Letter: Greene giant
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.IS POPULAR culture a contradiction in terms? Geoffrey Wheatcroft ('Behind the jolly Greene giant', 10 July) clearly thinks so. He says Graham Greene was guilty of 'incurable frivolity' and doubts he was ever entirely serious or sincere about anything. These are simply extensions of the well-worn theory, put about by Anthony Burgess, among others, that Greene could never be a great novelist because he was popular. There are many historical precedents, Dickens being the most obvious example.
The intellectual arrogance of this is breath-taking: it says, in effect, that because Greene could be read and understood by a large mass of readers, the messages he was seeking to convey could not possibly carry any weight. The assertion overlooks the possibility that Greene's greatness lies in the very fact that he was able to use everyday language to convey complex ideas and emotions.
Julian Roskams
Bicester, Oxon
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments