Fancies Versus FadsChesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith)
General
Fancies Versus Fads
Chesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith)
English essays -- 20th century
This brings us very near to an old and rather threadbare theatrical
controversy, about whether staging should be simple or elaborate. I do
not mean to begin that argument all over again. What is really wanted is
not so much the simple stage-manager as the simple spectator. In a very
real sense, what is wanted is the simple critic, who would be in truth
the most subtle critic. The healthy human instincts in these things are
at least as much spoiled by sophistication in the stalls as by
elaboration on the stage. A really simple mind would enjoy a simple
scene--and also a gorgeous scene. A popular instinct, to be found in all
folklore, would know well enough when the one or the other was
appropriate. But what is involved here is not the whole of that
sophistication, but only one particular sophistry, and against that
sophistry we may well pause to protest. It is the critical fallacy of
cutting off a real donkey’s head to put it on Bottom the Weaver; when
the head is symbolical, and in that case more appropriate to the critic
than to the actor.
The Secret Society of Mankind
With that fantastic love of paradox which gives pain to so many critics,
I once suggested that there may be some truth in the notion of the
brotherhood of men. This was naturally a subject for severe criticism
from the modern or modernist standpoint; and I remember that the
cleverest refutation of it occurred in a book which was called “We
Moderns.” It was written by Mr. Edward Moore, and very well written too;
indeed the author did himself some injustice in insisting on his own
modernity; for he was not so very modern after all, but really quite
lucid and coherent. But I will venture to take his remark as a text here
because it concerns a matter on which most moderns darken counsel in a
highly incoherent manner. It concerns the nature of the unity of men;
which I did certainly state in its more defiant form as the equality of
man. And I said that this norm or meeting-place of mankind can be found
in the two extremes of the comic and the tragic. I said that no
individual tragedy could be so tragic as having to die; and all men have
equally to die. I said that nothing can be funnier than having two legs;
and all men can join equally in the joke.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account