SIR,—Careful reading of Mr. Raven's article 'Gods and Little Fishes'
finds it as empty and shallow as it is amusing. Indeed, not-only is his criticism utterly naive in its distracted attempts to avoid the pit of naivety, but also this criticism (or can it be tertned so?) betrays a lack of careful reading of the books that he is pretending to criticise. For instance, on reconsideration he might find that John Bowes's After the Rain gibes not at God as such but rather at any imaginative man's use of our faith in God. And as for Mr. Raven's endorsement of Brian Moore's The Feast of Lupercal, it is embarrassing in its childlike gullibility. His abuse shows him to be as bigoted as the institution . that he accuses 01 bigotry. For I can see little that recommends a Catholic public school as a repository of dirt, unless, of course, it is Mr. Raven's own perverse standard of morals, the existence of which I cannot vouch for. Please inform Mr. Raven that he has an open invitation to this epitome of what he discusses; he will not be 'fawned upon,' nor shall we 'bend over backwards' to entertain him. But we shall welcome him; he will not find the boys 'vicious and smelly' he will notice that the lay masters are not 'decor' posing,' but young, active and with first-class degrees in their subjects; and he will be surprised, perhaps, that the priests are neither 'sleek' nor will theY 'chatter' unduly. In fact, if you will allow a postscript, the Spectator would find a more broad-minded critic in a Roman Catholic priest than in Mr. Raven. One is surprised that such a great periodical employs a witty young man for witty young man's, sake. But now I am becoming bigoted, and perhaps Mr. Raven is injured innocence whose words have been trIts- interpreted.---Yours faithfully,
E
Previous page
