a mistake, and Teutonism and the flattery of the Northern tribes were mistakes.” Essentially, Chesterton was a “distributist,” a creed that advocated the widespread distribution of private property. There are two excellent articles that do a better job explaining the erroneous economic views of Chesterton than I ever could:
https://theimaginativeconservative.or...
https://theweek.com/articles/448461/c...
My favorite observation: “…the postal service of New York does not work at all. At least I could never discover it working.” If you want to take a trip to America, a hundred years ago, Chesterton will be an enjoyable time travel companion.
“The American Constitution does resemble the Spanish Inquisition in this: that it is founded on a creed. America is the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed. America invites all men to become citizens; but it implies the dogma that there is such a thing as citizenship. So far as its primary ideal is concerned, its exclusiveness is religious because it is not racial. [In that] same spirit the American may exclude a polygamist, precisely because he cannot exclude a Turk."
His chapter on “A Meditation in a New York Hotel” is delightful, and I won’t provide any spoilers. Suffice to say, it’s full of observations that only an perceptive foreigner would notice. Looking at the lights of Broadway by night, he remarks to friends: “What a glorious garden of wonders this would be, to anyone who was lucky enough to be unable to read.” Chesterton is known for saying that “Tradition is the democracy of the dead.” Here he applies it to the New York City:
Tradition does not mean a dead town; it does not mean that the living are dead but that the dead are alive. It means that it still matters what Penn did two hundred years ago or what Franklin did a hundred years ago; I never could feel in New York that it mattered what anybody did an hour ago."
There’s a chapter on American President’s that is just fascinating. The English love their King, and therefore can hate their politicians. Of course, this visit coincided with Prohibition and Chesterton devotes a chapter to this law, basically saying it does not exist, let alone prohibit, if you are rich, but certainly does if you are poor. He didn’t like the argument that it made people more productive and capitalists richer. How about this observation about Feminism:
"…women have always been in the position of despots. They have been despotic because they ruled in an area where they had too much common sense to attempt to be constitutional. You cannot grant a constitution to a nursery; nor can babies assemble like barons and extort a Great Charter. Tommy cannot plead a Habeas Corpus against going to bed; and an infant cannot be tried by twelve other infants before he is put in the corner. And as there can be no laws or liberties in a nursery, the extension of feminism means that there shall be no more laws or liberties in a state than there are in a nursery. The woman does not really regard men as citizens but as children."
There’s a chapter on Lincoln, Slavery and the Civil War. I love this point from the last chapter, “The Future of Democracy”: “I am no Futurist; and any conjectures I make must be taken with the grain of salt which is indeed the salt of the earth; I do not believe in any of the scientific predictions about mankind; I notice that they always fail to predict any of the purely human developments of men…” As for the American democratic experiment, “So far as that democracy becomes or remains Catholic and Christian, that democracy will remain democratic. In so far as it does not, it will become wildly and wickedly undemocratic.”
A shout out to my Dad on England’s “The Compulsory Haircutting Act,” which the British Barber’s Association had lobbied for in the past, but has never been enacted.
Now for the complicated part of Chesterton. He didn’t really have many good things to say about capitalism, in this book or elsewhere. Does this make him a socialist? No, not at all. But his views are complicated, and his economic views are especially fallacious. Start with this: “Modern Man has made a great many mistakes. One is sometimes tempted to say that he has made nothing but mistakes. Calvinism was a mistake, and Capitalism was a mistake, and Teutonism and the flattery of the Northern tribes were mistakes.” Essentially, Chesterton was a “distributist,” a creed that advocated the widespread distribution of private property. There are two excellent articles that do a better job explaining the erroneous economic views of Chesterton than I ever could:
https://theimaginativeconservative.or...
https://theweek.com/articles/448461/c...
My favorite observation: “…the postal service of New York does not work at all. At least I could never discover it working.” If you want to take a trip to America, a hundred years ago, Chesterton will be an enjoyable time travel companion.
March 5, 2021
Well, huh. I have several criticisms, and I think they are actually worth discussing in a bit of detail.
So I love Chesterton. If you have never read him, definitely don't start here. If you already like Chesterton and just want to read more of him...you really don't need to bother with this one.
I give my highest recommendations to his books Heretics, Orthodoxy, and The Everlasting Man. But this book, if I'm being very generous, could only be referred to as "certainly not his best."
Chesterton toured America, and wrote a series of essays about his thoughts. I would love to say my frustration with this books was something frivolous like him simply being more critical of America than I would like. Then I would probably still have enjoyed it.
The problems are as follows:
1. It showcases all of Chesterton's weaknesses as a writer and hardly any of his strengths ever show up! He often goes on wild metaphorical trails, but in his other books they usually end up packing a nice punch. It all comes together. Here it just gets convoluted and meandering and half the time I genuinely wasn't clear on what he was getting at (partly because of things implied, but not easily known outside of GKC's immediate cultural context. Like if I were to reference a popular tv show that someone 100 years from now may never have heard of).
Basically it almost felt like he was phoning it in, literarily speaking.
2. Racism. So much.
Now, I'm not one to lob this accusation lightly, and I actually hate it when people review books and just say a book is racist while giving no explanation, or giving an explanation of something that could easily have been read quite differently.
Not here. I'll provide the main examples, while stating that there was much more in here than what I'm writing down.
-a casual and in every way needless joke using the stereotype of a "running like a white woman wronged by a black man." Also, the use of the n word.
-Lots of Anti-Semitic stuff such as "Well Henry Ford is the sort of man who would never be prejudiced, so if HE says there's a problem with the Jews, it seems there MUST be one." and "Well, yes the Jews were being persecuted in Russian, but tut-tut, now they are the persecutors!" (referring to Bolsheviks). He said this numerous times. He used the phrase the Jewish Problem several times in a frustrating and troubling way.
The thing that exasperates about this is the clear fact that the man knows better! He speaks of the contrasting beauty of Christianity being the fact that, while the world of evolutionary theory and humanism tries to wedge us into racial hierarchies, a priest may be black or white or so on. He acknowledges the particular way the American slavery dehumanized its victims with a special ferocity in order to justify itself. He lays in to the British Empire for its injustices, and critiques the flaws of capitalism. He has a lot to say that is good. He just says it so poorly here, and it is laced with some sad and aggravating prejudices, and it is indeed the carelessness and casualness that grates.
He thinks he is being impartial, you can see that he does.
I will say that the two points I think were worthwhile, despite being bogged down in all this, are:
1. Assuming ourselves to be so "international" and "cosmopolitan" that we really understand cultures not our own, is foolishness. The real snob is the one who thinks they actually get it, when they obviously don't. An "internationalist's" universalism is inherently shallow.
2. We enjoy each other (meaning different cultures) more when we don't try to homogenize or pretend that our differences don't exist in a meaningful or compelling way. It sounds all modern and noble to say "ah, but we are all the same, really" until you realize that there is often an undercurrent homogenizing or absorbing effect accompanying that mentality. Chesterton flails in a few false directions with this principle (overgeneralizing about those differences), but there's real meat to it.
But you can get all that, and get it better, in his other works. No need to grit your teeth through this one.
So I love Chesterton. If you have never read him, definitely don't start here. If you already like Chesterton and just want to read more of him...you really don't need to bother with this one.
I give my highest recommendations to his books Heretics, Orthodoxy, and The Everlasting Man. But this book, if I'm being very generous, could only be referred to as "certainly not his best."
Chesterton toured America, and wrote a series of essays about his thoughts. I would love to say my frustration with this books was something frivolous like him simply being more critical of America than I would like. Then I would probably still have enjoyed it.
The problems are as follows:
1. It showcases all of Chesterton's weaknesses as a writer and hardly any of his strengths ever show up! He often goes on wild metaphorical trails, but in his other books they usually end up packing a nice punch. It all comes together. Here it just gets convoluted and meandering and half the time I genuinely wasn't clear on what he was getting at (partly because of things implied, but not easily known outside of GKC's immediate cultural context. Like if I were to reference a popular tv show that someone 100 years from now may never have heard of).
Basically it almost felt like he was phoning it in, literarily speaking.
2. Racism. So much.
Now, I'm not one to lob this accusation lightly, and I actually hate it when people review books and just say a book is racist while giving no explanation, or giving an explanation of something that could easily have been read quite differently.
Not here. I'll provide the main examples, while stating that there was much more in here than what I'm writing down.
-a casual and in every way needless joke using the stereotype of a "running like a white woman wronged by a black man." Also, the use of the n word.
-Lots of Anti-Semitic stuff such as "Well Henry Ford is the sort of man who would never be prejudiced, so if HE says there's a problem with the Jews, it seems there MUST be one." and "Well, yes the Jews were being persecuted in Russian, but tut-tut, now they are the persecutors!" (referring to Bolsheviks). He said this numerous times. He used the phrase the Jewish Problem several times in a frustrating and troubling way.
The thing that exasperates about this is the clear fact that the man knows better! He speaks of the contrasting beauty of Christianity being the fact that, while the world of evolutionary theory and humanism tries to wedge us into racial hierarchies, a priest may be black or white or so on. He acknowledges the particular way the American slavery dehumanized its victims with a special ferocity in order to justify itself. He lays in to the British Empire for its injustices, and critiques the flaws of capitalism. He has a lot to say that is good. He just says it so poorly here, and it is laced with some sad and aggravating prejudices, and it is indeed the carelessness and casualness that grates.
He thinks he is being impartial, you can see that he does.
I will say that the two points I think were worthwhile, despite being bogged down in all this, are:
1. Assuming ourselves to be so "international" and "cosmopolitan" that we really understand cultures not our own, is foolishness. The real snob is the one who thinks they actually get it, when they obviously don't. An "internationalist's" universalism is inherently shallow.
2. We enjoy each other (meaning different cultures) more when we don't try to homogenize or pretend that our differences don't exist in a meaningful or compelling way. It sounds all modern and noble to say "ah, but we are all the same, really" until you realize that there is often an undercurrent homogenizing or absorbing effect accompanying that mentality. Chesterton flails in a few false directions with this principle (overgeneralizing about those differences), but there's real meat to it.
But you can get all that, and get it better, in his other works. No need to grit your teeth through this one.
September 29, 2025
I'm not sure why I found this to be such a difficult read and I developed an intense irritation with GKC's religion based worldview, his attempt to flip the burden of proof at times, his apparently bigotry and antisemitism (the version I had edited out the N word) and defense of the Confederacy in the civil war, albeit from the point of view of defending a southern way of life from the evil capitalists in the North. I find his whitewashing of the slavery issue to be asinine and dishonest. As an atheist of course, I am predisposed to have an issue with how he approaches many of these issues.
This is not without merit and some of the language is delightful but it is a series of essays that don't seem to be particularly coherent to me as individual ideas or a cohesive whole. I found it turgid prose to be honest and difficult to become very engaged with. I don't have a great idea of what Chesterton thought about, well, anything to do with America apart from an apparent admiration for things I find appalling.
I don't accept the apologetics for christianity that seek to convince us who are skeptical of religions that it is rational to believe in an invisible sky god. I don't think it is. Any attempt to say: "Well, you can't explain X or Y, therefore God" is vapid and fallacious and I feel he is getting close to that line if not actually over it. This isn't a religious screed by any means but I question his overall logical thought which makes me thing his views aren't particularly worth following, unlike De Tocqueville's infinitely better thesis on democracy in America. To propound that it is a "Nation with the Soul of a Church" sounds like a deepity to me. Not that I disagree, but this is coming from his Christian lens. America as a creed has some merit although I think that's appalling.
Not without merit but I decided early that I don't like Chesterton and I wasn't prepared for a philosophical series of ramblings painting his own world view (including a hatred of both big business and socialism) on the canvas of America. I like philosophy very much, but I couldn't get into this version of it and as a result I wasn't disposed to read his, what I consider, religious based nonsense.
This is not without merit and some of the language is delightful but it is a series of essays that don't seem to be particularly coherent to me as individual ideas or a cohesive whole. I found it turgid prose to be honest and difficult to become very engaged with. I don't have a great idea of what Chesterton thought about, well, anything to do with America apart from an apparent admiration for things I find appalling.
I don't accept the apologetics for christianity that seek to convince us who are skeptical of religions that it is rational to believe in an invisible sky god. I don't think it is. Any attempt to say: "Well, you can't explain X or Y, therefore God" is vapid and fallacious and I feel he is getting close to that line if not actually over it. This isn't a religious screed by any means but I question his overall logical thought which makes me thing his views aren't particularly worth following, unlike De Tocqueville's infinitely better thesis on democracy in America. To propound that it is a "Nation with the Soul of a Church" sounds like a deepity to me. Not that I disagree, but this is coming from his Christian lens. America as a creed has some merit although I think that's appalling.
Not without merit but I decided early that I don't like Chesterton and I wasn't prepared for a philosophical series of ramblings painting his own world view (including a hatred of both big business and socialism) on the canvas of America. I like philosophy very much, but I couldn't get into this version of it and as a result I wasn't disposed to read his, what I consider, religious based nonsense.
December 26, 2021
#LitLife192021 Travel Book
Sigh. 3.5 stars. I finally finished this for the Literary Life challenge. This was tough for me. I learned a lot, and it really made me think in many places. But I couldn't follow some of his arguments: some, because they depended on a knowledge of current events or figures being alluded to; some, because he is clearly an academic, and his intellectualism was sometimes over the top. I didn't agree with him on some common themes that kept popping up, most notably his throwing capitalism under the bus. Perhaps he meant something different by it, but since he never defined it, I have to just assume I understand him but disagree strongly. I also disagreed on some other common themes, but for the most part really grew in my ability to think about great principles. So many great quotes throughout that are worth thinking about.
Sigh. 3.5 stars. I finally finished this for the Literary Life challenge. This was tough for me. I learned a lot, and it really made me think in many places. But I couldn't follow some of his arguments: some, because they depended on a knowledge of current events or figures being alluded to; some, because he is clearly an academic, and his intellectualism was sometimes over the top. I didn't agree with him on some common themes that kept popping up, most notably his throwing capitalism under the bus. Perhaps he meant something different by it, but since he never defined it, I have to just assume I understand him but disagree strongly. I also disagreed on some other common themes, but for the most part really grew in my ability to think about great principles. So many great quotes throughout that are worth thinking about.
December 17, 2025
What is fascinating about Chesterton is that he strongly believed in the brotherhood of men. He did not hold back any punches, but he punched people whom he honestly thought of as brothers.
This book explains a lot of the american way of life, which oftentimes seems so strage and "too much" for the european mind. He writes that americans can and should be admired for their enthusiasm and courage, something that they themselves are very proud of. He explained that americans not only are very curious, but they take pride in the fact that they are very curious. One leaves with a sensation that americans are the bravest men out there, and maybe they are in some respect, not having the moodiness of the english. But the main point was that american democracy was meant to be a Christian democracy, and if it fails to be that it will most defnitely lose all its virility.
This book explains a lot of the american way of life, which oftentimes seems so strage and "too much" for the european mind. He writes that americans can and should be admired for their enthusiasm and courage, something that they themselves are very proud of. He explained that americans not only are very curious, but they take pride in the fact that they are very curious. One leaves with a sensation that americans are the bravest men out there, and maybe they are in some respect, not having the moodiness of the english. But the main point was that american democracy was meant to be a Christian democracy, and if it fails to be that it will most defnitely lose all its virility.
January 21, 2023
A long-winded view of America, its culture, and its place in the world in the 20s, with added commentary about the declining British empire and treatment of the Irish. Got me interested in this period of American history. It was a struggle at times, but there were definitely some gems that hammer home just how little has changed in America, for better or worse. For example:
“The true philosophical defense of the modern oppression of the poor would be to say frankly that we have ruled them so badly that they are unfit to rule themselves. But no modern oligarch is enough of a man to say this.” (From the essay “Prohibition in Fact and Fancy”)
Not as good as Trollope’s mom’s travelogue through the Midwest, but better than Dickens’.
“The true philosophical defense of the modern oppression of the poor would be to say frankly that we have ruled them so badly that they are unfit to rule themselves. But no modern oligarch is enough of a man to say this.” (From the essay “Prohibition in Fact and Fancy”)
Not as good as Trollope’s mom’s travelogue through the Midwest, but better than Dickens’.
January 21, 2025
Wowser.
I had read some Father Brown stories, and a few essays by Chesterton, so I thought I would enjoy this. Nope. I did a LOT of skimming.
First, the same ideas are repeated many times. By the time you are halfway through, you will know that he likes farmers (or peasants, his preferred term), Catholicism, inns, and the American South; he dislikes capitalism, industry, women's rights, and 20th c democracy.
I already knew he was antisemitic, but I didn't expect to find General Lee compared to a knight defending a holy city. (He admits that slavery needed to end, but doesn't think that was the point of the war).
And the style is exhausting after the first few essays. Paradoxes are all very well, but 10 to a page are tedious.
I had read some Father Brown stories, and a few essays by Chesterton, so I thought I would enjoy this. Nope. I did a LOT of skimming.
First, the same ideas are repeated many times. By the time you are halfway through, you will know that he likes farmers (or peasants, his preferred term), Catholicism, inns, and the American South; he dislikes capitalism, industry, women's rights, and 20th c democracy.
I already knew he was antisemitic, but I didn't expect to find General Lee compared to a knight defending a holy city. (He admits that slavery needed to end, but doesn't think that was the point of the war).
And the style is exhausting after the first few essays. Paradoxes are all very well, but 10 to a page are tedious.
January 9, 2020
Written in the 1920s, this book is a collection of essays by the English Catholic writer GK Chesterton. He traveled around the US on a lecture tour, and writes about his thoughts. He makes several excellent points, particularly about the US being a creedal nation, and the importance of real understanding, rather than only superficial, among peoples. He also makes a strong case for human dignity, and shows how many popular beliefs undermine it. However, he had many of the customary prejudices of his day, and his chapter on meeting Henry Ford and making excuses for Ford's antisemitism was particularly grating.
April 29, 2021
Read this years ago, so long ago the only thing I remember was his description of American hotels all looking alike. I think he also had in here a point about prohibition, which was the era in which he visited America, and he mentioned it was another one of those laws for the poor, because the rich were largely unaffected due to their large stores of alcohol. As an aside, I heard in a documentary about how prohibition most likely came about due to the efforts of John D. Rockefeller, who saw alcohol production, chiefly ethanol, as a competitor to his fuel, oil, for the growing car industry. Once upon a time there was a competition of what kind of fuel would be the main one for cars.
April 19, 2022
What I Saw in America is, as can be guessed, a series of essays by G.K. Chesterton on what he saw when he visited America in the the early 1920s. An appreciator of drink, he had much to say about Prohibition in America and what it said about the democracy in the country. In each chapter, drawing from one or two encounters, Chesterton launches into his characteristic mode of discourse, extrapolating or rooting out insights on and from the political, historical, and psychological backgrounds and states of America and Americans to better understand the country and people from an English point-of-view. There is much comparison between America and England, which is unsurprising and would likely have been helpful for Chesterton's English audience.
Though reading it one hundred years after it was written and living in an America one hundred years older than what Chesterton visited, I enjoyed seeing the nation through a foreign traveler's perspective, though some of his conclusions may not be applicable today. I will say that, having read several of Chesterton's essay anthologies and acclimated to his style, What I Saw in America was particularly difficult to follow. Also, some comments he made on American chattel slavery and Black Americans I thought inappropriate, regardless of whether they were common in the time during which he was writing.
Though reading it one hundred years after it was written and living in an America one hundred years older than what Chesterton visited, I enjoyed seeing the nation through a foreign traveler's perspective, though some of his conclusions may not be applicable today. I will say that, having read several of Chesterton's essay anthologies and acclimated to his style, What I Saw in America was particularly difficult to follow. Also, some comments he made on American chattel slavery and Black Americans I thought inappropriate, regardless of whether they were common in the time during which he was writing.
April 18, 2025
While I am a BIG fan of Chesterton, this work did not tickle my fancy as much as his others. While he gets a lot right about the American ethos, he also gets some stuff wrong in his continual harangues of capitalism.
What is frustrating about his understanding, as revealed in this book, is he seems to "get it" about the application of capitalism in some places, but fails to apply it to the overall picture. To wit, he talks about the Catholic practice of capitalism, in which market players are guided by Christian ethics and values. But he does not seem to get it that Capitalism by itself is not evil, but rather people who practice it are evil or good, and thus are their fruits.
What is frustrating about his understanding, as revealed in this book, is he seems to "get it" about the application of capitalism in some places, but fails to apply it to the overall picture. To wit, he talks about the Catholic practice of capitalism, in which market players are guided by Christian ethics and values. But he does not seem to get it that Capitalism by itself is not evil, but rather people who practice it are evil or good, and thus are their fruits.
November 23, 2020
He leído a Chesterton desde mi adolescencia y siempre disfruté sus novelas, comencé este libro de ensayos muy interesada en ver como veía el autor a los Estados Unidos y comparar esa apreciación con lo que se vive en ese país en este año y en las actuales circunstancias. El libro es interesante y bien escrito pero me sorprendieron tremendamente el racismo y el machismo presentes en esta obra, a pesar de ubicarme en el momento en que fue escrita, me es difícil aceptar que esa era su visión de mundo.
July 1, 2021
Dated; train of thought hard to follow
Clearly, Chesterton is an insightful man. I expected this to be a timpiece, revealing what life was like in the USA and England 100 years ago; how a thoughtful man looked at things then. That's what I got, but it was harder to grasp than I thought it would be. I have heard that Chesterton's style takes some getting used to, and as this is my first exposure to him, I would agree. A British person versed in his country's history would probably better understand his train of thought .
Clearly, Chesterton is an insightful man. I expected this to be a timpiece, revealing what life was like in the USA and England 100 years ago; how a thoughtful man looked at things then. That's what I got, but it was harder to grasp than I thought it would be. I have heard that Chesterton's style takes some getting used to, and as this is my first exposure to him, I would agree. A British person versed in his country's history would probably better understand his train of thought .
July 13, 2019
Some historical insights, good to compare to today
Written about 100 years ago, GKC visited Prohibition-era America and had some thoughts. Interestingly, a lot of the thoughts were about England, which is hardly surprising - he was writing for an English audience. You need to have an idea of the political movements of the time - in the US and UK - to make sense of some remarks, but you find out many "modern" political issues still hold now.
Written about 100 years ago, GKC visited Prohibition-era America and had some thoughts. Interestingly, a lot of the thoughts were about England, which is hardly surprising - he was writing for an English audience. You need to have an idea of the political movements of the time - in the US and UK - to make sense of some remarks, but you find out many "modern" political issues still hold now.
June 29, 2020
I decided to pick this book up during the Corona Quarantine. It was one that was difficult to get through because it just felt extremely out of date when compared to present day america-even if it is from the English perspective. I prefer "What's wrong with the world" as an alternative to this one. It is Chesterton's best work by far.
This isn't a bad book, mind you. Chesterton is great. But his other works just appealed to me more.
This isn't a bad book, mind you. Chesterton is great. But his other works just appealed to me more.
October 24, 2022
It’s Chesterton so I have to be pretty engaged to hang with him. This was not my favorite of his but pretty interesting. Series of essays on his visit to America to deliver some lectures. His last essay might be his best, suggesting Jefferson was closer to the American ideal than Jefferson Davis, primarily because of the scientistism of the moderns of that time.
The colloquialisms of his time made understanding difficult but overall worth the read.
The colloquialisms of his time made understanding difficult but overall worth the read.
January 17, 2019
Definitely not my favorite Chesterton. Partly due to the Jewish comments and the opinions on slavery that left me very disappointed.
That said, some wonderful insights on America in his time, some of which still hold true today. Also, his repeated point that we should feel no shame over laughing at those things we don't understand but other not mock the same is helpful. And needed today.
That said, some wonderful insights on America in his time, some of which still hold true today. Also, his repeated point that we should feel no shame over laughing at those things we don't understand but other not mock the same is helpful. And needed today.
January 20, 2020
"What I Saw In American" is classic Chesterton, with droves of seemingly paradoxical paragraphs about different sights and observation of both the America and England. This book doesn't follow one set idea, which makes it tougher to follow, but their are a number of chapters that give excellent insight into different ideas on both American life and a foreigner's viewpoint of this life.
February 20, 2023
Uneven. However, this book was meant for an audience of fellow Englishmen.
The best time for the United States was the late 18th century. “We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal . . .”
The best time for the United States was the late 18th century. “We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal . . .”
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews