The Gospel According to John Bull
#10
(01-05-2010, 11:07 PM)WilfredLeblanc Wrote: It's possible Feeney had a point, but I think some qualifier of labels like "pornography" is necessary to buttress his argument. I've read Brideshead Revisited and the Sword of Honor trilogy by Waugh, and several works by Greene--The Quiet American, The End of the Affair, The Heart of the Matter, and The Power and the Glory--and liked all of them a great deal. My guess is that Feeney was aware that Greene had a very messy personal life (which included not only a pornography habit and mistresses--the most enduring of whom, Catherine Walston, was, it so happens, a cousin of mine--but friendship with the likes of Fidel Castro and Kim Philby as well) and objected to his being held up as an emblem of British Catholicism on that basis. Of course, both Waugh and Greene were converts, not scions of old recusant families, and may have been suspect in Feeney's eyes ipso facto.

There's no mystery. The article explains precisely why Waugh and Greene are deserving of criticism. Their fame was hugely bolstered by a non-Catholic literary establishment, and they were double-minded in advancing themselves. I don't know if these claims are true since I'm not that familiar with the writers, but I do notice that Catholic artists tend to water down their religious impulses to be accepted.

As far as Feeney's opinion of Chesterbelloc goes, he liked them. I just posted a piece he wrote about Chesterton in the arts subforum.

Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: The Gospel According to John Bull - by tflinn - 01-06-2010, 11:37 AM
Re: The Gospel According to John Bull - by stvincentferrer - 01-06-2010, 07:09 PM
Re: The Gospel According to John Bull - by Satori - 01-07-2010, 10:57 AM
Re: The Gospel According to John Bull - by Satori - 01-08-2010, 10:26 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)