I agree that Peguy is great, and underrated. I would also agree that there have been mny great Catholic poets.
But the mediocre and the bad still outnumber the great, whether Catholic, or by any other sort. So while I agree about the writers you mention here, I don't think that Catholic writers are greater, as a group, than any other. We could sort for Irish, or pagn, and come up with similar percentages.
I maintain, as I always have, that great writers across all categories have more in common with each other than they do with lesser writers within their own group or genre, no matter how you sort it.
Art, I think Frank was onto something when he spoke of these writers' Catholicism as not a form of puritanism but a connoseurship. That sounds about right if you specifically consider Graham Greene's trilogy. Let me take an Indian example. Naipaul's writing, and he can hardly be accused of religiosity, has a strong Hindu undercurrent in the concerns that the protagonists such as Mr Biswas, have. Again, this is not to say that Biswas is religious or puritanical (in fact, he is trying to shake off the yoke of the Tulsis' traditionalism) but the concerns that the novel raises -- of independence, modernity and self-willed determination -- work brilliantly against the social structure that he has married into. And that structure cannot be divorced from its Hindu-ness. Hinduism in that respect becomes less a religion and more a way of life. And therefore, Frank's point -- not religiosity but connoseurship.
Hmm. Maybe, but that strikes me as pretzel logic rationale. Naipaul is- good, occasionally great writer. But there is appoint at which this becomes the classic nurture or nature debate: do all Lutheran novelists write from a Lutheran perspective too? I think this is a bit simplistic.
For that matter, since I myself grew up in India, is my perspective more or less Hindu than Naipaul? In fact, I'm a white man who grew up in India, whose perspective is indeed rather more Hindu and Buddhist than Christian. Connoseurship is a vague term that tells me exactly nothing in this context. Do you mean tribal affiliation, an anthropological background, or perhaps this remains nature vs. nurture still?
My point, which perhaps I didn't make as clearly as I could have, was not that Catholics have a corner on how to sin or that novelists who are Catholic are necessarily better than novelists who are not. One thing I was trying to get across is that one reason why good Catholic novelists are good is that they understand sin not as just the breaking of a rule, but a deliberate breaking of a rule, with all that that implies. I contrasted that to the idea of a novelist working strictly within a naturalistic framework, which would not provide for such a possibility. Being a Catholic won't make you a good novelist, but if you are a good novelist being a Catholic can provide a perspective lacking in a naturalistic perspective. Also, I did go out of my way to point out that connoisseurship necessarily implies a discernment based on experience and awareness. Once again, as St. Augustine said: "Love God, and sin bravely."
This was by far one of your best pieces, Frank, and best anywhere! Bravo!
ReplyDeleteI agree that Peguy is great, and underrated. I would also agree that there have been mny great Catholic poets.
ReplyDeleteBut the mediocre and the bad still outnumber the great, whether Catholic, or by any other sort. So while I agree about the writers you mention here, I don't think that Catholic writers are greater, as a group, than any other. We could sort for Irish, or pagn, and come up with similar percentages.
I maintain, as I always have, that great writers across all categories have more in common with each other than they do with lesser writers within their own group or genre, no matter how you sort it.
Art, I think Frank was onto something when he spoke of these writers' Catholicism as not a form of puritanism but a connoseurship. That sounds about right if you specifically consider Graham Greene's trilogy. Let me take an Indian example. Naipaul's writing, and he can hardly be accused of religiosity, has a strong Hindu undercurrent in the concerns that the protagonists such as Mr Biswas, have. Again, this is not to say that Biswas is religious or puritanical (in fact, he is trying to shake off the yoke of the Tulsis' traditionalism) but the concerns that the novel raises -- of independence, modernity and self-willed determination -- work brilliantly against the social structure that he has married into. And that structure cannot be divorced from its Hindu-ness. Hinduism in that respect becomes less a religion and more a way of life. And therefore, Frank's point -- not religiosity but connoseurship.
ReplyDeleteHmm. Maybe, but that strikes me as pretzel logic rationale. Naipaul is- good, occasionally great writer. But there is appoint at which this becomes the classic nurture or nature debate: do all Lutheran novelists write from a Lutheran perspective too? I think this is a bit simplistic.
ReplyDeleteFor that matter, since I myself grew up in India, is my perspective more or less Hindu than Naipaul? In fact, I'm a white man who grew up in India, whose perspective is indeed rather more Hindu and Buddhist than Christian. Connoseurship is a vague term that tells me exactly nothing in this context. Do you mean tribal affiliation, an anthropological background, or perhaps this remains nature vs. nurture still?
My point, which perhaps I didn't make as clearly as I could have, was not that Catholics have a corner on how to sin or that novelists who are Catholic are necessarily better than novelists who are not. One thing I was trying to get across is that one reason why good Catholic novelists are good is that they understand sin not as just the breaking of a rule, but a deliberate breaking of a rule, with all that that implies. I contrasted that to the idea of a novelist working strictly within a naturalistic framework, which would not provide for such a possibility. Being a Catholic won't make you a good novelist, but if you are a good novelist being a Catholic can provide a perspective lacking in a naturalistic perspective. Also, I did go out of my way to point out that connoisseurship necessarily implies a discernment based on experience and awareness. Once again, as St. Augustine said: "Love God, and sin bravely."
ReplyDelete