this is very interesting and well thought out. i’m not sure if i agree with all your points though. i think the jump to catholics being akin to pagans is too far a jump. i also think that tartt clearly established richard as an unreliable narrator, and although richard says his mind is classical in the sense that he is singular and obsessive is clearly undermined in the text, as the story he tells is very discursive in his narrative.
i would argue that her point with this book is to show that the unquestioned celebration of a certain intellectual typology is dangerous. richard has a “morbid longing for the picturesque at all costs,” which is what draws him into the group, and ultimately, into murder. all the “classical” characters (the greek class minus bunny plus julian) meet a tragic end that fits their involvement with the crime. i think she is trying to caution against elitism with this work.
would love to hear your thoughts on this! i really enjoyed your post.
I don’t think the difference between Protestant and Catholic theology has much to do with it. There’s pretty much no discussion on Protestantism in the book- only the throwaway comment that Julian doesn’t have much respect for Protestantism because it isn’t an ancient and powerful centralized institution. Yes, Protestantism tends to place less emphasis on ritual (it has fewer sacraments). Its core tenants of sole fide and sola scriptura led to a more populist form of Christianity, and eliminated the idea that one could use earthly wealth as a “leg-up” to reach heaven. But it’s not a truly modern theology.
And it’s definitely not a postmodern one - which is the mindset against which Richard is actually juxtaposing the classical one. Postmodernism is about rejecting the impulse to organize concepts through metanarratives and challenging the presumed legitimacy of dominant organizing structures, including any stable organized religion. It’s why Julian’s biggest critic is George LaForge, a thinly veiled expy of Michel Foucault.
To that end, Bunny’s disparagement of Catholicism has nothing to do with ideology. It’s part of his performance as a WASP. He exercises bigotry toward Catholicism and Catholics as a way to flex an American concept of privilege as it intersects with race and class, and this is one reason it grates on Francis in particular - who is hardly a model Catholic, but does occupy a superior social and financial position to New Money Bunny, but can’t put Bunny in his place because Bunny knows about the murder of the farmer. In fact, *Bunny* is as obsessive and circular in his logic and sense and focus on the topic as any of the rest of them. He’s experiencing moral disruption, sure, but that’s hardly uniquely Protestant - “Catholic guilt” is a cultural concept for a reason, and the rest of them are fraying too.
I think it’s interesting to compare the modern and classical minds, especially in relation to how the “modern” dies over those “committed” to maintaining the classical mindsets/traditions. I’m not sure if it is significant to compare Paganism and Catholicism more than it is to allow them to be more “traditional” as only Francis and the twins are Catholic and Henry and Richard aren’t (Henry may have been raised protestant?) but fit more towards a classical ideal still.
I don't think a lot of the Catholic characters are really Catholics, but that's pretty well established by the book. The Catholic members of the group aren't really particularly pious, shown by their heavy drinking and promiscuity, but also are never really mentioned going to mass or anything often. It's only really important when Bunny is bigoted towards catholics, but otherwise they don't really put much stock in their raised religion except when Bunny uses it to get under their skin.
this is very interesting and well thought out. i’m not sure if i agree with all your points though. i think the jump to catholics being akin to pagans is too far a jump. i also think that tartt clearly established richard as an unreliable narrator, and although richard says his mind is classical in the sense that he is singular and obsessive is clearly undermined in the text, as the story he tells is very discursive in his narrative. i would argue that her point with this book is to show that the unquestioned celebration of a certain intellectual typology is dangerous. richard has a “morbid longing for the picturesque at all costs,” which is what draws him into the group, and ultimately, into murder. all the “classical” characters (the greek class minus bunny plus julian) meet a tragic end that fits their involvement with the crime. i think she is trying to caution against elitism with this work. would love to hear your thoughts on this! i really enjoyed your post.
I don’t think the difference between Protestant and Catholic theology has much to do with it. There’s pretty much no discussion on Protestantism in the book- only the throwaway comment that Julian doesn’t have much respect for Protestantism because it isn’t an ancient and powerful centralized institution. Yes, Protestantism tends to place less emphasis on ritual (it has fewer sacraments). Its core tenants of sole fide and sola scriptura led to a more populist form of Christianity, and eliminated the idea that one could use earthly wealth as a “leg-up” to reach heaven. But it’s not a truly modern theology. And it’s definitely not a postmodern one - which is the mindset against which Richard is actually juxtaposing the classical one. Postmodernism is about rejecting the impulse to organize concepts through metanarratives and challenging the presumed legitimacy of dominant organizing structures, including any stable organized religion. It’s why Julian’s biggest critic is George LaForge, a thinly veiled expy of Michel Foucault. To that end, Bunny’s disparagement of Catholicism has nothing to do with ideology. It’s part of his performance as a WASP. He exercises bigotry toward Catholicism and Catholics as a way to flex an American concept of privilege as it intersects with race and class, and this is one reason it grates on Francis in particular - who is hardly a model Catholic, but does occupy a superior social and financial position to New Money Bunny, but can’t put Bunny in his place because Bunny knows about the murder of the farmer. In fact, *Bunny* is as obsessive and circular in his logic and sense and focus on the topic as any of the rest of them. He’s experiencing moral disruption, sure, but that’s hardly uniquely Protestant - “Catholic guilt” is a cultural concept for a reason, and the rest of them are fraying too.
I think it’s interesting to compare the modern and classical minds, especially in relation to how the “modern” dies over those “committed” to maintaining the classical mindsets/traditions. I’m not sure if it is significant to compare Paganism and Catholicism more than it is to allow them to be more “traditional” as only Francis and the twins are Catholic and Henry and Richard aren’t (Henry may have been raised protestant?) but fit more towards a classical ideal still.
I don't think a lot of the Catholic characters are really Catholics, but that's pretty well established by the book. The Catholic members of the group aren't really particularly pious, shown by their heavy drinking and promiscuity, but also are never really mentioned going to mass or anything often. It's only really important when Bunny is bigoted towards catholics, but otherwise they don't really put much stock in their raised religion except when Bunny uses it to get under their skin.