Chesterton on the landlady and the lodger

Ciceronianus posted some fascinating thoughts on Wednesday regarding G.K. Chesterton, an author he finds clever, witty, and unprofound.

Chesterton first got onto my personal radar because William James quotes him right at the start of Pragmatism. Chesterton wrote thus: "There are some people -- and I am one of them -- who think that the most practical and important thing about a man is still his view of the universe. We think that for a landlady considering a lodger, it is important to know his income, but still more important to know his philosophy. We think that for a general about to fight an enemy, it is important to know the enemy's numbers, but still more important to know the enemy's philosophy. We think the question is not whether the theory of the cosmos affects matters, but whether in the long run anything else affects them."

James professes himself on Chesterton's side in this belief, yet he immediately gives it a more Jamesian twist. Chesterton had spoken of a hypothetical landlady and her equally hypothetical lodger. James, giving a lecture, dispensed with hypothetical people and spoke of "you," the people in the audience before him.

"I know that you, ladies and gentlemen, have a philosophy, each and all of you, and that the most interesting and important thing about you is the way in which it determines the perspective in your several worlds."

That is a new twist not only because of the direct address to "you," but because of that reference to the "several worlds" of his audience, which seems to me a very un-Chestertonian turn of phrase. Chesterton was of the view that there is only one Orthodoxy and multiple heresies -- that confidence is itself a source of his charm. There is only one Objective world and several ways of getting it wrong. James was of a very different view. The landlady and her lodger may be residents, in an important sense, of different worlds, deternmined by their different perspectives, (although, yes, those worlds obviously overlap and produce disputes over rent and leaky pipes.)

At any rate, I recommend Ciceronianus on this, as on much else.

Corporate bankruptcy and the little guy

Here's the text of a letter written by a businessman in Whitney, Texas, to a bankruptcy judge in Kansas City. MO, in October 2006.

The reference is to the Interstate Bakeries Corp., which had filed for chapter 11 protection two years before. The IBC, which is the company behind such famous brands as Twinkees and Wonder Bread, failed to adapt in time to the low-carb diet craze and went under.

The letter gives an idea of how that affects ordinary folk. After all, a corporate entity on IBC's scale is general one of several inter-related corporations, a family in which it isn't clear to outsider who is a subsidiary of whom.

"My name is ***** *****. I am the landlord for Dolly Madison Bakeries located at 584 S. -------- Rd., ------, Texas....

"The Attorneys for Interstate Bakeries are asking you to disallow my claim in the amount of $5,230.75 due to IBC being the improper Corporation.

"I was told in 2004 to request payment from IBC and did so. Interestate Bakeries made payment in the amount of $1,993.61 (copy of check attached) which was for the 2004 taxes prior to the filing of bankruptcy. The total amount of the taxes for that year was $7,224.36. They still owe $5,230.75. Their lease states that they are to pay their pro-rata share of the property taxes each year.

"I respectfully request Interstate Bakeries Corporation debt to me not be demolished."

---

I was looking to develop some story ideas recently, rummaging (in a cyberspatial sense) through the years-old file for interesting legal issues. Not much luck.

But I did find the above letter, which I consider very poignant and in its own sociological way, fascinating.

The usual mental habit is to think of the landlord as the 'upper hand,' the tenant as the one fearing, and often experiencing, oppressionor ill treatment.

But here the landlord is one guy, a natural person not a corporation. And not enough of a big shot to have a lawyer write a letter for him. He writes it himself. Not even a lawyer friend who can give him a once-over and some free advice. Or that strange use of the word "demolished" wouldn't have made the cut.

I hope he ends up with something out of the re-organized entity. Some stock in the new version of IBC when it emerges from the court's protection, perhaps. Let's root for that.