/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19811556]

I dont know what the fat fucker is on about half the time, but he has to be one of the best prose stylists ive ever read. And his detective fiction if beyond comfy. Why does lit not talk about him much?

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.19811857]

His ideas are kind of too general and self evident, like a Catholic Richard Weaver but comfy

[Anonymous No.19811869]

>>19811556
If I wanted to read right wing drivel I would just read Mishima. But if I wanted to read actual good literature, I wouldn't read either.

[Anonymous No.19811875]

>>19811556
It's easier to talk about Nietzsche, who is also a prose stylist but not the better writer

[Anonymous No.19811910]

>>19811875
Reminder that Chesterton's refutation of Nietzsche is brilliant, and destroys him no matter how you choose to take it.

[Anonymous No.19811934]

>>19811869
Retard

[Anonymous No.19811959]

>>19811910
Post it

[Anonymous No.19811989]

>>19811910
yeah its pretty cool.

[Anonymous No.19811992]

>>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.

[Anonymous No.19811998]

>>19811910
Chesterton's refutation is self-refuted by his disgusting gut

[Anonymous No.19812019]

>>19811998
Cope, Ubertard.

[Anonymous No.19812030]

>>19811556
>>19811869
Just admit that his writings filtered both of you already.

[Anonymous No.19812072]

>>19811992
I dunno. Chesteron's basically saying, "man up". Which might be true and necessary, but it's not a stunning argument.

[Anonymous No.19812073]

>>19811556
Because he is outmatched by CS Lewis in every way.

[Anonymous No.19812090]

>>19812072
It also fundamentally misses the point. Trying to engage or reason with the mob is like arguing with a brick wall. It has nothing to do with weak nerves, and everything to do with self-respect and self-value (hence, aristocracy). Hence Nietzsche's whole spiel about saving oneself for the strongest enemy, or one's actual equal.

[Anonymous No.19812100]

>>19811556
This guy was basically the Peterson of his time, but he could actually write good prose. But his ideas are absolutely trite.
>>19811869
Only good take in this thread.

[Anonymous No.19812106]

>>19812072
The reason it works is because Chesterton is reducing Nietzsche's philosophy to his psychological condition. He's pathologizing Nietzsche.

And you might say that this is unfair. But isn't that what Nietzsche does to all the thinkers HE dislikes? Nietzsche pathologies and psychoanalyzes everyone he doesn't like. He does it to Plato. He does it to Paul. He does it to Hegel. I think he even does it to Augustine. Every time Nietzsche doesn't like somebody he will try to diagnose them with some hidden malady or psychological condition.

So Chesterton's decision is that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If Nietzsche can dismiss his interlocutors as being touched in the head, Nietzsche himself can be dismissed the same way. On the other hand, if you want to dismiss Chesterton's critique as being not intellectually substantive, then you have to throw out all of Nietzsche's critiques of other thinkers, in turn, because they proceed along the same lines.

It's brilliant because it uses Nietzsche's own techniques against him. It's a poison pill no matter how you take it.

[Anonymous No.19812118]

>>19812106
Nietzsche never dismissed anyone for having underlying psychological conditions. He simply diagnosed them. Read Beyond Good and Evil and you'll see Nietzsche's great respect and admiration for Plato, even despite some of his psychological observations (or perhaps, in virtue of them...) In any case his psychological observation of Nietzsche is fine, but only if it actually holds up to his work. Nietzsche's observations generally (but don't always) hold up to the person he is observing. In this case, it really seems like Chesterton didn't understand him. There are valid psychological criticisms or observations of him, but that is not one.

[Anonymous No.19812130]

>>19811992
bro just love the normies who despise you,
just stay in the crab bucket bro what gives.

GKC is a clown, one only has to look at him to see the same syndrome in all fat men from Farley to Welles to see that he has been begging people not to punch down on him with humour and good stories his entire life.
Pit GKC against a truly attractive man and see what happens.

[Anonymous No.19812147]

>>19811992
>"Joan of Arc was not stuck at the cross-roads, either by rejecting all the paths like Tolstoy, or by accepting them all like Nietzsche. She chose a path, and went down it like a thunderbolt. Yet Joan, when I came to think of her, had in her all that was true either in Tolstoy or Nietzsche, all that was even tolerable in either of them. I thought of all that is noble in Tolstoy, the pleasure in plain things, especially in plain pity, the actualities of the earth, the reverence for the poor, the dignity of the bowed back. Joan of Arc had all that and with this great addition, that she endured poverty as well as admiring it; whereas Tolstoy is only a typical aristocrat trying to find out its secret. And then I thought of all that was brave and proud and pathetic in poor Nietzsche, and his mutiny against the emptiness and timidity of our time. I thought of his cry for the ecstatic equilibrium of danger, his hunger for the rush of great horses, his cry to arms. Well, Joan of Arc had all that, and again with this difference, that she did not praise fighting, but fought. We know that she was not afraid of an army, while Nietzsche, for all we know, was afraid of a cow. Tolstoy only praised the peasant; she was the peasant. Nietzsche only praised the warrior; she was the warrior. She beat them both at their own antagonistic ideals; she was more gentle than the one, more violent than the other. Yet she was a perfectly practical person who did something, while they are wild speculators who do nothing. It was impossible that the thought should not cross my mind that she and her faith had perhaps some secret of moral unity and utility that has been lost. And with that thought came a larger one, and the colossal figure of her Master had also crossed the theatre of my thoughts."
Nietzschefags in absolute shambles

[Anonymous No.19812211]

>>19812118
>He simply diagnosed them.

By diagnosing them he sets them up to be dismissed. It's an innovation of Nietzsche's that has been wholly detrimental for philosophy. When considering a thinker we should consider only their ideas, not what pathalogical condition we might imagine them to have. It's nonsense and Nietzsche is a worse thinker for indulging in it.

[Anonymous No.19813015]

>Fat
>Anglo
>Catholic
He has the physiognomy of the devil.

[Anonymous No.19813027]

>>19812211
>By diagnosing them he sets them up to be dismissed.
Only if you're insecure with your own condition as a human being, an irrational creature. Your view of Nietzsche says more about yourself, than about him...

[Anonymous No.19813064]

>>19812130
damn who invited lookism.net

[Anonymous No.19813112]

>>19812073

[Anonymous No.19813225]

>>19812106
in awe at the size of this lad
absolute unit

[Anonymous No.19813238]

>>19811992
You could have just wrote "ressentiment, ressentiment, ressentiment"

imagine thinking this answers Nietzsche in any way, Chesteron is peak slave morality.

[Anonymous No.19813240]

>>19811556
He doesn’t hate women, life, or jews enough. Anons would write him off as a pseud.

[Anonymous No.19813241]

>>19811992
>you think you're better than someone?!
>WRONG WE ARE ALL THE SAME YOU CAN TRUST ME I'M A DANDY FAGGOT BUT I LOVE THE BIBLE SO I'M GOOOOOD
We're entering a very weird state of /lit/ contrarianism where trannies pretend to like the likes of Chesterton as some kind of way to get back at people who like Nietzsche. The amusing thing is both would despise (you).

[Anonymous No.19813419]

>>19812147
having a big ponder over this passage

[Anonymous No.19813423]

>>19811556
Carlyle's prose is incomparably better.

[Anonymous No.19813431]

>>19813423
I been meaning to read Carlyle. What are some of his better works?

[Anonymous No.19813518]

>>19811992
Oh god someone please pasta the pasta that describes Chesteron's prose and how he does the exact same thing every single time, because he actually fucking does. He's a bot, a literal NPC before NPCs. You can't make this shit up, it's genuinely hilarious how said pasta always applies.

[Anonymous No.19813578]

>>19811992
that's one reading, and is wrong
posting in a reddit thread

[Anonymous No.19813769]

>>19813518
>>19813578
plebs who cannot even articulate why they dislike something beyond "me no like"
fucking lol. go back to /r/books
>>19813423
completely different styles. why would you even compare those two - they're not even of the same time period. Emerson and Carlyle are the natural comparison.
>>19813431
On heroes and hero worship

[Anonymous No.19813784]

>>19813419
>>19813225
>>19812147

[Anonymous No.19813810]

>>19813518
>Oh god someone please pasta the pasta that describes Chesteron's prose and how he does the exact same thing every single time, because he actually fucking does.
I've got you anon

[Anonymous No.19813849]

>>19813810
one of the soiest fucking reddit posts i've ever seen. muumuu? get the fuck out.

[Anonymous No.19813854]

i read orthodoxy and found that this guy considers himself very witty. It's too much. He's so self- indulgent in his thoughts, through his writings it's apparent that he thinks that every single parable or metaphor that comes to his mind is truly groundbreaking and ground truth
Regarding his critique of Nietzsche, i don't think he got him. Nietzsche didn't think up a way to be different from the mob, he was different
I don't know about the rest but Chesterton always seemed to me so pompous and self- important

[Anonymous No.19813863]

Would Chesterton be into vore were he alive today?

[Anonymous No.19813876]

>>19813863
the vore of his defeated intellectual opponents

[Anonymous No.19813996]

>>19813849
see how the reddit nigger recoils and tries to deflect when found out

[Anonymous No.19814002]

>>19813996
>posts an incredibly soi screencap
>tries to say he's not plebbit
lmao @ u

[Anonymous No.19814102]

>>19811992
>Fastidiousness is the most pardonable of vices; but it is the most unpardonable of virtues
Fuck, that's such a classic Chestertism, brb, gotta go read the Napoleon of Notting Hill again.

[Anonymous No.19814150]

>>19813996
They try so hard to fit in they completely overplay their part too resulting in them sticking out like a sore retarded thumb. It's almost pitiable.

[Anonymous No.19814226]

>>19814150
>false religion
tips fedora to you my, dear gentlesir!

[Anonymous No.19814313]

>>19813810
Is that it? Kinda disappointing.

[Anonymous No.19814443]

How has no one heard of "middle style"? I guess it's true no one here actually reads.

[Anonymous No.19814468]

>>19813810
Yeah, there's not much there.
Definitely trying too hard to be wacky enough to be a copypasta. In my opinion the best pastas are ones where you can't tell if the person is a serious autist writing all that stuff, or just being facetious.
This person is too obviously just mad about Chesterton and not autistic enough to be entertaining about it.

[Anonymous No.19814515]

>>19813810
Just because he's formulaic doesn't mean he is wrong. I mean Chesterton is wrong of course, but for real reasons. Like being a brainless closeted Catholic larper 100 years before it was fashionable.

[Anonymous No.19814544]

>>19814515
>verification not required

[Anonymous No.19814656]

Imagine being filtered by Chesterton. You heretics never cease to amuse me.

[Anonymous No.19814666]

>>19811869
>>19812100

[Anonymous No.19814780]

>>19814666
It's amazing how physically disgusting most communists are. A sickly people

[Anonymous No.19814783]

>>19814656
Do you have the BMI to go with that smug and conceited posturing?

[Anonymous No.19814796]

>>19814656
based

[Anonymous No.19814981]

>>19814783

[Anonymous No.19815006]

>>19814981
based

[Anonymous No.19815060]

>>19811556
>>19811910
>>19811992
>>19812106
Fat people refute everything they say by being fat.

[Anonymous No.19815115]

>>19815060
And they always feel the need to weigh in where they aren't wanted