New Leaf December 2019 Discussion • The End of the Affair by Graham Greene

[Victoria]

I actually enjoyed reading Greene’s ideas about religion. I didn’t feel an affinity with them; in fact, some of them felt quite foreign and bleak. But that said, I don’t have a Catholic background, and wonder if that’s partly why I reacted to the book as I did. Maybe I just couldn’t get some of it.

Also, he was writing in the 1950’s, and he may have different views if he was writing today, post Second Vatican Council. He appeared to be struggling with many aspects of the church’s teaching.

[Bookworm_Girl]

I think that my view of the book was influenced by listening to the audiobook. Colin Firth does an amazing job of capturing the emotional tone of the characters such that I did not get the feeling of an overwrought YA novel. I felt it was very human capturing a range of emotions that people might really experience. We are imperfect, fallible creatures.

Of course, as they say, I could probably listen to Colin Firth read the phone book and enjoy it!

[Victoria]

[QUOTE=Bookworm_Girl;3931146]I think that my view of the book was influenced by listening to the audiobook. Colin Firth does an amazing job of capturing the emotional tone of the characters such that I did not get the feeling of an overwrought YA novel. I felt it was very human capturing a range of emotions that people might really experience. We are imperfect, fallible creatures.

Of course, as they say, I could probably listen to Colin Firth read the phone book and enjoy it! [/QUOTE

Now, that’s interesting. I’ve only ever listened to one book before - Brideshead Revisited, read by Jeremy Irons. I’d seen him in the series first, so he was already established for me as the narrator. But I can see how the choice of narrator could have a very deep impact on how one experiences a book.

Now that audiobooks are so popular, I wonder if authors find themselves hoping for or against a particular reader for their books? It sounds like the narrator could have a strong influence on book reviews and sales.

I’ve caught myself assigning the voice of an actor to characters in a book before, without meaning to. I suppose something in the character’s nature reminds me of them.

[gmw]

I can certainly understand Colin Firth making a difference. We're definitely fans of his in this household too.

Yes, I do know adults that can be as self-obsessed as teenagers, so the overweening angst is not altogether unrealistic, but that doesn't make it that interesting to me. Maybe if there had been something more to this story, some additional reason for being that could help to support and perhaps even reinforce what Greene was trying to convey. As it was it felt sparse, and all I could feel was frustration that none of the characters would pull the finger out and just get on with their lives.

As we've already talked about, that additional something was probably meant to be religion, but it's as wishy-washy as the rest. I felt like shaking the characters and yelling at them: "If you want to believe then believe! Just stop this stupid and self-destructive cycle of believing just enough to feel bad about your life, but not enough to do something about it. Good grief!"

But the thing is, my view of the situation is at serious odds with Greene's presentation. Using God as an excuse to do or not do things you know to be wrong is just plain ... I probably can't continue this line of thought without reverting to the P&R forum. Let's just say I want to shake the lot of them. I might buy a paper copy of the book just so I can throw it around the room.


So, to the extent that Greene drew an emotional response from me, this book worked. But since that response seems so much at odds with people that actually enjoyed the book, I have to wonder what the author actually intended.

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by gmw

I felt like shaking the characters and yelling at them: "If you want to believe then believe! Just stop this stupid and self-destructive cycle of believing just enough to feel bad about your life, but not enough to do something about it. Good grief!"

But the thing is, my view of the situation is at serious odds with Greene's presentation. Using God as an excuse to do or not do things you know to be wrong is just plain ... I probably can't continue this line of thought without reverting to the P&R forum. Let's just say I want to shake the lot of them. I might buy a paper copy of the book just so I can throw it around the room.
.

Seriously, I do agree with you about Greene. Imagine - Catherine, a complete stranger, writes to him saying she’s “converted” based on his books, and asks if he’ll be her godfather. He agrees . So then they had an affair !!

[Bookpossum]

Agreed on Colin Firth! I can well believe he would read Greene’s prose beautifully.

Obviously I can’t agree at all with the criticisms being made, but it seems pointless to get into a “Yes it is/No it isn’t” sort of argument about the quality or lack of it in Greene’s writing and characterisations.

I think it is quite reasonable not to like the book. Greene’s private life may be fascinating, but I don’t think is really a part of what we are looking at here, any more than the fact he was what used to be called manic depressive.

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by Bookpossum

Agreed on Colin Firth! I can well believe he would read Greene’s prose beautifully.

Obviously I can’t agree at all with the criticisms being made, but it seems pointless to get into a “Yes it is/No it isn’t” sort of argument about the quality or lack of it in Greene’s writing and characterisations.

I think it is quite reasonable not to like the book. Greene’s private life may be fascinating, but I don’t think is really a part of what we are looking at here, any more than the fact he was what used to be called manic depressive.

Very fair points Bookpossum . Sorry to try your patience I think in this case, it’s been easier to stray off topic with the parallels with between the two. But you’re absolutely right!

[Catlady]

Finally finished the damn book. Blech.

Now I'm going to go back and read the comments.

[Bookpossum]

No problem Victoria. It sounds as if Catlady is keeping you and gmw company in disliking the book more than somewhat!

[Catlady]

Well, the rest of you found an awful lot more to expound on than I did. My reaction was boredom, with a few flashes of annoyance and eye-rolling disbelief.

I had not previously read anything by Graham Greene, but I had him pigeonholed as a Catholic author. So I was taken aback by the anti-Catholic/anti-religious tone of the novel, the snobbery and lack of respect that dismissed faith as superstition and magic. And then Greene goes and turns dead Sarah into a saint--a real, honest-to-goodness, miracle-performing saint! A soul worthy of veneration, based on ... what? Which isn't to say that she might have become saintly, but that's a far cry from performing miracles, even iffy ones.

I disliked every character in the novel. Henry was so noble and long-suffering that I wanted to smack him upside the head. Sarah ... what was her struggle really about? You want to be a Catholic, go be a Catholic; believe, don't believe; who cares, just stop dramatizing. Maurice was a petty, nasty little man and I wouldn't have been displeased to see another wall fall on him. (I'm just full of Christmas spirit today, as you see.)

Generally I agree with gmw's and Victoria's comments.

[Bookworm_Girl]

I think it is interesting that each of the book clubs has read 3 very different styles of Greene books. I have read them all and enjoyed them all.

Our Man in Havana was read by the old MR Book Club in 2015. Fictional spy book and somewhat humorous.
Journey Without Maps was read by the Literary Club in 2019. Nonfiction travelogue.
The End of the Affair is dramatic fiction from his Catholic novels.

[issybird]

I've got to break up your post, as I've got a lot to respond to. I essentially agree with your points, but I find these strengths, not weaknesses.

Originally Posted by Catlady

So I was taken aback by the anti-Catholic/anti-religious tone of the novel, the snobbery and lack of respect that dismissed faith as superstition and magic.

I think this is a fairly typical reaction by nonbelievers, so I thought it well expressed in the voice of Maurice. The reality of religious belief is that it covers a wide spectrum from believing in something because the Bible/Mom said so to those who choose to believe and have a highly nuanced understanding of dogma and doctrine. And yes, if you can't accept that initial axiom it's all chicanery, but those who believe are not uniformly stupid, either.

And then Greene goes and turns dead Sarah into a saint--a real, honest-to-goodness, miracle-performing saint! A soul worthy of veneration, based on ... what? Which isn't to say that she might have become saintly, but that's a far cry from performing miracles, even iffy ones.

Miracles in general are highly problematic and there it is: miracle or coincidence? If you have to allow for coincidence, you're essentially only going to have iffy miracles. I agree that the process was far too rushed. Sarah was barely cold before she was a candidate for canonization, or so it seemed.

I disliked every character in the novel. Henry was so noble and long-suffering that I wanted to smack him upside the head. Sarah ... what was her struggle really about? You want to be a Catholic, go be a Catholic; believe, don't believe; who cares, just stop dramatizing. Maurice was a petty, nasty little man and I wouldn't have been displeased to see another wall fall on him. (I'm just full of Christmas spirit today, as you see.)

I can understand belief that's resisted; I think Sarah's path foretold the one Maurice was on. I think the essential difference is that Sarah accepted the entire Christian mythos whereas Maurice accepted a divinity without a framework. Sarah seemed quite explicitly Augustinian to me, "Lord, make me holy, but not yet." She fell into belief, whereas Maurice was going to have to will it, make the jump. Maurice uses both words and they reflect a different experience of God, it seems to me.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by issybird

I think this is a fairly typical reaction by nonbelievers, so I thought it well expressed in the voice of Maurice. The reality of religious belief is that it covers a wide spectrum from believing in something because the Bible/Mom said so to those who choose to believe and have a highly nuanced understanding of dogma and doctrine. And yes, if you can't accept that initial axiom it's all chicanery, but those who believe are not uniformly stupid, either.

If you have to choose to believe something, do you really believe it?

Miracles in general are highly problematic and there it is: miracle or coincidence? If you have to allow for coincidence, you're essentially only going to have iffy miracles. I agree that the process was far too rushed. Sarah was barely cold before she was a candidate for canonization, or so it seemed.

Smythe's miracle is especially eye-popping--if it's Sarah's kiss that caused it, she had the power to perform a miracle while still alive. That's a rarity even for the most celebrated saints.

I can understand belief that's resisted; I think Sarah's path foretold the one Maurice was on. I think the essential difference is that Sarah accepted the entire Christian mythos whereas Maurice accepted a divinity without a framework. Sarah seemed quite explicitly Augustinian to me, "Lord, make me holy, but not yet." She fell into belief, whereas Maurice was going to have to will it, make the jump. Maurice uses both words and they reflect a different experience of God, it seems to me.

But why? Sarah had already renounced Maurice; I could see more of a real struggle if she'd found religion and then realized it meant ending the affair--that seems more in the Augustinian pattern. Maurice seemed to need to work on morality and decency more than on belief; he was quite the nasty little man, and belief alone wouldn't make him less nasty.

I could understand struggle to, say, decide to follow a religious vocation; I could understand struggle to announce or abide by one's belief when it's dangerous, as in the case of martyrs. But I have a hard time with so much angst over a personal decision about religion, a decision that doesn't have any adverse personal consequences.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Victoria

[...] Imagine - Catherine, a complete stranger, writes to him saying she’s “converted” based on his books, and asks if he’ll be her godfather. He agrees . So then they had an affair !!

And then he thinks: "I'll make up a 'fiction' novel where I will lead people to assume [rightly or wrongly, it doesn't make much difference] the work is significantly autobiographical and thereby shame the other protagonists."

Originally Posted by Victoria

Very fair points Bookpossum . Sorry to try your patience I think in this case, it’s been easier to stray off topic with the parallels with between the two. But you’re absolutely right!

I should add my apologies too. It is often easier to find ways to criticise a book (because all books have faults to some readers) than it is to explain why a book works for you. It's what makes criticism often seem like a cheap shot, it can be too easy.

Originally Posted by Catlady

[...] So I was taken aback by the anti-Catholic/anti-religious tone of the novel, the snobbery and lack of respect that dismissed faith as superstition and magic. [...]

That's sort of what I was thinking at first, but then we see the conversion of Smythe. It seemed that Greene could not even present a convincing anti-Catholic argument. No, the best he could manage was a mostly irrational Rationalist. (Oh dear, what was I just saying about it being easy to criticise?)

Originally Posted by Bookworm_Girl

I think it is interesting that each of the book clubs has read 3 very different styles of Greene books. I have read them all and enjoyed them all.

Our Man in Havana was read by the old MR Book Club in 2015. Fictional spy book and somewhat humorous.
Journey Without Maps was read by the Literary Club in 2019. Nonfiction travelogue.
The End of the Affair is dramatic fiction from his Catholic novels.

I have wondered whether I might have reacted differently to this book had I come to it after reading other material of his less likely to raise my ire. I have trouble imagining that ... but it's possible.

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Smythe's miracle is especially eye-popping--if it's Sarah's kiss that caused it, she had the power to perform a miracle while still alive. That's a rarity even for the most celebrated saints.

But why? Sarah had already renounced Maurice; I could see more of a real struggle if she'd found religion and then realized it meant ending the affair--that seems more in the Augustinian pattern. Maurice seemed to need to work on morality and decency more than on belief; he was quite the nasty little man, and belief alone wouldn't make him less nasty.

I could understand struggle to, say, decide to follow a religious vocation; I could understand struggle to announce or abide by one's belief when it's dangerous, as in the case of martyrs. But I have a hard time with so much angst over a personal decision about religion, a decision that doesn't have any adverse personal consequences.

Yes! I have to agree. It’s all so skin deep! What new element of growth does Sarah’s conversion provide? She still feels desperate, trapped and wants to die because she can’t have Maurice.

Then we’re led to believe that Maurice is now struggling with belief. But we see no growth, no change in behaviour.

If the book is really about a compelling religious struggle, why is there no personal development / transformation? It’s added nothing - both remain unchanged.

Issybird, I absolutely agree with your point about the diversity of people’s religious experience. Very true!

That said, to me, the more I think about it, it seems like Greene has intentionally written a critique of religion. Which is a perfectly valid subject for his book. I think I was thrown off and judged the book more harshly because I was expecting it to be something different than that.

(Postscript) Just to explain why, I was really taken aback when Maurice put his hand on that woman’s knee in the car on their way to the cremation. I found it one of the most powerful scenes in the book. Grieving people do seek solace in sex, but Maurice wasn’t drowning in sorrow, and wasn’t the least interested in her. It was so blatant and defiant, it felt like Greene was saying directly to the reader “See? No change! Nothing to see here.”.