Scan barcode
wwatts1734's review against another edition
5.0
Written about 100 years ago by one of the foremost journalists of his time, "What's Wrong with the World" is a series of essays about many of the most profound topics in Western Civilization. Chesterton deals with abstract topics in a way that is not only interesting but humorous and memorable. The topics that Chesterton touches on are some of the most profound topics not only of his day but of ours. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to understand "What's Wrong with the World."
jimmypat's review against another edition
5.0
Written 111 years ago, this book speaks strongly to our present age. Chesterton is brilliant and one could say prophetic in his clear-eyed view of what would happen if society continued on its chosen path of progress without reflection. This is a book that all people of good will should read and contemplate. There is a better way, but it will take work, sacrifice, and a true love for and understanding of the dignity of all persons.
theglasscat's review against another edition
funny
informative
lighthearted
reflective
medium-paced
4.5
nickjonesreadsbooks's review against another edition
4.0
Even when I’m not 100% sure what Chesterton is speaking to (he was writing to social and political issues of his day) It is fun to see how Chesterton weaves an argument. He was such a wordsmith and great thinker.
kellsway's review against another edition
4.0
Quotes that resonated with me.
I am quite ready to respect another man's faith; but it is too much to ask that I should respect his doubt, his worldly hesitations, and fictions, his political bargain, and make-believe.
Chesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith). What's Wrong with the World (p. 23). Kindle Edition.
The future is a blank wall on which every man can write his own name as large as he likes; the past I find already covered with illegible scribbles, such as Plato, Isaiah, Shakespeare, Michael Angelo, Napoleon. I can make the future as narrow as myself; the past is obliged to be as broad and turbulent as humanity. And the upshot of this modern attitude is really this: that men invent new ideals because they dare not attempt old ideals. They look forward with enthusiasm because they are afraid to look back.
Chesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith). What's Wrong with the World (pp. 39-40). Kindle Edition.
But of all the modern notions generated by mere wealth, the worst is this: the notion that domesticity is dull and tame. Inside the home (they say) is dead decorum and routine; outside is adventure and variety.
Chesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith). What's Wrong with the World (p. 84). Kindle Edition.
I am quite ready to respect another man's faith; but it is too much to ask that I should respect his doubt, his worldly hesitations, and fictions, his political bargain, and make-believe.
Chesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith). What's Wrong with the World (p. 23). Kindle Edition.
The future is a blank wall on which every man can write his own name as large as he likes; the past I find already covered with illegible scribbles, such as Plato, Isaiah, Shakespeare, Michael Angelo, Napoleon. I can make the future as narrow as myself; the past is obliged to be as broad and turbulent as humanity. And the upshot of this modern attitude is really this: that men invent new ideals because they dare not attempt old ideals. They look forward with enthusiasm because they are afraid to look back.
Chesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith). What's Wrong with the World (pp. 39-40). Kindle Edition.
But of all the modern notions generated by mere wealth, the worst is this: the notion that domesticity is dull and tame. Inside the home (they say) is dead decorum and routine; outside is adventure and variety.
Chesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith). What's Wrong with the World (p. 84). Kindle Edition.
guinness74's review against another edition
3.0
Ignoring for a moment the archaic views of Chesterton on women and the suffrage movement which are simply laughable, this book actually has some pretty decent conversation on the state of the world. The problem stems from its distinctly British slant and its continuous references to persons in UK history that were impactful at the time, but hold no sway over persons from other countries...at least not at first blush. I spent a good deal of time trying to figure out who/what Chesterton was referring to, and that was not always possible. So, I'm afraid that following some of the arguments was nigh impossible.
Anyway, there are parts which seem relevant today. There are other parts which are so grossly out of date that even irrational people couldn't be held to understand them. Read at your own risk, your mileage may vary.
Anyway, there are parts which seem relevant today. There are other parts which are so grossly out of date that even irrational people couldn't be held to understand them. Read at your own risk, your mileage may vary.
holtfan's review against another edition
3.0
Ah, Chesterton, my man. Here, I fear, our paths diverge.
I mean, not very far. I still highlighted most of the book. And speaking of highlights, I didn't realize one of my favorite quotes came from this book:
“The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.”
The first two chapters lay out such sensible, striking arguments for what's wrong with the way we approach policy issues, even 111 years later! It is thought-shifting stuff.
But then we get to the question of the suffragettes. And I must agree with Tori's review: your "thoughts on the matter, while wonderfully worded, were wobbly founded."
In effect, you say ladies don't need the vote. The vote is a tiresome duty. A messy use of corrosion on the part of the state. It dehumanizes! Why would men want women to experience such a thing? Why would women want to experience such a thing? Well, most women don't! Just a radical few. Men not voting is unmanly. Women not voting is just...womanly!
And don't even get me started on your opinions about women having careers. Women are too efficient, you say! Women should not give up the wonderful opportunities they possess to be generalists in the home to be specialists in the workforce. Men must take up that tiresome duty. Let the women, at least, be free!
I have a few vulgar responses to that reasoning but thankfully, I could hear Dorothy L. Sayers in my head. [b:Are Women Human? Astute and Witty Essays on the Role of Women in Society|320481|Are Women Human? Astute and Witty Essays on the Role of Women in Society|Dorothy L. Sayers|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1349117181l/320481._SX50_.jpg|529133] quite properly answered your arguments.
But while I steamed mad at you for your insult to my gender, I kept reading and the next chapter on education won me over with the arguments for parental engagement in the education process! Hurrah!
Until I got to the chapter about educating women and got mad at you again.
But then you make such an interesting case for private ownership and creativity. You say, in effect, "God creates from nothing. Humans from everything." And I can see your influence (in a good way, this time) on Sayers again.
So, I'm still mad at you for being horrendously Victorian. But also I forgive you because once again I'm utterly intrigued by some of the opinions that emerge from this book.
I mean, not very far. I still highlighted most of the book. And speaking of highlights, I didn't realize one of my favorite quotes came from this book:
“The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.”
The first two chapters lay out such sensible, striking arguments for what's wrong with the way we approach policy issues, even 111 years later! It is thought-shifting stuff.
But then we get to the question of the suffragettes. And I must agree with Tori's review: your "thoughts on the matter, while wonderfully worded, were wobbly founded."
In effect, you say ladies don't need the vote. The vote is a tiresome duty. A messy use of corrosion on the part of the state. It dehumanizes! Why would men want women to experience such a thing? Why would women want to experience such a thing? Well, most women don't! Just a radical few. Men not voting is unmanly. Women not voting is just...womanly!
And don't even get me started on your opinions about women having careers. Women are too efficient, you say! Women should not give up the wonderful opportunities they possess to be generalists in the home to be specialists in the workforce. Men must take up that tiresome duty. Let the women, at least, be free!
I have a few vulgar responses to that reasoning but thankfully, I could hear Dorothy L. Sayers in my head. [b:Are Women Human? Astute and Witty Essays on the Role of Women in Society|320481|Are Women Human? Astute and Witty Essays on the Role of Women in Society|Dorothy L. Sayers|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1349117181l/320481._SX50_.jpg|529133] quite properly answered your arguments.
But while I steamed mad at you for your insult to my gender, I kept reading and the next chapter on education won me over with the arguments for parental engagement in the education process! Hurrah!
Until I got to the chapter about educating women and got mad at you again.
But then you make such an interesting case for private ownership and creativity. You say, in effect, "God creates from nothing. Humans from everything." And I can see your influence (in a good way, this time) on Sayers again.
So, I'm still mad at you for being horrendously Victorian. But also I forgive you because once again I'm utterly intrigued by some of the opinions that emerge from this book.
meganzc's review against another edition
4.0
A rollick of a tirade against women's suffrage and other things I take for granted to be good.
jnepal's review against another edition
3.0
“In truth it is only by eternal institutions like hair that we can test passing institutions like empires.”
Chesterton writes in pithy sayings, in proverbs and metaphors, and somehow strings them together to create an argument. And he argues indirectly. I mean that he argues more about dispositions or tendencies or frames of mind or types of personality rather than merely focusing on concepts or platforms.
There are a lot of funny quotes in here, some of his more famous ones as well. He loves metaphor and simile. He loves paradox and juxtaposition (he was sometimes called the “Prince of Paradox”).
Sometimes GKC says dumb things too or reduces ideas or realities too simplistically, but his unconventional way of thinking is a good way to challenge our own ideas and perhaps give us insight.
This is not his best book, imo, and first time readers of GKC should read his biographies or “Everlasting Man,” instead.
Chesterton writes in pithy sayings, in proverbs and metaphors, and somehow strings them together to create an argument. And he argues indirectly. I mean that he argues more about dispositions or tendencies or frames of mind or types of personality rather than merely focusing on concepts or platforms.
There are a lot of funny quotes in here, some of his more famous ones as well. He loves metaphor and simile. He loves paradox and juxtaposition (he was sometimes called the “Prince of Paradox”).
Sometimes GKC says dumb things too or reduces ideas or realities too simplistically, but his unconventional way of thinking is a good way to challenge our own ideas and perhaps give us insight.
This is not his best book, imo, and first time readers of GKC should read his biographies or “Everlasting Man,” instead.