What do you think?
Rate this book
Robert Louis Stevenson
1928. G.K. Chesterton was a journalist, poet, novelist, playwright, debater, and Catholic apologist in the early twentieth century. When Stevenson first appeared, Sir Edmund Gosse, England's leading literary critic, wrote: I have just finished reading the book in which you smite the detractors of R.L.S. hip and thigh. I cannot express without a sort of hyperbole, the sentiments which you have awakened; of joy, of satisfaction, of relief, of malicious and vindictive pleasure. We are avenged at last...It is and always since his death has been impossible for me to write anything which went below the surface of R.L.S. I loved him, and still love him, too tenderly to analyze him. But you, who have the privilege of not being dazzled by having known him, have taken the task into your strong competent hands. You could not have done it better. The latest survivor, the only survivor, of his little early circle of intimate friends thanks you from the bottom of his heart.
Hardcover
First published January 1, 1927
9 people are currently reading
133 people want to read
About the author
G.K. Chesterton
4,649 books5,788 followersGilbert Keith Chesterton was an English writer, philosopher, lay theologian, and literary and art critic.
He was educated at St. Paul’s, and went to art school at University College London. In 1900, he was asked to contribute a few magazine articles on art criticism, and went on to become one of the most prolific writers of all time. He wrote a hundred books, contributions to 200 more, hundreds of poems, including the epic Ballad of the White Horse, five plays, five novels, and some two hundred short stories, including a popular series featuring the priest-detective, Father Brown. In spite of his literary accomplishments, he considered himself primarily a journalist. He wrote over 4000 newspaper essays, including 30 years worth of weekly columns for the Illustrated London News, and 13 years of weekly columns for the Daily News. He also edited his own newspaper, G.K.’s Weekly.
Chesterton was equally at ease with literary and social criticism, history, politics, economics, philosophy, and theology.
He was educated at St. Paul’s, and went to art school at University College London. In 1900, he was asked to contribute a few magazine articles on art criticism, and went on to become one of the most prolific writers of all time. He wrote a hundred books, contributions to 200 more, hundreds of poems, including the epic Ballad of the White Horse, five plays, five novels, and some two hundred short stories, including a popular series featuring the priest-detective, Father Brown. In spite of his literary accomplishments, he considered himself primarily a journalist. He wrote over 4000 newspaper essays, including 30 years worth of weekly columns for the Illustrated London News, and 13 years of weekly columns for the Daily News. He also edited his own newspaper, G.K.’s Weekly.
Chesterton was equally at ease with literary and social criticism, history, politics, economics, philosophy, and theology.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
January 8, 2021
”In short, I propose to review his books with illustrations from his life, rather than to write his life with illustrations from his books. And, I do it deliberately, not because his life was not as interesting as any book; but because the habit of talking too much about his life has already actually led to thinking far too little of his literature. His ideas are being underrated, precisely because they are not being studied separately and seriously as ideas. His art is being underrated precisely because he is not accorded even the fair advantages of Art for Art’s Sake.”
It seems like an odd thing in this age of strife and disagreement that I can agree with someone so diametrically opposed to myself on the merits of a writer from the 19th century. G. K. Chesterton was a Catholic apologist who became so flustered by an onslaught of criticism for Robert Louis Stevenson that he felt compelled to write a series of articles in his defense. His untimely death made it impossible for R. L. S. to defend himself. Critics do love to launch their broadsides knowing that their targets will not be able to shoot back.
What were their issues? Was it a question of the Stevensonian style? Across the too short span of Stevenson’s creative work, ”he tried a great many different styles, and yet his style was not different.” He was an unabashed story teller and experimented with variation of style to better tell each story; yet, it is impossible to read any of his work without readily identifying it as...a Stevenson. He did at times write with drama, a clash of steel and a flash of a blue coat, but for some reason his critics liked to accuse him of being melodramatic, which gives the impression that his prose were sappy and overdramatic, when in fact his word choices were exciting and capable of inspiring shivers. There is a war on adverbs and adjectives that has been going on from Stevenson’s era and has picked up steam in our post-Hemingway era, which I like to think of as the post-apocalyptic moment in American literature, which unfortunately also spilled over in the literature across the pond as well. I see reviewers on Goodreads frequently criticizing writers for using too many adverbs and adjectives and also for using an expanded lexicon of our language. The Hemingway rule is to always use the simplest most common word.
I read an article recently that discussed why modern readers don’t like adverbs and adjectives, and it is because they slow the reader down. The reader must assess an adverb or adjective for a tad longer than other words. The reader, preferring to have her eyes skip along the sentences without pause, also doesn’t appreciate encountering a word she may not be familiar with, certainly not a word that she must look up to ascertain the writer’s meaning. These readers that find these aspects irritating are readers who must only want to read for entertainment, but isn’t part of the joy of reading also to achieve enlightenment? The majority of novels being published today reflect these desires of modern readers. It is a quite common experience for me to read a recently published novel and be very aware of the reduced lexicon of the writer. That isn’t to say that there aren’t good books being published; there just are not very many books being published that challenge a reader to be a better reader. Fortunately for me, I have more than enough books from the Victorians and the age of Storytelling that followed them to keep me busy for the rest of my life.
Chesterton does talk about the similarities between Edgar Allan Poe and R. L. S. His description of Poe’s work is marvelous. ”Dark wine, dying lamps, drugging odours, a sense of being stifled in curtains of black velvet, a substance which is at once utterly black and unfathomably soft, all carried with them a sense of indefinite and infinite decay. The word infinite is not itself used indefinitely. The point of Poe is that we feel that everything is decaying, including ourselves; faces are already growing featureless like those of lepers; roof-trees are rotting from root to roof; one great grey fungus as vast as a forest is sucking up life rather than giving it forth; mirrored in stagnant pools like lakes of poison which yet fade without line or frontier into the swamp.” There is not doubt that Chesterton is a talented and imaginative writer, and throughout this short book, he frequently made observations about Stevenson that gave me fresh insight into a writer I know almost as well as I know myself. The only other book I’ve read by Chesterton is The Man Who Knew Thursday, which is considered canon in the writing field of espionage and shows his playful creativity to full advantage.
So maybe I am a sentimentalist, which is a charge frequently leveled at readers who appreciate Stevenson. Maybe I am a melodramatic person because I like some gothic drama in my reading. Maybe I am a dinosaur because I smile whenever I encounter an unfamiliar word. Maybe I am a throwback reader because I like a liberal dose of adverbial sauce when I’m masticating a novel. So be it.
”While he read all the realists, knew all the artists, doubted with the doubters and even denied with the deniers, he had that within him which could not but break out in a sort of passionate protest for more personal and poetical things. He flung out his arms with a wide and blind gesture, as one who would find wings at the moment when the world sank beneath him.”
If you wish to see more of my most recent book and movie reviews, visit http://www.jeffreykeeten.com I also have a Facebook blogger page at:https://www.facebook.com/JeffreyKeeten and an Instagram account https://www.instagram.com/jeffreykeeten/
It seems like an odd thing in this age of strife and disagreement that I can agree with someone so diametrically opposed to myself on the merits of a writer from the 19th century. G. K. Chesterton was a Catholic apologist who became so flustered by an onslaught of criticism for Robert Louis Stevenson that he felt compelled to write a series of articles in his defense. His untimely death made it impossible for R. L. S. to defend himself. Critics do love to launch their broadsides knowing that their targets will not be able to shoot back.
What were their issues? Was it a question of the Stevensonian style? Across the too short span of Stevenson’s creative work, ”he tried a great many different styles, and yet his style was not different.” He was an unabashed story teller and experimented with variation of style to better tell each story; yet, it is impossible to read any of his work without readily identifying it as...a Stevenson. He did at times write with drama, a clash of steel and a flash of a blue coat, but for some reason his critics liked to accuse him of being melodramatic, which gives the impression that his prose were sappy and overdramatic, when in fact his word choices were exciting and capable of inspiring shivers. There is a war on adverbs and adjectives that has been going on from Stevenson’s era and has picked up steam in our post-Hemingway era, which I like to think of as the post-apocalyptic moment in American literature, which unfortunately also spilled over in the literature across the pond as well. I see reviewers on Goodreads frequently criticizing writers for using too many adverbs and adjectives and also for using an expanded lexicon of our language. The Hemingway rule is to always use the simplest most common word.
I read an article recently that discussed why modern readers don’t like adverbs and adjectives, and it is because they slow the reader down. The reader must assess an adverb or adjective for a tad longer than other words. The reader, preferring to have her eyes skip along the sentences without pause, also doesn’t appreciate encountering a word she may not be familiar with, certainly not a word that she must look up to ascertain the writer’s meaning. These readers that find these aspects irritating are readers who must only want to read for entertainment, but isn’t part of the joy of reading also to achieve enlightenment? The majority of novels being published today reflect these desires of modern readers. It is a quite common experience for me to read a recently published novel and be very aware of the reduced lexicon of the writer. That isn’t to say that there aren’t good books being published; there just are not very many books being published that challenge a reader to be a better reader. Fortunately for me, I have more than enough books from the Victorians and the age of Storytelling that followed them to keep me busy for the rest of my life.
Chesterton does talk about the similarities between Edgar Allan Poe and R. L. S. His description of Poe’s work is marvelous. ”Dark wine, dying lamps, drugging odours, a sense of being stifled in curtains of black velvet, a substance which is at once utterly black and unfathomably soft, all carried with them a sense of indefinite and infinite decay. The word infinite is not itself used indefinitely. The point of Poe is that we feel that everything is decaying, including ourselves; faces are already growing featureless like those of lepers; roof-trees are rotting from root to roof; one great grey fungus as vast as a forest is sucking up life rather than giving it forth; mirrored in stagnant pools like lakes of poison which yet fade without line or frontier into the swamp.” There is not doubt that Chesterton is a talented and imaginative writer, and throughout this short book, he frequently made observations about Stevenson that gave me fresh insight into a writer I know almost as well as I know myself. The only other book I’ve read by Chesterton is The Man Who Knew Thursday, which is considered canon in the writing field of espionage and shows his playful creativity to full advantage.
So maybe I am a sentimentalist, which is a charge frequently leveled at readers who appreciate Stevenson. Maybe I am a melodramatic person because I like some gothic drama in my reading. Maybe I am a dinosaur because I smile whenever I encounter an unfamiliar word. Maybe I am a throwback reader because I like a liberal dose of adverbial sauce when I’m masticating a novel. So be it.
”While he read all the realists, knew all the artists, doubted with the doubters and even denied with the deniers, he had that within him which could not but break out in a sort of passionate protest for more personal and poetical things. He flung out his arms with a wide and blind gesture, as one who would find wings at the moment when the world sank beneath him.”
If you wish to see more of my most recent book and movie reviews, visit http://www.jeffreykeeten.com I also have a Facebook blogger page at:https://www.facebook.com/JeffreyKeeten and an Instagram account https://www.instagram.com/jeffreykeeten/
April 11, 2018
If you are interested in literary criticism then I highly recommend this book. This is the best critique that I have ever read. Its insights into Stevenson, and all authors, and into the modern practice of criticism was transformative. Anyone that studies literature should read this book.
May 8, 2018
So apparently, whatever Chesterton was, he was also a literary critic. Or perhaps it was the other way around.
I suppose it's odd that this is my first Chesterton, in which I discover that we have a mutual affection (his studied, mine still growing) for the delight of reading R.L.S. and the further delight to be found in considering deeply what you've read. "Stevenson was a Christian theologian without knowing it," says he, and I think that's why I find him (R.L.S., that is) so fascinating--the Scottish-Calvinist apostate who nevertheless explores human nature with an acuity that's hard to match.
Chesterton certainly knows the scene, and in the way only he can, he situates Stevenson in the cross-currents of his time.
I'd recommend this to anyone interested in Stevenson, and I'd recommend that to just about everyone.
I suppose it's odd that this is my first Chesterton, in which I discover that we have a mutual affection (his studied, mine still growing) for the delight of reading R.L.S. and the further delight to be found in considering deeply what you've read. "Stevenson was a Christian theologian without knowing it," says he, and I think that's why I find him (R.L.S., that is) so fascinating--the Scottish-Calvinist apostate who nevertheless explores human nature with an acuity that's hard to match.
Chesterton certainly knows the scene, and in the way only he can, he situates Stevenson in the cross-currents of his time.
I'd recommend this to anyone interested in Stevenson, and I'd recommend that to just about everyone.
October 24, 2011
An engaging book. I thought it was a biography when I picked it up but that's not quite right. I would say it's like literary criticism but that would make it sound boring. Like his Short History of England, Chesterton assumes you know the basic biographical/historical outline of the subject and plunges into his own search for the heart of the matter. And I think he succeeds pretty well, especially in showing how Stevenson's swashbuckling adventures were a shocking protest (from a serious artist) against the prevailing pessimism of the time.
August 23, 2018
My version of Treasure Island will always be inhabited by Kermit the Frog and Miss Piggy, thanks to the 90s film of the same name. But before Muppets interpreted the significance of Robert Louis Stevenson, G. K. Chesterton had his own say. And Chesterton saw in Stevenson a return to childhood, and a rejection of the grays, the ambiguities, and the pessimism of the moderns.
G. K. Chesterton's Robert Louis Stevenson is another biography that isn't a biography. It's more of a work of literary criticism for a man Chesterton perhaps didn't always agree with all the time, but certainly held in deep respect. Chesterton finds common ground with Stevenson in what he refers to as the "sharp edges" of his characters and plots: a freshness, simplicity, and aliveness that perhaps to some comes off as gaudy and pompous. Stevenson was a romantic.
The book gets weighed down in parts where Louis is taking a jab at some of his contemporaries that have long since been forgotten. Some pages went by that were almost uninterpretable for me. But on the whole, this is another great biography by Chesterton. I wouldn't recommend this as a first if you haven't read Chesterton before. I would try some of his fiction like Manalive or for a more theological work Everlasting Man. Then I would read Heretics or Orthodoxy to get an idea of his style of literary criticism before tacking Robert Louis Stevenson.
I picked up Robert Louis Stevenson after going through Chesterton's bibliography and taking note of the titles I had not yet read. Robert Louis Stevenson caught my eye, because while I don't know a lot about Stevenson as a person, I have read both Treasure Island and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Treasure Island was one of the first "classical" books I read as a child, first as a simplified Illustrate Classics edition with pictures and all, and a bit later when I got my first set of Puffin Classics alongside other titles like White Fang and Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea.
Chesterton once again has written a biography without sticking to any strict standards of historical accuracy-- but has good reasons for choosing not to do so. In his introduction called "The Myth of Stevenson", Chesterton details how many critics of Stevenson had dismissed him as so much childishness, and Stevenson had been overanalyzed and debunked so many times that it had become so much fodder. Stevenson wanted to try to different approach to try to show why Stevenson was significant:
This book makes no pretence of being even an outline of the life of Stevenson. In his particular case I deliberately omit such an outline, because I find that it has cut across and confused the very sharp and lucid outline of his art...
In short, I propose to review his books with illustrations from his life; rather than to write his life with illustrations from his books. And I do it deliberately, not because his life was not as interesting as any book; but because the habit of talking too much about his life has already actually led to thinking far too little of his literature. His ideas are being underrated, precisely because they are not being studied separately and seriously as ideas. His art is being underrated, precisely because he is not accorded even the fair advantages of Art for Art's Sake.
And he's true to his word. You actually hear very little about his life at all. I got the idea that he was an invalid, and he travelled to a lot of foreign places for his health-- but those travels ultimately became the settings for his adventure stories.
And what did Stevenson represent to Chesterton then? In summary, RLS was a rejection of the pessimistic mood of the times that was consciously romantic in form and subconsciously Christian in nature. I like this description that captures the heart of it:
Familiarity had dulled the divine paradox that we should learn morality from little children. He advanced the more disturbing paradox that we should learn morality from little boys. The young child who should lead us was the common (or garden) little boy: the boy of the catapult and the toy pistol--and the toy theatre. Stevenson seemed to say to the semi-suicides drooping round him at the café tables; drinking absinthe and discussing atheism: "Hang it all, the hero of a penny-dreadful play was a better man than you are!
I appreciate how Chesterton can capture the essence of a man so beautifully. I remember an English teacher warning us students to avoid speculating "what the author meant", but Chesterton doesn't shy away from such a task at all. Every review is an interpretation, and Chesterton owns it.
G. K. Chesterton's Robert Louis Stevenson is another biography that isn't a biography. It's more of a work of literary criticism for a man Chesterton perhaps didn't always agree with all the time, but certainly held in deep respect. Chesterton finds common ground with Stevenson in what he refers to as the "sharp edges" of his characters and plots: a freshness, simplicity, and aliveness that perhaps to some comes off as gaudy and pompous. Stevenson was a romantic.
The book gets weighed down in parts where Louis is taking a jab at some of his contemporaries that have long since been forgotten. Some pages went by that were almost uninterpretable for me. But on the whole, this is another great biography by Chesterton. I wouldn't recommend this as a first if you haven't read Chesterton before. I would try some of his fiction like Manalive or for a more theological work Everlasting Man. Then I would read Heretics or Orthodoxy to get an idea of his style of literary criticism before tacking Robert Louis Stevenson.
I picked up Robert Louis Stevenson after going through Chesterton's bibliography and taking note of the titles I had not yet read. Robert Louis Stevenson caught my eye, because while I don't know a lot about Stevenson as a person, I have read both Treasure Island and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Treasure Island was one of the first "classical" books I read as a child, first as a simplified Illustrate Classics edition with pictures and all, and a bit later when I got my first set of Puffin Classics alongside other titles like White Fang and Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea.
Chesterton once again has written a biography without sticking to any strict standards of historical accuracy-- but has good reasons for choosing not to do so. In his introduction called "The Myth of Stevenson", Chesterton details how many critics of Stevenson had dismissed him as so much childishness, and Stevenson had been overanalyzed and debunked so many times that it had become so much fodder. Stevenson wanted to try to different approach to try to show why Stevenson was significant:
This book makes no pretence of being even an outline of the life of Stevenson. In his particular case I deliberately omit such an outline, because I find that it has cut across and confused the very sharp and lucid outline of his art...
In short, I propose to review his books with illustrations from his life; rather than to write his life with illustrations from his books. And I do it deliberately, not because his life was not as interesting as any book; but because the habit of talking too much about his life has already actually led to thinking far too little of his literature. His ideas are being underrated, precisely because they are not being studied separately and seriously as ideas. His art is being underrated, precisely because he is not accorded even the fair advantages of Art for Art's Sake.
And he's true to his word. You actually hear very little about his life at all. I got the idea that he was an invalid, and he travelled to a lot of foreign places for his health-- but those travels ultimately became the settings for his adventure stories.
And what did Stevenson represent to Chesterton then? In summary, RLS was a rejection of the pessimistic mood of the times that was consciously romantic in form and subconsciously Christian in nature. I like this description that captures the heart of it:
Familiarity had dulled the divine paradox that we should learn morality from little children. He advanced the more disturbing paradox that we should learn morality from little boys. The young child who should lead us was the common (or garden) little boy: the boy of the catapult and the toy pistol--and the toy theatre. Stevenson seemed to say to the semi-suicides drooping round him at the café tables; drinking absinthe and discussing atheism: "Hang it all, the hero of a penny-dreadful play was a better man than you are!
I appreciate how Chesterton can capture the essence of a man so beautifully. I remember an English teacher warning us students to avoid speculating "what the author meant", but Chesterton doesn't shy away from such a task at all. Every review is an interpretation, and Chesterton owns it.
October 14, 2021
El miércoles 15 de septiembre de 2021, durante mi inmersión en Dr. Jekyll y Mr Hyde y otros relatos cortos del autor, empecé a leer este ensayo/biografía de diez capítulos publicado por G.K. Chesterton en 1927 sobre la personalidad literaria de Robert Louis Stevenson.
De momento he leído los siguientes capítulos:
I. The Myth of Stevenson: xx
III. Youth and Edinburgh: Chesterton carga contra el sofocante ambiente puritano de Edimburgo y lo conecta con Jekyll y Hyde.
IV. The Reaction to Romance: más que leerlo, le eché un ojo.
V. The Scottish Stories: nueva carga contra el puritanismo escocés y a la sociedad escocesa. Explica cómo Jekyll y Hyde podría estar perfectamente ambientada en Edimburgo. Chesterton hace una defensa de la obra frente a algunas críticas feroces contemporáneas.
VI. The Style of Stevenson: Chesterton arremente contra la crítica profesional que denigraba de Stevenson y defiende que éste expresaba ideas de una manera insuperablmente precisa. Hay una referencia a la expresión “interjected fingers”, que, casualmente, me había llamado la atención durante mi lectura de Markheim el día anterior.
VII. Experiment and Range: Chesterton explica la enorme variedad de registros de Stevenson y la innovación que supusieron las New Arabian Nights.
En general, he encontrado en este ensayo algunos elementos útiles de crítica literaria para mi lectura y comprensión de la narrativa de Stevenson, pero también cierto discurso católico adoctrinador y una defensa un poco parcial de Stevenson.
Espero terminar la lectura el 14 de octubre de 2021.
De momento he leído los siguientes capítulos:
I. The Myth of Stevenson: xx
III. Youth and Edinburgh: Chesterton carga contra el sofocante ambiente puritano de Edimburgo y lo conecta con Jekyll y Hyde.
IV. The Reaction to Romance: más que leerlo, le eché un ojo.
V. The Scottish Stories: nueva carga contra el puritanismo escocés y a la sociedad escocesa. Explica cómo Jekyll y Hyde podría estar perfectamente ambientada en Edimburgo. Chesterton hace una defensa de la obra frente a algunas críticas feroces contemporáneas.
VI. The Style of Stevenson: Chesterton arremente contra la crítica profesional que denigraba de Stevenson y defiende que éste expresaba ideas de una manera insuperablmente precisa. Hay una referencia a la expresión “interjected fingers”, que, casualmente, me había llamado la atención durante mi lectura de Markheim el día anterior.
VII. Experiment and Range: Chesterton explica la enorme variedad de registros de Stevenson y la innovación que supusieron las New Arabian Nights.
En general, he encontrado en este ensayo algunos elementos útiles de crítica literaria para mi lectura y comprensión de la narrativa de Stevenson, pero también cierto discurso católico adoctrinador y una defensa un poco parcial de Stevenson.
Espero terminar la lectura el 14 de octubre de 2021.
October 29, 2022
Cosa dirà mai dello scapestrato Stevenson un'anima buona come G.K. Chesterton? Beh, alla fine l'onestà intellettuale prevale, e la 'biografia', se così vogliamo chiamarla, riconosce i meriti e lo straordinario ingegno del grande scrittore, oggetto al tempo di più di una critica.
October 15, 2019
One of the two or three essential critical works about Stevenson. Chesterton paved the way for a new and interesting appreciation of the author that has sadly not been followed.
Read
August 10, 2016Not terribly useful as a biography! Some interesting ideas though.
January 19, 2024
This series of 'Bookman Biographies' (in which Chesterton was involved) has been kind of hard to get into, but the one on RLS was amazing.
It's free online if you look around; I recommend it.
It's free online if you look around; I recommend it.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews