Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

What's Wrong with the World

4.12 of 5 stars 4.12 · rating details · 426 ratings · 55 reviews

This remarkably perceptive analysis of social and moral issues by the noted British novelist and critic is as relevant today as it was in the author's era. Chesterton's style is light and humorous — but also deadly serious and philosophical — as he provides witty commentary on feminism, education,family, and other timeless topics.
...more

Paperback, 224 pages

Published June 5th 2007 by Dover Publications (first published 1900)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

Friend Reviews

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

Lists with This Book

An Essay on the Restoration of Property by Hilaire Belloc

What's Wrong with the World by G.K. Chesterton

Distributism

4th out of 5 books — 2 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 1,052)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Jul 23, 2012 booklady rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: 2012, books-on-books, classic, education, family, non-fiction, philosophy, worth-reading-over-and-over

What is wrong with the world? As James V. Schall points out in his introduction to Chesterton’s collection of essays, the popular Christian writer never hesitated ‘to challenge something because it was popular or widely accepted. Indeed, he suspected that a refusal to consider something as questionable because it was popular was itself a prejudice of the worst sort.’

What’s Wrong with the World is a collection of essays which can be read independently or as building on and supporting each other....more

like 4 likes · see review

Aug 03, 2008 Emilia P rated it 4 of 5 stars · 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 unique...more

like 3 likes · see review

Jul 26, 2007 Fr.Bill M rated it 5 of 5 stars

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 -- his trenchan...more

like 2 likes · see review

Apr 21, 2013 Ann rated it 4 of 5 stars

Love GK Chesterton's wit and clarity of thought. In this collection of essays, I love PART III "Feminism, or the Mistake About Woman". I especially love his comments on the importance of "motherhood" ... one such example is the following:
" ... children ... require to be taught not so much anything as everything. Babies need not to be taught a trade, but to be introduced to a world. To put the matter shortly, woman is generally shut up in a house with a human being at the time when he asks all t...more

like · see review

Feb 03, 2010 Skylar Burris rated it 4 of 5 stars

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 brillianc...more 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 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)

like 3 likes · see review

Nov 17, 2009 Maggie rated it 3 of 5 stars

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 racial/natio...more

like · see review

Sep 29, 2009 Brett rated it 4 of 5 stars

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 is that they lack an "ideal." Without a...more

like 2 likes · see review

Jan 20, 2010 John Caneday rated it 4 of 5 stars · 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 surprise, but a...more

like · see review

Jul 13, 2012 Bryana Johnson rated it 4 of 5 stars

In his title, Chesterton asks a probing and universal question that has been associated with his literary image ever since. It is important to note that, rather uncharacteristically, he seeks to answer this question without reference to particulars of dogma or doctrine. He explains in another place why he chooses to do so. In fact, this essay titled What’s Right With The World should be treated as an introduction to the text of the book, as apart from it a reader may not be able to understand th...more In his title, Chesterton asks a probing and universal question that has been associated with his literary image ever since. It is important to note that, rather uncharacteristically, he seeks to answer this question without reference to particulars of dogma or doctrine. He explains in another place why he chooses to do so. In fact, this essay titled What’s Right With The World should be treated as an introduction to the text of the book, as apart from it a reader may not be able to understand the full import and implication of the longer work.

Here is a portion of that explanation:

"What is wrong with the world is the devil, and what is right with it is God; the human race will travel for a few more million years in all sorts of muddle and reform, and when it perishes of the last cold or heat it will still be within the limits of that very simple definition. But in an age that has confused itself with such phrases as ‘optimist’ and ‘pessimist’, it is necessary to distinguish along more delicate lines."

These “more delicate lines” make up the structure and backbone of the book, What’s Wrong With The World. They are summarized at the beginning of the book as follows

"It is the whole definition and dignity of man that in social matters we must actually find the cure before we find the disease… Exactly the whole difficulty in our public problems is that some men are aiming at cures which other men would regard as worse maladies; are offering ultimate conditions as states of health which others would uncompromisingly call states of disease."

In other words, what is wrong with the world is not only that no one can agree on what would set it right, but that everyone has a conflicting view of what right even looks like. Building on this intriguing premise, Chesterton then presents a fascinating collection of related essays exploring social issues from feminism to education to class warfare to divorce to home ownership.

While I found just about every one of these little essays enjoyable, some of the ones I especially appreciated were those dealing with feminism – what Chesterton calls, “the mistake about women.” Although his views would be considered radical and archaic by most Westerners today, Chesterton is no chauvinist. On the contrary, his gentle arguments against the movement for women’s suffrage and the push for women to join the workforce are based entirely on his very exalted opinion of the female and of her grand purpose in the scheme of things. In fact, when Chesterton gets done talking about feminism, everybody ought to want to be a girl! Even if you disagree with him, you are forced to respect his kindly and deferential manner of stating his case.

Another cause he champions valiantly and well is that of “wild domesticity” – the importance of home ownership and children and responsibility and autonomy to men and women. A man who owns a home is a free man during at least some part of his day, Chesterton asserts. He has a kingdom to rule over and the probability of adventures and the right to paint his front door green with purple spots if he wants to.

Chesterton is characteristically sweeping in his statements. When a good idea hits him, he doesn’t pause to deliberate over the details, but lays out his theory in whole, and in a grand and masterly fashion. Whether or not he is always right is, of course, up to the reader to determine. However, it can be safely said that he often is not satisfactorily exhaustive in his explanations of stunning generalizations.

Mainly for this reason, I give What’s Wrong With The World 4 out of 5 stars.(less)

like · see review

Jan 09, 2013 Bob rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: christianity-and-culture

I don't think this is the best of Chesterton. On the one hand I deeply appreciated his basic thesis that many of our efforts at social engineering are solutions in search of (or ignorant of) the problem. He argues that we should fit our solutions to the real nature of people rather than making people fit our solutions. On the other hand, I find Chesterton very much a creature of his time in his view of women and his effort to deny them suffrage or access to the workplace because this would dimin...more

like · see review

Feb 01, 2011 Noël DeVries rated it 3 of 5 stars

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...more 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 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 2 likes · see review

Jul 29, 2010 Tim Canny rated it 5 of 5 stars

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

like · see review

Feb 04, 2013 Brian rated it 5 of 5 stars

Rather than a collection of various essays, What's Wrong with the World is an attempt to answer that question. It introduces GKCs stand-ins for Big Government and Big Business, Hudge and Gudge. As with many of his books, it's important to remember that is was written in the early to mid 1900s in a British culture, therefore some things will sound a little strange to contemporary American ears. But this a brilliant and challenging look at where we got off track on education, government and family...more

like · see review

Sep 21, 2011 Michael rated it 3 of 5 stars

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 write a...more 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 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

Apr 13, 2012 Erunion rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: 20th-century, essays, own, politics

Chesterton is Quite Wrong here, but he is quite wrong in an interesting way. Most of his problems revolve around his conclusions concerning women, but the bases for his conclusions are quite interesting in themselves.

He believes that women are naturally generalists, whereas men are specialists. A specialist is one who must perform a trade, whereas a generalist is one who should rule the home. To ask a woman to perform a trade is something that is inherently unjust and would destroy society as a...more Chesterton is Quite Wrong here, but he is quite wrong in an interesting way. Most of his problems revolve around his conclusions concerning women, but the bases for his conclusions are quite interesting in themselves.

He believes that women are naturally generalists, whereas men are specialists. A specialist is one who must perform a trade, whereas a generalist is one who should rule the home. To ask a woman to perform a trade is something that is inherently unjust and would destroy society as a whole. Chesterton of course uses many wonderful metaphors to illustrate what a universalist is.

I'm not sure his analysis holds out in real life, however. I have met far too many men who function better as univeraslists and women who were, interestingly, definitely specializing in one thing. I rarely meet, for instance, a man who is supremely good in accounting alone, or a lady who can engage moderately well in all of the prerequisites in keeping a home. It would seem that this specialist/universalist distinction is borne more from upbringing than natural proclivities.

But his reasons for asserting this are interesting. He begins the book with emphasizing that each person needs a home - a place to call their own, and a place they shoot out from. A home is the only true place in the world where anarchy can reign. If one lives a riotous lifestyle of wandering from bar to bar and hotel to hotel, one must certainly abide by certain rules. One must drink in a certain way, observe certain hours, and even obey traffic laws. Whereas, at home, one my certainly elect to put the carpet on the ceiling and the drapes on the floor.

Thus, the home is the universal good for the person, and all other things, the state, the working life, and even voting rights, are merely attenuations that exist for the good of the home. They are, as we would say nowadays, necessary evils.

Chesterton, on this basis, asserts that thrusting women into such necessary evils makes no sense. But his conception of the home - that is the only place in the world where anarchy(in the sense of freedom) may dwell - is quite interesting.

It is also anti socialist - it implies property rights. But it is also anti corporation; Chesterton strongly implies that large plots of land ought be broken up and given to individuals.

And that latter point is what makes Chesterton so interesting. He is conservative, but not conservative enough for conservatives. And liberal too. But not liberal enough for liberals. The only real question is if Chesterton is moderate or really a thinker caught out of time.(less)

like · see review

Oct 26, 2007 Jason rated it 3 of 5 stars 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, classifying h...more

like 1 like · see review

Feb 28, 2013 Stephen Brooke rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: essays

Chesterton may occasionally be wrong about what’s wrong, but he is more frequently on target. And one thing’s for certain — his Misters Hudge and Gudge are still at it today.

This book of related essays may not act as the best introduction to his ideas and arguments, being, of necessity, fairly brief. The fact that a century separates us from the age in which they were written does not help. Some of the prejudices of his time (particularly as they apply to gender) do make their appearances.

Althou...more

like · see review

Dec 31, 2010 Seth rated it 4 of 5 stars · 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.

like · see review

Aug 23, 2011 Andrew rated it 4 of 5 stars

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

like · see review

Jul 31, 2012 Edgar Mora-Reyes rated it 3 of 5 stars Recommends it for: Teólogos, antropólogos, iniciados en la sociología, historiadores, estudiantes de postgrado

Un gran pensador, que reflexiona sobre situaciones, personas, estructuras, vidas que al día de hoy pareciera que reconoce el mundo de hoy desde su tiempo. La lectura de esta obra es fresca, intensa y muy divertida, con su marcado estilo de humor, si así se le puede llamar, ayuda al lector a pensar mas allá de lo escrito.
No es su mejor obra y sin embargo es muy recomendable.

like · see review

Jul 27, 2012 Sandra rated it 4 of 5 stars

This was an amazing book, I have to admit that it was ver hard at the beginning to read Chesterton's view on women's vote, but the book is totally worth reading and his ideas were even radical. The philosophy behind domesticity is very well explained, as well as the roles of men and women in society and the world. Another one of Chesterton's great works.

like · see review

Jan 30, 2011 Joffre Swait rated it 5 of 5 stars

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.

like · see review

Aug 01, 2011 Strawshine rated it 5 of 5 stars · 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 the unbeliev...more

like · see review

Nov 12, 2009 Erik marked it as to-read

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.

like · see review

Sep 19, 2012 Misha Burnett rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: politics

G K Chesterton was the sanest man who ever lived, and in my opinion this is his best book. It is not just as relevant as it was when it was published, it's as controversial as it was then. The title pretty much says it all, Chesterton has made a very clear and lucid case for the necessity a coherent philosophical approach to the political process. What is wrong with the world, he explains, is that no one asks what is right.

Available from Project Gutenberg: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1717

like · see review

Feb 26, 2013 Keith Bell rated it 4 of 5 stars

Great book of social essays. While many of the ideas are dated there is still much to chew on (especially re: women's suffrage and elitism). Chesterton has a way with words (if not with facts lol).

like · see review

Sep 13, 2011 Nettie rated it 4 of 5 stars

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.

like · see review

Oct 31, 2011 Brad Kittle rated it 2 of 5 stars · 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.

like · see review

Nov 14, 2010 Daniel Lower rated it 3 of 5 stars

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

like · see review

May 10, 2013 Heath rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

If you like reading Chesterton rant about whatever crosses his mind, you'll love this book.

like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 35 36 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 (59)

More editions...

Genres

Non Fiction

17 users

Religion > Theology

8 users

Philosophy

8 users

Christian

7 users

Culture

7 users

Writing > Essays

6 users

Religion > Christianity

5 users

Politics

5 users

Classics

5 users

Religion

4 users

See top shelves...

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About G.K. Chesterton

Gilbert Keith Chesterton (1874-1936) cannot be summed up in one sentence. Nor in one paragraph. In fact, in spite of the fine biographies that have been written of him (and his Autobiography), he has never been captured between the covers of one book. But rather than waiting to separate the goats from the sheep, let’s just come right out and say it: G.K. Chesterton was the best writer of the twent...more Gilbert Keith Chesterton (1874-1936) cannot be summed up in one sentence. Nor in one paragraph. In fact, in spite of the fine biographies that have been written of him (and his Autobiography), he has never been captured between the covers of one book. But rather than waiting to separate the goats from the sheep, let’s just come right out and say it: G.K. Chesterton was the best writer of the twentieth century. He said something about everything and he said it better than anybody else. But he was no mere wordsmith. He was very good at expressing himself, but more importantly, he had something very good to express. The reason he was the greatest writer of the twentieth century was because he was also the greatest thinker of the twentieth century.

Born in London, Chesterton was educated at St. Paul’s, but never went to college. He went to art school. 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. (To put it into perspective, four thousand essays is the equivalent of writing an essay a day, every day, for 11 years. If you’re not impressed, try it some time. But they have to be good essays, all of them, as funny as they are serious, and as readable and rewarding a century after you've written them.)

Chesterton was equally at ease with literary and social criticism, history, politics, economics, philosophy, and theology. His style is unmistakable, always marked by humility, consistency, paradox, wit, and wonder. His writing remains as timely and as timeless today as when it first appeared, even though much of it was published in throw away paper.

This man who composed such profound and perfect lines as "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried," stood 6’4" and weighed about 300 pounds, usually had a cigar in his mouth, and walked around wearing a cape and a crumpled hat, tiny glasses pinched to the end of his nose, swordstick in hand, laughter blowing through his moustache. And usually had no idea where or when his next appointment was. He did much of his writing in train stations, since he usually missed the train he was supposed to catch. In one famous anecdote, he wired his wife, saying, "Am at Market Harborough. Where ought I to be?" His faithful wife, Frances, attended to all the details of his life, since he continually proved he had no way of doing it himself. She was later assisted by a secretary, Dorothy Collins, who became the couple’s surrogate daughter, and went on to become the writer’s literary executrix, continuing to make his work available after his death.

This absent-minded, overgrown elf of a man, who laughed at his own jokes and amused children at birthday parties by catching buns in his mouth, was the man who wrote a book called The Everlasting Man, which led a young atheist named C.S. Lewis to become a Christian. This was the man who wrote a novel called The Napoleon of Notting Hill, which inspired Michael Collins to lead a movement for Irish Independence. This was the man who wrote an essay in the Illustrated London News that inspired Mahatma Gandhi to lead a movement to end British colonial rule in India. This was a man who, when commissioned to write a book on St. Thomas Aquinas (aptly titled Saint Thomas Aquinas), had his secretary check out a stack of books on St. (less)

More about G.K. Chesterton...

Books by G.K. Chesterton

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Trivia About What's Wrong with...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

Quotes from What's Wrong with the ...

“The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.” — 611 people liked it

“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.” — 35 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: 4.12 (426 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://gr-assets.com/book/show/184565.What_s_Wrong_with_the_World?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1328864028l/184565.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://gr-assets.com/book/show/184565.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

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website