“The Fallacy of Success” is a short essay authored by the prolific English writer, journalist, philosopher, and Christian apologist G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936). The essay was originally published in 1908 in All Things Considered, an anthology of informal essays on disparate topics—from fairy tales to chasing one’s hat to politics—all written by Chesterton for the Illustrated London News prior to World War I. The essays belong to the nonfiction genre of the news column; in their concision and tone, they aim to be accessible to ordinary readers. “The Fallacy of Success” discusses and ridicules books that claim to teach readers the secret to success; it explores themes of The Complexity of Falsehood and the Simplicity of Truth, The Instinct to Worship, and The Viciousness of New Values. 

This study guide refers to the version found in the Project Gutenberg eBook version of All Things Considered. All citations from other essays written by Chesterton and included in All Things Considered are from the same source. Citations are by paragraph.

Addressing the rise of a genre he finds both “wild” and “dull,” Chesterton begins by denouncing the very idea of discussing success itself. Chesterton proposes that success, viewed abstractly, is nothing—that everything succeeds simply by being what it is. From this angle, success is always guaranteed because everything is always itself, and therefore writing about pursuing and achieving success is absurd.

Chesterton concedes that the writers he is lambasting might have a different notion of success. By “success,” these writers mean the accrual of fame and fortune. Chesterton maintains that while achieving this kind of success is possible for almost everyone—builders, grocers, journalists—it is not done by pursuing success itself. Rather, Chesterton explains, success in any occupation or endeavor is nothing more than doing good work or appearing to do so (that is, cheating). Doing good work and cheating are definite skills about which authors can write useful books, but those books would be about building, retailing, and journalism, not success. By contrast, a book purporting to explain success in jumping or playing cards would end up stating merely that success in jumping means desiring to jump higher than other athletes, or that success in playing cards means not allowing the opponent to win.

Chesterton turns into a real article titled “The Instinct that Makes People Rich.” Chesterton admits that there are many methods of accruing wealth, but he suggests that an “instinct” for the same is what Christian morality labels “avarice,” or greed. Setting this aside for the moment, he quotes some passages from the article elevating the American businessman Cornelius Vanderbilt, who amassed a fortune through railroads and shipping, as an exemplar of someone blessed with the titular instinct. The author describes how this man attained success: He took advantage of the opportunities the world gave him by advancing the emergent technologies of steam engine and railway transportation in the United States. The author states that although the particular historical opportunities available to Vanderbilt have passed, anyone can benefit from following his example by having an entrepreneurial spirit and taking advantage of possibilities as he did.

Chesterton points out that the author knows nothing about what Vanderbilt did to obtain his wealth. The author says nothing about Vanderbilt’s business strategy: how he managed his projects and strategically invested his money to expand his power and raise himself higher. Chesterton recognizes that the author recommends the principle of seizing opportunities but points out that this generic advice has nothing to do with Vanderbilt.

Chesterton argues that what motivates the writing of such articles and books about success is not real knowledge about how to get and keep wealth and reputation but rather an attitude of foolish, quasi-religious veneration for what the authors cannot comprehend. The author of “The Instinct that Makes People Rich,” Chesterton speculates, takes a peculiar pleasure in pretending he understands the deeper mystery of Vanderbilt—his so-called “instinct.” Chesterton justifies this accusation with reference to his belief that “when we really worship anything, we love not only its clearness but its obscurity. We exult in its very invisibility” (7).

Chesterton examines another passage from the same article, in which the author compares Vanderbilt’s “instinct” to the mythical touch of King Midas, which transformed everything into gold. The article contends that those with this instinct have a power to succeed in any circumstance that appears magical to ordinary people. The author even declares that these individuals are immune to misfortune.

Chesterton, however, points out that King Midas starves in the myth because his food turns to inedible gold. Chesterton insists that “We must not have King Midas represented as an example of success; he was a failure of an unusually painful kind” (10), and he calls out the author for attempting to obscure the story’s plain moral: that an obsession with success can produce catastrophe. Chesterton points out that in the myth Midas had the ears of a donkey, which he had to carefully conceal. Similarly, those larger-than-life individuals who always succeed, though undoubtedly entrepreneurial, competent, and powerful, are also only human and must have some hidden weakness.

Chesterton concludes with a wish that books on success will soon attract the appropriate response: “derision and neglect” (11). Such books are not merely useless but also pernicious, promoting greed and pride by inviting people to adore an ideal that is, in Chesterton’s view, worldly and vain. Chesterton briefly contrasts this new ideal with the older ideal of good, hard work—the ideal of the “Industrious Apprentice.” Though this ideal cheated many of the promise of reward, it at least made them respectable to themselves and others.