Welcome back to another conversation about Margaret Kennedy’s The Feast. This week we begin by discussing some audience comments, then we discuss a number of topics, including poor Bruce and his bad decisions, Mrs Gifford vs Mrs Cove, and the difference between subtly and cleverness in literature (and whether either are artistic virtues), and more.
I remember feeling frustrated the first time I read Till We Have Faces when I was younger. I knew it had incredible depths that I couldn’t understand without help. Reading it with the podcast when I was at least 15 years older helped, but I know it still has more that I haven’t seen.
Now Narnia seems so obvious, but the more familiar I’ve become with the authors Lewis loved, the more I see with each trip.
I’d consider myself a well educated well read Catholic, and I’ll admit I didn’t see the 7 deadly connection until you all pointed it out, whereas Steinbeck’s preaching wasn’t lost on me at all and turned me off while reading it. The Feast is just fun good reading, allegory or not.
I really appreciate you thinking about what it might be like to read this for those of us from a context less familiar with the seven deadly sins. I read this last year and the allegory wasn’t at all obvious to me! I was impressed when you decoded the correlation between each character and the sin they represent so easily because it didn’t even cross my mind to think of it in that way on my first read. I was very invested in the characters and I wanted them to repent and make good decisions that would lead to flourishing and freedom, but I wasn’t thinking about it through the lens of virtue and vice. Maybe I was just particularly slow to figure it out but I loved the book and it was really satisfying when the allegory did click into place for me at the end. I’m actually glad discovered it at my own pace and in my own way first but I’m learning lots more from rereading alongside CloseReads now!
Are we hearing this story from the perspective of Reverend Bott? I believe so, since at the end of the prologue he says, “Now listen. See what you make of it.” He proceeds to tell the story I presume based on the accounts he received when the survivors went to him after the big event. He says (also in the prologue), “They sat here talking all night. You know how people talk when they’ve had a shock. They say things they wouldn’t say at any other time…They told me a great deal too much. I wish they hadn’t.” He wouldn’t have had access to journal entries or letters, because we know they get buried. His account would have to rely on memories of the survivors, who maybe saw them or heard about them. So, my questions are, is he a reliable narrator? More importantly, why as readers do we not seem to be questioning that or even care? It doesn’t seem to distract for some reason. In Wuthering Heights, for example, it tends to be a major issue for many that the story is told from an observer’s perspective. Why does that not seem to apply here, when our narrator is even further removed from events? Skill? Artistic genius? Subtlety? How has Kennedy managed to convince us all to accept without question his accounting of the story? (I loved this book by the way, so this is in the spirit of genuine curiosity!)
Does anyone feel that these people are like the cracks on the side of the cliff? They also have joined together and like the bomb that went off, no one thought it would do much damage. But given time, their vices got the better of them.
Heidi, would you be willing to share yet again, and maybe a little more on teaching the Seven Deadly Sins/Virtues? Specifically, do you have a few suggested readings that you either use in the classroom or have been helpful in your own understanding of this area? I am intrigued by the idea of incorporating it into the classroom and thought the way you explained your reasoning (with Sean's additional comment-- "what else is life about?") was compelling.
Hi David. I just finished the Tuesday chapter episode and thought your questions about secular readers and subtlety in The Feast were very interesting. I am that average secular reader. I love the Close Reads podcast and the discussions but I don't read through the lens of Christianity. That said I am always learning something and appreciate the discourse so thank you all for that. In my experience I would have missed Kennedy's subtlety on the seven deadly sins if I hadn't been reading with the Close Reads podcast or done some additional background research on my own. And in my reading experience that would have been fine. I still am enjoying the book immensely and really appreciate Kennedy's writing and creativity. However, having the additional context and insight from the Close Reads discussions has made the book that much more vibrant. This is definitely a book I would have missed if it hadn't been for David - so thank you for that.
Siddal on the three types of novels: he mentions a childhood warped on Cold Comfort Farm. Has anyone read (or watched the movie) Cold Comfort Farm by Stella Gibbons? It's a parody on country novels written in the 30s. I have to imagine Margaret Kennedy had read it given the quote.
Y'all might enjoy the new 8-episode series adaptation of The Count of Monte Cristo that's on PBS! It's grand in scale and mirrors the serious tone of the book so well. You can tell the creators really love the book and wanted to honor it. It'll definitely be a re-watch for me!
On depth and re-reading:
I remember feeling frustrated the first time I read Till We Have Faces when I was younger. I knew it had incredible depths that I couldn’t understand without help. Reading it with the podcast when I was at least 15 years older helped, but I know it still has more that I haven’t seen.
Now Narnia seems so obvious, but the more familiar I’ve become with the authors Lewis loved, the more I see with each trip.
I’d consider myself a well educated well read Catholic, and I’ll admit I didn’t see the 7 deadly connection until you all pointed it out, whereas Steinbeck’s preaching wasn’t lost on me at all and turned me off while reading it. The Feast is just fun good reading, allegory or not.
If anyone is reading Wednesday buckle up!
I really appreciate you thinking about what it might be like to read this for those of us from a context less familiar with the seven deadly sins. I read this last year and the allegory wasn’t at all obvious to me! I was impressed when you decoded the correlation between each character and the sin they represent so easily because it didn’t even cross my mind to think of it in that way on my first read. I was very invested in the characters and I wanted them to repent and make good decisions that would lead to flourishing and freedom, but I wasn’t thinking about it through the lens of virtue and vice. Maybe I was just particularly slow to figure it out but I loved the book and it was really satisfying when the allegory did click into place for me at the end. I’m actually glad discovered it at my own pace and in my own way first but I’m learning lots more from rereading alongside CloseReads now!
Are we hearing this story from the perspective of Reverend Bott? I believe so, since at the end of the prologue he says, “Now listen. See what you make of it.” He proceeds to tell the story I presume based on the accounts he received when the survivors went to him after the big event. He says (also in the prologue), “They sat here talking all night. You know how people talk when they’ve had a shock. They say things they wouldn’t say at any other time…They told me a great deal too much. I wish they hadn’t.” He wouldn’t have had access to journal entries or letters, because we know they get buried. His account would have to rely on memories of the survivors, who maybe saw them or heard about them. So, my questions are, is he a reliable narrator? More importantly, why as readers do we not seem to be questioning that or even care? It doesn’t seem to distract for some reason. In Wuthering Heights, for example, it tends to be a major issue for many that the story is told from an observer’s perspective. Why does that not seem to apply here, when our narrator is even further removed from events? Skill? Artistic genius? Subtlety? How has Kennedy managed to convince us all to accept without question his accounting of the story? (I loved this book by the way, so this is in the spirit of genuine curiosity!)
That is a good question because the prologue states that Bott was not well liked yet his friend Fr. Seddon led a hard life and he was well liked.
Does anyone feel that these people are like the cracks on the side of the cliff? They also have joined together and like the bomb that went off, no one thought it would do much damage. But given time, their vices got the better of them.
Heidi, would you be willing to share yet again, and maybe a little more on teaching the Seven Deadly Sins/Virtues? Specifically, do you have a few suggested readings that you either use in the classroom or have been helpful in your own understanding of this area? I am intrigued by the idea of incorporating it into the classroom and thought the way you explained your reasoning (with Sean's additional comment-- "what else is life about?") was compelling.
Hi David. I just finished the Tuesday chapter episode and thought your questions about secular readers and subtlety in The Feast were very interesting. I am that average secular reader. I love the Close Reads podcast and the discussions but I don't read through the lens of Christianity. That said I am always learning something and appreciate the discourse so thank you all for that. In my experience I would have missed Kennedy's subtlety on the seven deadly sins if I hadn't been reading with the Close Reads podcast or done some additional background research on my own. And in my reading experience that would have been fine. I still am enjoying the book immensely and really appreciate Kennedy's writing and creativity. However, having the additional context and insight from the Close Reads discussions has made the book that much more vibrant. This is definitely a book I would have missed if it hadn't been for David - so thank you for that.
Siddal on the three types of novels: he mentions a childhood warped on Cold Comfort Farm. Has anyone read (or watched the movie) Cold Comfort Farm by Stella Gibbons? It's a parody on country novels written in the 30s. I have to imagine Margaret Kennedy had read it given the quote.
I noticed that too! I’ve read the book and have seen the movie several times.
Y'all might enjoy the new 8-episode series adaptation of The Count of Monte Cristo that's on PBS! It's grand in scale and mirrors the serious tone of the book so well. You can tell the creators really love the book and wanted to honor it. It'll definitely be a re-watch for me!