Talk:The End of the Affair

Low Quality Criticism
The section about Jonathan Franzen's opinion is irrelevant at best and idiotic at worst. Franzen says he's "overrated but perhaps he think's so because it's writing from across the Atlantic." I suppose Franzen then also considers Shakespeare, George Bernard Shaw, and a countless other writers overrated and partly unintelligible. Why anyone cares what this hack thinks of better writers is beyond me. Surely there is a great deal of more insightful criticism of the novel that could take the place of this bit of drivel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.250.58.37 (talk) 11:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Mystery lover?
Who is this imaginary lover of Greene, Lady Catherine Walston? From 1935 to 1961 she was Catherine Walston or Mrs Walston and from 1961 to 1978 Lady Walston. Source: http://www.ukwhoswho.com/view/article/oupww/whowaswho/U176095/WALSTON [accessed 29/08/2010 21:43] The Lawless One (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion > Article Split suggestion (2006)
How about The End of the Affair, The End of the Affair (1955 film), The End of the Affair (1999 film), and The End of the Affair (opera)? *whew* Her Pegship 03:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * VOTE: FOR - Priscila (on May 19th, 2007)


 * VOTE: AGAINST - Nice idea however that is not really a split, more a write from scratch, there is vertually nothing here so far.! :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  08:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * VOTE: FOR/Caveat additional - The End of the Affair (rock climb) would be nice too :-) http://www.rockfax.com/databases/r.php?i=1496 MichaelHudson 10:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * VOTE: AGAINST - This ain't my father's wikipedia anymore. It's gotten so structured.  If a story presented in multiple media originates in a common story -- I don't see why a single article can't look at the original and adaptations.  Especially when a three paragraph entry would split into 4 or 5 2-sentence entries which cross-wiki oneanother.  4.248.56.165 06:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * VOTE: AGAINST - I quite agree. Having just finished the book I looked it up here I was happy to see the information shown on one page.62.56.61.4 21:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * VOTE: AGAINST - There is not enough information in this article, if and when it gets to a certain size, then yes, but not until then. IP4240207xx 01:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

DECISION More than enough time has passed for this discussion. The consensus is OPPOSE and/or NO-Decision. Removed tag from article. IP4240207xx 01:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

PS: The additional caveat of an additional article, The End of the Affair (rock climb), can be handled with a note at the top of the article: "This article is about the story by Graham Greene, blah, blah, blah" IP4240207xx 02:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GrahamGreene TheEndOfTheAffair.jpg
Image:GrahamGreene TheEndOfTheAffair.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion > Article MERGE suggestion (October 2007)
I propose the merge of:


 * The End of the Affair (1955 film)

&
 * The End of the Affair (opera)

Into:


 * This article.

REASON: Not enough information in the individual articles to sustain them on their own. Propose merge until a point and time when there is enough text to break the articles back out. Also propose merger talk end on November 30th of 2007.


 * VOTE: FOR - IP4240207xx 01:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Against - I have just added information to both. And that was with hardly looking very far. I should be only simpl matter to add any more that is needed. Add rather than subtract. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  08:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Against - I also think that Julianne Moore's film should have it's own article. Very much like The Lord of the Rings that has it's own "spin-offs" each with it's own article (The Lord of the Rings (1978 film), The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, The Lord of the Rings (soundtrack), The Lord of the Rings (symphony) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamanbaiia (talk • contribs) 17:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems consensus has been reached so i've removed the merging tag and created The End of the Affair (1999 film). -Yamanbaiia 14:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Against With the recent additions there would seem to be enough to keep them as seperate articles. MarnetteD | Talk 20:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Against - there is enough information out there for each article, they just need developing. Agree that the 1999 film also needs a separate article, have been meaning to write one for months just not got around to it yet. -- Beloved Freak  15:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Against - This is all old but the merge tag remains on the opera article - I will therefore remove it. --Kleinzach (talk) 06:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Confusing sentence
Admittedly, I have neither read the book nor seen the films based on it. So, this sentence in the plot summary left me confused:
 * "After her sudden death from a lung infection brought to a climax by walking on the Common in the rain, several miraculous events occur, advocating for some kind of meaningfulness to Sarah's faith."

It sounds like Sarah has died but then postulates later action occurring because of her faith which implies that she is living (a dead person doesn't have faith as they are no longer alive). So, if this could be written to be clearer whether events actually did occur after Sarah's death (or if she did not die and "her" refers to someone else) and what other cause might have led to these "miraculous events" (if that is even important, I don't know), that would be great. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfinished sentence in criticism section
″Though often considered as among Greene's best novels, and having been chosen by Robert McCrum for his list of the '100 Greatest Novels in English', the author Jonathan Franzen said that he considered E. M. Forster and Graham Greene --, in particular highlighting The End of the Affair. However, he did also comment that he believed that part of the reason for this was him being American, as he said that many authors' brilliance is lost when it crosses the Atlantic. He said that he believed that the effect may have occurred with David Foster Wallace.″

The first sentence is incomplete and uncited, and leaves basically the whole section meaningless.

Lady Bolton
Was Greene ever sued for libel by the Boltons for his reference to Lady Bolton, or is there some historical basis for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.225.99 (talk) 06:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)