I've never read the book; hilariously, the only thing by Chesterton I've read is Orthodoxy.
Which I have not read! How did you find it?
A person without a center can be dangerous. But I do think a self-centered person can also be dangerous.
Absolutely; they're famous for it. I just think it's a different angle of danger.
(Aside from the fact that he really doesn't believe for much of the novel in the meaningfulness of anything—himself included; it is not the same thing as solipsism, even when it produces similarly careless results—I think the other reason I resist reading Auberon Quin, as Ashby does, as "nothing but a troll doing it for 'teh lulz' . . . a fiend concerned with his own pleasure and amusement and little else" is the one poliphilo identifies, the not quite human trickster quality signaled by his name. He becomes more human as the events which he set so superficially in motion force him to engage with the reality of things, but he can't be taken totally straight; he would be horrified to be, which is why it happens to him.)
--Definitely agree with this. We need look no further than religions. They can have what seems from the outside to be pretty charlatan-like beginnings, and yet the faith of the people who adhere to them can transform them. You can end up with a durable new religion--or a death cult. Definitely what matters is not how things begin but how they are believed in.
I really think you would like this novel. It comes down so strongly in favor of loving things because they are real—they are invested with their own meaning simply by existing—that even when I disagree with passages or philosophies or even alternate sentences, it's talking about something that really matters.
Anyway, clearly another good book that I missed. I'll have to rectify that (... eventually).
no subject
Which I have not read! How did you find it?
A person without a center can be dangerous. But I do think a self-centered person can also be dangerous.
Absolutely; they're famous for it. I just think it's a different angle of danger.
(Aside from the fact that he really doesn't believe for much of the novel in the meaningfulness of anything—himself included; it is not the same thing as solipsism, even when it produces similarly careless results—I think the other reason I resist reading Auberon Quin, as Ashby does, as "nothing but a troll doing it for 'teh lulz' . . . a fiend concerned with his own pleasure and amusement and little else" is the one
--Definitely agree with this. We need look no further than religions. They can have what seems from the outside to be pretty charlatan-like beginnings, and yet the faith of the people who adhere to them can transform them. You can end up with a durable new religion--or a death cult. Definitely what matters is not how things begin but how they are believed in.
I really think you would like this novel. It comes down so strongly in favor of loving things because they are real—they are invested with their own meaning simply by existing—that even when I disagree with passages or philosophies or even alternate sentences, it's talking about something that really matters.
Anyway, clearly another good book that I missed. I'll have to rectify that (... eventually).
No rush!