The essay initially pretends to be a critique of a type of self-improvement book popular at the time, which claimed to tell how to achieve success. These books defined success strictly in financial terms and assumed that if anyone follows certain steps, they will be able to duplicate the accomplishments of wealthy business owners. However, Chesterton’s review of these books includes a broader social criticism. The focus on the definition of success strictly in terms of money is central to his essay. But wrapped around that issue is the idea that each person can or should perceive success on the same terms as a business leader. He illustrates the point by saying a donkey is successful at being a donkey as much as a millionaire is successful at being a millionaire, so there is no point in calling a donkey a failed millionaire or vice versa.
To counter the common assumptions about success, Chesterton describes people in various walks of life and how each might more realistically succeed. In this description, he suggests that these books falsely pretend to help people succeed in their own social circles and encourage people to try to become something they are not and cannot ever be.
Chesterton says these writers tell the ordinary man how he may succeed in his career—if he is a builder, he may succeed as a builder; or if he is a stockbroker, he may succeed as a stockbroker. Chesterton increases his satire at this point, commenting that the authors say a grocer may become a sporting yachtsman; a tenth-rate journalist may become a peer, which is a British nobleman; and a German Jew may become an Anglo-Saxon. Obviously, these transitions are unlikely or even impossible. Chesterton then criticizes the main assumption of these books and the society that produces it. By claiming that average people can follow in the steps of business tycoons such as Rothschild or Vanderbilt, the book's author is taking part in "the horrible mysticism of money," in which people worship the unlikely possibility of achieving great riches.
