My rating:

add to my books

What's Wrong With The World

by G.K. Chesterton

4.09 · rating details · 235 ratings · 38 reviews

Chesterton gives his remarkably perceptive analysis on social and moral issues more relevant today than even in his own time. In his light and humorous style, yet deadly serious and philosophical, he comments on feminism and true womanhood, errors in education, the importance of the child and other issues, using incisive arguments against the trendsetters' assaults against

...more

Paperback, 160 pages

Published August 12th 2006 by Dodo Press (first published 1900)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

There is a good chance some of your friends read this book. Sign in to see!

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

This book is currently not featured on any Listopia lists. Add this book to your favorite list »

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 586)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Aug 03, 2008

Emilia P rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: real-books, churrrch

Oh Chesterton.
You are pretty freaking clever guy, and I love how much you love the poor and think women are glorious generalists and men have sort of a rotten lot in life and that democracy can only take us so far and it is ok to drink and be dirty if that is what you want to do sometimes. I would have come to some different conclusions about stuff (like maybe everybody should be more like ladies, not that ladies shouldn't vote), but basing your commentary on the idea that every person is ...more

like 2 likes

· see review

Jul 26, 2007

Fr.Bill M rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: christian-apologetics-polemics

This book provides near to irrefutable evidence that Chesterton was a prophet, a seer of the future. The truth, however, is more pedestrian -- that Chesterton could immediately recognize the foibles, follies, and lies that eventually poison and kill a culture.

So, in this work, Chesterton repeatedly startles and shocks us, for he reads as if he were commenting on the latest issue of the New York Times rather than the press of his day (early 20th Century). Sex, education, feminism ...more

like 3 likes

· see review

Feb 03, 2010

Skylar Burris rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: humor, philosophy, politics

G.K. Chesterton is such an amusing and clever writer that I do believe he could convince me of almost anything. Why, he nearly convinced me that women should never have bothered to obtain the right to vote. I am such an obstinate person, and so inclined to disagree with arguments even before I am certain that I disagree with them, that I am completely in awe of the skill of any writer who can make me half-agree with a position I do not, in fact, agree with. I’d say I tremble before the brillian...moreG.K. Chesterton is such an amusing and clever writer that I do believe he could convince me of almost anything. Why, he nearly convinced me that women should never have bothered to obtain the right to vote. I am such an obstinate person, and so inclined to disagree with arguments even before I am certain that I disagree with them, that I am completely in awe of the skill of any writer who can make me half-agree with a position I do not, in fact, agree with. I’d say I tremble before the brilliance of Chesterton, but he’s far too jovial and entertaining for anyone to ever tremble before him.

I particularly enjoyed what he had to say about modern education, and I was also entertained by his musings on the domestic sphere and the differences between men and women, as rife with stereotypes as they may have been. (Alas, stereotypes arise for a reason, and, despite what it is politically popular to say, that reason is seldom ignorance, but more often experience.)

Not long ago, I read Dr. Laura’s In Praise of Stay-at-home Moms, because I wanted to feel good about my current calling in life. I didn’t like the book because I wasn’t so much interested in watching working moms get torn down as I was interested in watching stay-at-home moms get built up. Fortunately, this one short selection from Chesterton did me more good than that entire book:

“When people begin to talk about this domestic duty as not merely difficult but trivial and dreary, I simply give up the question. For I cannot with the utmost energy of imagination conceive what they mean. When domesticity, for instance, is called drudgery, all the difficulty arises from a double meaning in the word. If drudgery only means dreadfully hard work, I admit the woman drudges in the home…But if it means that the hard work is more heavy because it is trifling, colorless, and of small import to the soul, then as I say, I give it up; I do not know what the words mean. To be Queen Elizabeth within a definite area, deciding sales, banquets, labors, and holidays; to be Whiteley within a certain area, providing toys, boots, sheet cakes, and books; to be Aristotle within a certain area, teaching morals, manners, theology, and hygiene; I can understand how this might exhaust the mind, but I cannot imagine how it could narrow it. How can it be a large career to tell other people’s children about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one’s own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone, and narrow to be everything to someone? No; a woman’s function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute, I will pity Mrs. Jones for the hugeness of her task; I will never pity her for its smallness.”

I don’t even really know what this book is about. It seems to be all over the map. It’s about men, women, family, marriage, the home, politics, the right to vote, Calvinism, Mr. Shaw, specialism, commerce, Catholicism, tradition, the future, the past, modern education, socialism…oh, I remember what it’s about. “What’s Wrong with the World.”

The thing about Chesterton is that his insights seem surprisingly contemporary. Although he wrote in the early 1900’s, he might as well have been writing today. His barbs are as poignant for our generation as they were for his.
(less)

· see review

Nov 17, 2009

Maggie Dijkstra rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: non-fiction

reading chesterton is always an abrupt awakening into clear thinking (and away from uber-postmodern relativism). whereas some of his thoughts are out of date, such as 1) his reflections on the validity of educating women 2) his subtle class snobbery and 3) his hidden racism, the worst we can truly say is that he was not mean-spirited so much as a man of his times and not of ours. thank goodness society (by and large) has moved on from those narrow ways of "seeing" gender, class, and ra...more

· see review

Sep 29, 2009

Brett rated it

· review of another edition

Again, never disappointed. He has been called "The Apostle of Common Sense" and "The Prince of Paradox" - and rightfully so. What may be maddening for some is that Chesterton does not give a straightforward argument from science or reason. His style is the argument from fairy tales. He draws on things that ring true and smell right.

In this book, he takes on the problems with liberalism and conservatism. Essentially, he argues the problem with both of them i...moreAgain, never disappointed. He has been called "The Apostle of Common Sense" and "The Prince of Paradox" - and rightfully so. What may be maddening for some is that Chesterton does not give a straightforward argument from science or reason. His style is the argument from fairy tales. He draws on things that ring true and smell right.

In this book, he takes on the problems with liberalism and conservatism. Essentially, he argues the problem with both of them is that they lack an "ideal." Without an ideal there is nothing to progress towards, and neither is there anything to conserve.

In the scope of this book, Chesterton takes the ideal of the happy and healthy family, and demonstrates how the collectivism of the liberals and the oppression of the conservatives both work against and undermine the sustainability of the family. But if I continue to try and describe his argument, I will fail miserably because I will describe it with such inferiority that you will lose your motivation to actually read him.

I will only attempt to describe for what he is arguing. It is distributionism. Unlike socialists, he believes in property. He believes in each family working, possessing, and caring their own family and their own property. Unlike the so-called "Capitalists" - and I say so-called because he argues that they are actually the enemies of capitalism - he believes in the distribution of wealth (not state ownership but that each person would be given land and a house to own). He argues that there is no other way to make progress toward this ideal than to redistribute wealth because the poor families will not be able to attain to the ideal under the current inequalities of wealth.

The book is written in 1910 but is still very relevant for today. However, you quickly notice that he lives on the other side of such movements as woman's suffrage and politically correctness. So, you may find a few things uncomfortable, but you need to take him in his context.(less)

like 1 like

· see review

Jan 20, 2010

John Caneday rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: 2010

This is a surprisingly relevant book considering its age and the cultural setting behind the book, namely turn of the 20th century England. Chesterton sees oligarchical rule, education, and confusion over sexual identity as two of the primary problems with his age, and I see the same with ours.

Strangely enough, Chesterton's solution involves revolution--a redistribution of the nation's land and man's re-ascension to the top of the chain of being. The conclusion to the book was a ...more

· see review

Feb 01, 2011

Noël DeVries rated it

· review of another edition

The wife is like the fire, or to put things in their proper proportion, the fire is like the wife. Like the fire, the woman is expected to cook: not to excel in cooking, but to cook; to cook better than her husband who is earning the coke by lecturing on botany or breaking stones. Like the fire, the woman is expected to tell tales to the children, not original and artistic tales, but tales—better tales than would probably be told by a first-class cook. Like the fire, the woman is expected to ill...moreThe wife is like the fire, or to put things in their proper proportion, the fire is like the wife. Like the fire, the woman is expected to cook: not to excel in cooking, but to cook; to cook better than her husband who is earning the coke by lecturing on botany or breaking stones. Like the fire, the woman is expected to tell tales to the children, not original and artistic tales, but tales—better tales than would probably be told by a first-class cook. Like the fire, the woman is expected to illuminate and ventilate, not by the most startling revelations or the wildest winds of thought, but better than a man can do it after breaking stones or lecturing. But she cannot be expected to endure anything like this universal duty if she is also to endure the direct cruelty of competitive or bureaucratic toil. Woman must be a cook, but not a competitive cook; a school mistress, but not a competitive schoolmistress; a house-decorator but not a competitive house-decorator; a dressmaker, but not a competitive dressmaker. She should have not one trade but twenty hobbies; she, unlike the man, may develop all her second bests. This is what has been really aimed at from the first in what is called the seclusion, or even the oppression, of women. Women were not kept at home in order to keep them narrow; on the contrary, they were kept at home in order to keep them broad. The world outside the home was one mass of narrowness, a maze of cramped paths, a madhouse of monomaniacs. It was only by partly limiting and protecting the woman that she was enabled to play at five or six professions and so come almost as near to God as the child when he plays at a hundred trades.

...the world must keep one great amateur, lest we all become artists and perish. Somebody must renounce all specialist conquests, that she may conquer all the conquerors. That she may be a queen of life, she must not be a private soldier in it.

It seems really to be supposed that a Trimmer means a cowardly person who always goes over to the stronger side. It really means a highly chivalrous person who always goes over to the weaker side; like one who trims a boat by sitting where there are few people seated. Woman is a trimmer; and it is a generous, dangerous and romantic trade.

When people begin to talk about this domestic duty as not merely difficult but trivial and dreary, I simply give up the question. For I cannot with the utmost energy of imagination conceive what they mean. When domesticity, for instance, is called drudgery, all the difficulty arises from a double meaning in the word. If drudgery only means dreadfully hard work, I admit the woman drudges in the home…But if it means that the hard work is more heavy because it is trifling, colorless, and of small import to the soul, then as I say, I give it up; I do not know what the words mean. To be Queen Elizabeth within a definite area, deciding sales, banquets, labors, and holidays; to be Whiteley within a certain area, providing toys, boots, sheet cakes, and books; to be Aristotle within a certain area, teaching morals, manners, theology, and hygiene; I can understand how this might exhaust the mind, but I cannot imagine how it could narrow it. How can it be a large career to tell other people’s children about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one’s own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone, and narrow to be everything to someone? No; a woman’s function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute, I will pity Mrs. Jones for the hugeness of her task; I will never pity her for its smallness.

Modern education means handing down the customs of the minority, and rooting out the customs of the majority.

...the prime truth of woman, the universal mother: that if a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly.

In resisting this horrible theory of the Soul of the Hive, we of Christendom stand not for ourselves, but for all humanity; for the essential and distinctive human idea that one good and happy man is an end in himself, that a soul is worth saving.

"Do you want to keep the family at all?" [Then] he must be prepared for the natural restraints, distinctions and divisions of labor in the family. He must brace himself up to bear the idea of the woman having a preference for the private house and a man for the public house. He must manage to endure somehow the idea of a woman being womanly, which does not mean soft and yielding, but handy, thrifty, rather hard, and very humorous. He must confront without a quiver the notion of a child who shall be childish, that is, full of energy, but without an idea of independence; fundamentally as eager for authority as for information and butter-scotch. If a man, a woman and a child live together any more in free and sovereign households, these ancient relations will recur; and [he] must put up with it. He can only avoid it by destroying the family, driving both sexes into sexless hives and hordes, and bringing up all children as the children of the state—like Oliver Twist. (less)

like 1 like

· see review

Jul 29, 2010

Tim Canny rated it

· review of another edition

I listened to the Librivox version of this book driving to and from work over the course of a week or so. While the content is everything the other high-raters say it is, the quality of the recordings were mixed with a couple chapters being almost unintelligible because of the accents of the reader. I guess I can't complain too much since the price was right. I'll probably eventually get the hardcopy and re-read this but as a way to get some more Chesterton under my belt during my commute it was...more

· see review

Sep 21, 2011

Michael rated it

· review of another edition

The Times of London once invited a number of well-known authors to write essays on the theme “What’s Wrong With the World?” G.K. Chesterton wrote his reply in the form of a letter. It read “Dear Sirs, I am. Sincerely Yours, G.K. Chesterton.” It is a letter that showcases his genius; humble, honest, humorous, with a profound understanding of the seriousness and far-reaching effects of individual sin. Apparently, though, Chesterton was not satisfied with just that letter, for he went on to wr...moreThe Times of London once invited a number of well-known authors to write essays on the theme “What’s Wrong With the World?” G.K. Chesterton wrote his reply in the form of a letter. It read “Dear Sirs, I am. Sincerely Yours, G.K. Chesterton.” It is a letter that showcases his genius; humble, honest, humorous, with a profound understanding of the seriousness and far-reaching effects of individual sin. Apparently, though, Chesterton was not satisfied with just that letter, for he went on to write a book dedicated to the topic of what is wrong with the world.

His answer to that question is not immediately clear. It unfolds slowly, and even obliquely because his answer, by itself, makes no sense. Chesterton argues, in short, that what is wrong with the world is that the world is always trying to solve the most basic problems by treating only the symptoms. In other words, he says, we are always starting at the wrong end. The most startling example he cites in support of his argument is a movement among the intelligentsia of his time to eradicate an infestation of lice among the poor by shaving the heads of the children. Yes, Chesterton acknowledges, that would alleviate the symptom of the lice, but it does nothing to address the ultimate cause: that people are living in conditions of abject poverty that are conducive to the spread of lice. Address the issue of poverty and the symptom of lice will take care of itself.

Chesterton illustrates his argument by examining the mistakes society makes about men, women, children and their proper place in the world and in relationship with each other. He repeatedly shows how those in power nearly always mistake a symptom for the problem, and frequently make things worse when they start “helping”. His observations are profound and incisive, in the most literal sense of the word. They cut into the reader who, if honest, sees his or her own folly reflected back from the pages.

Overall, this is a good book and one worth reading. I must admit, however, that some parts seem dated. Chesterton addresses issues that are specific to his time and place in history. Some of the evils he cites are no longer going concerns. Having said that, the general principles remain relevant, and we ignore him at the risk of committing what he referred to as “chronological snobbery.” There is much to be learned from Mr. Chesterton, and we would all do well to allow him to educate us. The sooner, the better.

(less)

like 1 like

· see review

Oct 26, 2007

Jason rated it

· review of another edition

Recommends it for: serious Chesterton fans

Shelves: churchy-stuff

Chesterton's wit is in top form, but the content was somewhat disappointing. I tend to agree with Chesterton's overall worldview, so I was excited to get his take on family values and gender roles. Good points here and there, but much of it is somewhat dated -- even for the traditionalist. Much of the discussion is concerned with woman's suffrage, which has long since been settled.

Chesterton does make an interesting distinction between the domestic realm and the professional realm...more

like 1 like

· see review

Dec 31, 2010

Seth rated it

· review of another edition

A fascinating critique of not just what is wrong, but also with the ways proposed to right the wrong.
Chesterton's summary of his book: to show that progress ought to be based on principle, while our modern progress is mostly based on precedent.

In seeking progress, we look forward with enthusiasm because we are afraid to look back. The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been tried and found difficult; and left untried.

· see review

Aug 23, 2011

Andrew rated it

· review of another edition

Oh, how I love Chesterton! When I read him as a 21st century American I can't help but find him a bit stoggy and conservative. But, deeper than his superficial claims is a real gem of true genius. Yes, he is conservative in a sense, in the way that we can mock him for being shocked that women would wear pants. Yet, many of his criticisms of what was becoming modern in his day are now appearing as very real modern disasters. Chesterton, I don't think it's fair to call him conservative, he goes be...more

· see review

Jan 30, 2011

Joffre Swait rated it

· review of another edition

As cleverly written as anything he ever did. It was fun to dance around from this to that; Chesterton is such a cogent and cohesive thinker that it all just flows.

Nobody makes writing about the "this far shall you go and no further" than Chesterton.

· see review

Aug 01, 2011

Strawshine rated it

· review of another edition

This is my favourite G.K. Chesterton book (of the three that I've had the pleasure of reading). Chesterton perceptively diagnosed the ills in society, ills that remain to this day. I do not agree with all that Chesterton writes in "What's Wrong With The World", but I can appreciate his arguments. As an aspiring sociologist, I found the book particularly intriguing. I credit Chesterton with making his case not using excessive theology or religious regulations (as these might distract th...more

· see review

Nov 12, 2009

Erik marked it as to-read · review of another edition

Shelves: another-sort-of-learning

Recommended 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.

· see review

Sep 13, 2011

Nettie rated it

· review of another edition

It was interesting, at least from a historical standpoint. Granted, some of the viewpoints were outdated, though I appreciate the dignity in being a housewife. Personally, I would like to have a job, at least for a little while, but a viewpoint where being a homemaker wasn't put in such a negative light was nice to have.

· see review

Oct 31, 2011

Brad Kittle rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: non-fiction

Chesterson's writing style is complex and his ideas can be hard to follow, which is fine if you are interested in the topics of discussion and I wasn't interested in most of the thoughts in this book. I will need to read Orthodoxy and give Mr. C another chance. I hear that is a good book to read by him.

· see review

Nov 14, 2010

Daniel Lower rated it

· review of another edition

Not my absolute favorite of his but still a good resounding call for human dignity to be respected in society.

· see review

Oct 23, 2010

Mortimus Clay rated it

· review of another edition

Marvelous -- right up there with Christopher Lasch's, Haven in a Heartless World and Huxley's, Brave New World. Obviously very different in many repects from those writers. His insight into the structural connections between captialism and socialism (the Yin and Yang of modernity) is spot on. Now if we could only get the message out to the mindless minions on Left and Right. We need a complete overhaul -- a return to the Household as the intergrating, universal institution -- fundamentally a...more

· see review

Jul 06, 2011

Brittany Petruzzi rated it

· review of another edition

Chesterton hits the nail on the head with this one, and, as is typical, does it in style. It's also, perhaps quite accidentally, one of the best treatments of the treason of feminism that I've ever had the privilege to come across.

On top of all that, he calls Martin Luther a pagan. What's more, the pagan who was instrumental in the heresies of John Calvin. And that's just funny.

· see review

Feb 02, 2011

Cathy rated it

· review of another edition

Absolutley loved it! Incredibly pertinent to today. Look forward to reading it again.

· see review

Jun 19, 2010

Widsith marked it as to-read · review of another edition

What's Wrong With the World by G. K. Chesterton (1994)

· see review

Jun 19, 2010

Widsith marked it as to-read · review of another edition

What's Wrong With The World by G. K. Chesterton (2009)

· see review

Feb 25, 2010

Hannah rated it

· review of another edition

Such a great read! I wish I had the time to memorize entire chapters.

I did like the first half better than the second half, but it's still well worth reading. Be prepared for Chesterton's very politically incorrect social views.

· see review

Mar 01, 2009

Douglas Wilson rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: church-and-culture

Brilliant.

· see review

Dec 21, 2010

Kevin Loker is currently reading it · review of another edition

thumbs up!

· see review

Jan 22, 2012

Carl rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: culture, politics

I didn't want to give it five stars, but it's rich.

· see review

Dec 20, 2011

David Farel rated it

· review of another edition

Recommends it for: Anyone socially active and aware

Skip the title, read the book. It's a very good summary of Chesterton's wonderfully sharp and unconventional social thought.

· see review

Oct 09, 2009

Everett rated it

· review of another edition

Some great passages, but all in all the book is very dated - I prefer the more timeless theology of "Orthodoxy."

· see review

Jun 17, 2008

Tammi rated it

· review of another edition

Not as depressing as the title! An interesting insight into how much the world remains the same. Written in about 1910, the language is a bit dated, but is beautiful in it's expressive specificity. GK Chesterton was CS Lewis mentor, and reads much like Lewis work. Well worth the effort of reading. Surprisingly beautiful defense,depiction and understanding of womens roles and the vital nature of motherhood.

· see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 19 20 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend it | Stats | Recent status updates

combine
Other Editions (55)

More editions...

Genres

Philosophy

7 users

Non Fiction

6 users

Culture

5 users

Politics

4 users

Christian

3 users

Religion

2 users

Religion > Theology

2 users

See top shelves...

Readers Also Enjoyed

About G.K. Chesterton

Gilbert Keith Chesterton (1874-1936) was an English writer. His prolific and diverse output included philosophy, ontology, poetry, play writing, journalism, public lecturing and debating, literary and art criticism, biography, Christian apologetics, and fiction, including fantasy and detective fiction.

Chesterton has been called the "prince of paradox". Time magazine, in a rev...more

More about G.K. Chesterton...

Books by G.K. Chesterton

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Pin It

Trivia About What's Wrong with...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

Quotes from What's Wrong with the ...

“The woman does not work because the man tells her to work and she obeys. On the contrary, the woman works because she has told the man to work and he hasn’t obeyed.” — 14 people liked it

“Thrift is poetic because it is creative; waste is unpoetic because it is waste.” — 5 people liked it

More quotes…

title link	preview: What's Wrong With The World
avg rating	preview: What's Wrong With The World Goodreads rating: 4.09 (235 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/184420.What_s_Wrong_With_The_World?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1172522673m/184420.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/184420.What_s_Wrong_With_The_World?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]What's Wrong With The World by G.K. Chesterton[/url]

What's Wrong With The World

Friend Reviews

Community Reviews

Readers Also Enjoyed

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website