Success

I just read a marvelous essay in 'All things considered' : 'The fallacy of success'. I wonder that in Chesterton's time, there were already 'books showing men how to succeed in everything; [-] written by men who cannot even succeed in writing books'.
Chesterton's philosophical problem with 'success' is that 'there is no such thing'. The books merely show men how to excel in their profession. But this is something interesting: how can a book that tells me nothing about my specific profession, say teaching, have anything to say about my becoming a better teacher? The general advice in these books tells me things as 'you must have a clear aim before you'. Chesterton, on the other hand, thinks that 'there are only two ways of succeeding. One is by doing very good work, the other is by cheating.'
Taking a specific example, an article about how Vanderbilt got so rich, Chesterton shows that there is nothing substantial in the advice given (which boils down to 'seize those opportunities that are given us'). The "instinct that makes people rich" the article talks about, is really nothing more than what Christianity might call "the sin of avarice". The last paragraphs of the essay discuss the myth of king Midas; the conclusion is that these books about success 'spread a sort of evil poetry of worldliness'.