A couple of days ago I skimmed a few pages in the "definitive, authorized" biography of Graham Greene -- volume 3 of a 3-volume, gigantic biography, by Norman Sherry. I am sure this is just my bias and not the author's fault, but I thought the writing was pedantic, lame, and ... silly. The records of every letter and every conversation Graham had with his friends and colleagues and lovers are piled together with some obvious and the most elementary logic. Case in point, at one time Greene went to Jerusalem for a trip, and some society there (can't remember whether it was governmental or private) gave him an award of some sort. Even the previous recipients were not all Jewish. Nevertheless someone (some sort of professor) jumped out and attacked this choice. He claimed that there were signs in Greenes early novels (Brighton Rock, for example) that he harbored anti-semetic ideology, therefore was undeserving of the award. Greene responded with little drama that he intended no antisemetic messages in his writing, but yes, it's possible that he was not immune to the general sentiment in the years between WWI and WWII. He added (characteristically I thought) at the end, "... but many people did [resist the general hostility against Jews]." The biographer then went on to defend Greene against the charge from this single professor that he was antisemetic. "Greene was by no means anti-semetic. If anything, he is always for victims." He goes on and on. There was another professor, he cited, who attacked Greene for "not Catholic" enough.
Can you blame me for harboring contempt for academics in literary criticism and "soft sciences" (perhaps economics not included) who make a comfortable living writing and "researching" and publishing and teaching such nonsense? Don't they have better things to do? And thank god for the kind biographer's favorable judgment of Greene as "not an antisemite", since he had such an extensive knowledge of Greene the person and his most private letters and exchanges.
I almost wonder if Greene chose Sherry to write his own biography because he is so dense and oblivious and ... stupid, and thus he does not have to risk being revealed by an otherwise more insightful biographer. He would rather tolerate the ass-kissing idiot than facing the risk of being understood and penetrated, face to face, when he was alive. He was probably too shy and self-conscious for such an exposure. Someone like Greene defies biography. It is pointless to read anything other than facts and his own words. Perhaps a contemporary with a sense of humor and irreverence would produce something worth a look. In general I don't think he can or should or need be defined. He is real, and the definitions are artificial, feeble, and dead, and utterly meaningless.
You may laugh at me but I find it funny (in funny ha-ha and funny ironic) that Norman Sherry is not only American but a Texan no less...
。
I find it total strange that I can totally relate to both characters. I cried when reading the book, and remained depressed for quite a long time after finishing it. 
