What's wrong with new religions

I've finished editing all the material from The Open Road (previously The Crank) that I was able to find. Among these, The Dulness of New Religions gets a reply from one Edward A. Cope. This may or may not be the author of Clerks: Their Rights and Obligations (London: Sir Isaac Pittman and Sons, Ltd., 1909) among other books on accountancy and shorthand. However that may be, he could round off a piece in the true Chesterton manner: "The Stable is less attractive than the Temple. The Babe in the Manger has only a few rudimentary things to say. Very ancient, primary utterances they are; and so monotonous! But is that monotonous infant really dull? Is he really uninteresting? Ask the mother. Ask the Wise Men."

What's wrong with originality

I've finished editing all the early (1899-1906) Bookman articles that I was able to find. Among these, "Alexandre Dumas" has some interesting thoughts on the modern concept of originality and plagiarism, including the contention that the originality "would seem to be almost entirely a modern idea, an idea belonging to the age of silk hats and over-education." In GKC's opinion of Dumas it is another instance of one of his most endearing traits - the willingness to find and point out what is best in artists whose defects critics seem to consider it their business to highlight. The same note rings in "Thackeray", "Matthew Arnold" and the review "Mr. Kipling's 'Just So Stories'," which I particularly liked: "One of the most lurid and awful marks of human degeneration that the mind can conceive is the fact that it is considered kind to play with children."