Post by assisi on Sept 7, 2019 20:25:33 GMT
I've been dipping in to the series of essays that make up Desmond Fennell's most recent collection 'About Being Normal'.
Some of his earlier essays (and in footnotes he has added) made me realise that there is a certain loneliness to the journey he has taken through his life, both geographically and professionally. He admits that his parental upbringing, especially his father, was quite oppressive and strict and the real love came from his aunt and uncle in Belfast. Later, one of his two sisters became estranged from the family and didn't report the death of his uncle and aunt to the rest of the family.
He also went out on a limb professionally and opposed the prevailing doctrines of the time if he thought it necessary. As an art critic for example in Dublin in the early 1960s, abstract art was all the rage and the more traditional 'representational art' was somewhat passe. So, it was fashionable in Ireland to do abstract, even if it meant unoriginal mimicry of established international abstract painters, while good representational Irish art was being discouraged simple because it was not fashionable. He suggests he lost he first art critic job because of something he wrote that annoyed a prominent member of the Arts Council.
Now, is the above simply being contrarian or being brave enough to swim against the current? I think the latter.
Later he would have a similar type of controversy, this time with the poetry of Seamus Heaney, where he thought that Heaney was overly influenced by the American poetry establishment, particularly its 'queen' Helen Vendler. She liked poetry to be meditative, private musings aimed at the self; she did not like poetry with a strong message or theme. So Fennell believed that Heaney adopted Vendler's view, his poetry becoming more self absorbed while at the same time therefore saying 'nothing'.
Again, is this contrarian or does it hold some truth? Funnily enough, on the sleeve of Fennell's book there is a comment by Declan Kiberd, recommending Fennell's thinking but saying 'He was wrong about Heaney!' - strange that a recommendation on a book sleeve should be so decisive in calling Fennell out as wrong on this.
Some of his earlier essays (and in footnotes he has added) made me realise that there is a certain loneliness to the journey he has taken through his life, both geographically and professionally. He admits that his parental upbringing, especially his father, was quite oppressive and strict and the real love came from his aunt and uncle in Belfast. Later, one of his two sisters became estranged from the family and didn't report the death of his uncle and aunt to the rest of the family.
He also went out on a limb professionally and opposed the prevailing doctrines of the time if he thought it necessary. As an art critic for example in Dublin in the early 1960s, abstract art was all the rage and the more traditional 'representational art' was somewhat passe. So, it was fashionable in Ireland to do abstract, even if it meant unoriginal mimicry of established international abstract painters, while good representational Irish art was being discouraged simple because it was not fashionable. He suggests he lost he first art critic job because of something he wrote that annoyed a prominent member of the Arts Council.
Now, is the above simply being contrarian or being brave enough to swim against the current? I think the latter.
Later he would have a similar type of controversy, this time with the poetry of Seamus Heaney, where he thought that Heaney was overly influenced by the American poetry establishment, particularly its 'queen' Helen Vendler. She liked poetry to be meditative, private musings aimed at the self; she did not like poetry with a strong message or theme. So Fennell believed that Heaney adopted Vendler's view, his poetry becoming more self absorbed while at the same time therefore saying 'nothing'.
Again, is this contrarian or does it hold some truth? Funnily enough, on the sleeve of Fennell's book there is a comment by Declan Kiberd, recommending Fennell's thinking but saying 'He was wrong about Heaney!' - strange that a recommendation on a book sleeve should be so decisive in calling Fennell out as wrong on this.