Posted on 07/03/2002 9:26:05 PM PDT by JMJ333
Flannery O'Connor was born and raised in Savannah, Georgia. After her father died of lupus erythematosus, a rare and fatal autoimmune disease, she and her mother lived alone. She received a general education at Georgia State College for Women and then continued to study creative writing at the University of Iowa. After receiving an M.F.A. degree in 1947, Flannery spent time in an artists' colony in Saratoga Springs, New York, and then with friends in Connecticut. She finished writing Wise Blood in 1950. Later that year, Flannery developed the same disease that had ended her father's life.
Though crippled by lupus, Flannery was able to enjoy a modest lifestyle on her mother's ancestral farm, raising peacocks and writing. Her short stories are collected in A Good Man is Hard to Find, and Other Stories (1955), Everything That Rises Must Converge (1965), and Flannery O'Connor: The Complete Stories published posthumously in 1971. Her only other novel was The Violent Bear it Away (1960).
Flannery O'Connor was a devout Catholic. She approached her work as a novelist and short story writer with a realistic understanding of her audience. The society around her had separated physical fact from spiritual reality and was left without any ground for belief. As Flannery wrote of spiritual experiences, she was careful not to "approach the divine directly," but rather to "penetrate the natural human world as it is." (O'Connor 68) She had a keen ear for common speech and used her observational powers to portray grotesque characters and bizarre situations reflecting man's broken condition.
She explains in one essay entitled "Novelist and Believer" that the comic element in her writing comes out of her sincerity regarding eternal matters. The more serious one is about eternity, the more comical he can become since he is able to see the amusing side of the universe.
Synopsis of the Work: Wise Blood
Wise Blood illustrates the final days of an intense truth-seeking character named Hazel Motes. Hazel is introduced to the reader as a train passenger on his way to begin a new phase in his life, doing things he has never done before. He came home from the war to find his home desolate and abandoned. All that remained of his family was a collection of haunting memories.
One very clear and influential memory was his circuit-preaching grandfather. The old man preached a Jesus who chased men down like criminals and redeemed sinners against their will. Hazel believed that he could escape Jesus by avoiding sin, until the day he convinced himself sin was nonexistent.
Throughout the body of Wise Blood, Hazel's one desire is to manifest his unbelief in a radically blasphemous lifestyle. He commences his time in the city of Taulkinham by finding a whore, not for enjoyment, but simply to pile up alleged sins while asserting his inward cleanliness to himself and to the world.
Hazel meets some important characters during his wanderings on the street. The first is a pitiful eighteen-year-old named Enoch Emery, in search of love and kindness. Hazel responds to Enoch in spite and indifference, but the boy continues to follow him believing that some good will result. Enoch lives compulsively, controlled by the "wise blood" coursing through his veins.
While evading Enoch, Hazel pursues the town's blind preacher, Asa Hawks. Hazel expects to tear the preacher up with jibes and arguments, but Hawks is no longer the kind of man to care about Hazel's words or his soul. Two bags of guilt weigh down Hawk's previous religious enthusiasm and now he lives by swindling money like a common fraud. His illegitimate daughter, Sabbath, mistakes the intensity in Hazel's face as the capacity to love. She also follows him, hoping for something good.
Hazel begins a short preaching career promoting the Church without Christ on the streets of Taulkinham. He declares that there is no ultimate truth and advocates denial of Jesus and conscience. He fails to realize that he preaches to an apathetic audience. Nobody cares about losing Jesus since no one has Jesus to begin with.
One stranger tries to use Hazel's doctrine as a way to earn money. He even hires a prophet to dress up like Hazel and join him in preaching the "Holy Church of Christ without Christ." Hazel finds this hypocritical prophet and runs him over in disgust. Running from the crime scene, he is stopped by a policeman who is ignorant of the murder. Finding that Hazel has no license, the cop pushes his dilapidated vehicle over the side of an embankment. Hazel walks three hours back into town, buys some lime, and blinds himself.
It is difficult to determine Hazel's belief system at the end of his life. The reader shares the confusion of his landlady as she peers into his blinded eyes to discover something hidden from her. Hazel says very little to her, but walks days on end with gravel and glass lining his shoes, and barbed wire wrapped about his chest. He says that he is paying; he is unclean.
"'Jesus was the only One that ever raised the dead,' The Misfit continued, 'and He shouldn't have done it. He thown everything off balance. If He did what He said, then it's nothing for you to do but thow away everything and follow Him, and if He didn't, then it's nothing for you to do but enjoy the few minutes you got left the best way you can - by killing somebody or burning down his house or doing some other meanness to him. No pleasure but meanness,' he said and his voice had become almost a snarl."
sitetest
John Huston read the novel in 1978 - he received a copy of it from Michael Fitzgerald, whose father was O'Connor's literary executor. Against all odds, Michael Fitzgerald got the money for the production, some $2,000,000; the screenplay was written by Michael and his brother, Benedict, and everyone worked for a minimum wage. Most of the film was shot in Macon, Georgia. "There were seven outstanding performances in Wise Blood. Only three of those seven actors have any reputation to speak of: Brad Dourif, Ned Beatty and Harry Dean Stanton. The other four are unknowns. They are all great stars, as far as I'm concerned. Nothing would make me happier than to see this picture gain popular acceptance and turn a profit. It would prove something. I'm not sure what... but something." ( John Huston in An Open Book, 1988)
The Artificial Nigger, by Flannery O'Connor Taken from The Complete Stories of Flannery O'Connor" Published by Farrar, Straus, and Giroux; New York, 1971
Her personal favorite.
Alas, the article didn't quote this character's full description of his new religion; he declared "I'm going to found the church of Christ without Christ, where the lame don't walk and the blind don't see and what's dead stays that way."
"All human nature vigorously resists grace because grace changes us and the change is painful...Human nature is so faulty that it can resist any amount of grace [I don't think she means this literally; I think she means "a little or quite a lot"] and most of the time it does."
In my early adulthood, it was my discovery of O'Connor's letters that brought me back to the Church.
"a woman who churns out short stories wherein every character is so warped, damaged, and bent that when I read the story I think death would be a mercy for them all."
I understand your points about Miss O'Connor. When I first was forced-fed her work in college, it seemed abhorrent to me.
Of course, in paying attention only to the warped, damaged, and bent nature of the characters, one also misses the beauty and the response to grace of the same. In re-reading A Good Man is Hard to Find yesterday, I was (again) struck at how these "warped, damaged, and bent" characters were admixed with kindness, nostalgia, curiosity, joy, and other qualities.
Miss O'Connor certainly exaggerates the "warped, damaged, and bent nature" of characters, but perhaps she does so to hold up a mirror to the reader. Perhaps the revulsion we naturally feel is because we would prefer that we have only qualities like kindness, nostalgia, curiously, joy, and the others, and recoil in horror and indignity when the "warped, damaged, and bent nature" of our own souls is exposed to us.
However, it is the conceit of the current time to deny that we are warped, damaged, and bent.
sitetest
Well, I've never liked Flannery O'Conner. I thought she was a creepy woman who wallowed in mental illness and buzzed over sores like a fly. She's the perfect example of what Catholicism will do to a potentially logical mind, and her thesis (which seems to give the false choice that there is either God or apathy) is just an example of the limitations placed on the mind by religion. There is an objective truth, and it has to do with the physical world. People who cannot accept that end up either emeshed in religion as a self-protective device, or flailing against it because they hate what they perceive to be the only alternative. It's pretty tragic.
The human mind, or what small percentage we use of it, is incapable of imagining the size of the universe, its origin, or even where it is, which is why I disagree with you assessment that everything should be viewed in concrete physical temrs. It simply isn't logical to believe that science is capable of unlocking every mystery in the unviverse and of understanding everything in a pure material way. There are certain things we were not meant to understand...are not capable of understanding.
I do not think her choices were faith or apathy alone, as Motes demonstrates rebellion. I wouldn't call faith self-protective either. I would call it a love affair [Stop rolling your eyes!]. If a person hates love, I would have to ask...why? The stubborn will that enjoys the easiness of subjectivive reality is my answer. =)
To me it outlines wishful thinking on behalf of the followers of modern atheists who champion "new morality," the subjectivity of Truth, the sexual revolution, and absurdity in thinking everything material.
I fear you have been reading too much Nietzsche. =)
The human mind, or what small percentage we use of it, is incapable of imagining the size of the universe, its origin, or even where it is.
There was a time the human mind could not conceive of higher math, either. And some minds (like mine) still aren't terribly good at it. It doesn't mean that we should shrink back from trying.
It simply isn't logical to believe that science is capable of unlocking every mystery in the unviverse and of understanding everything in a pure material way.
Sure it is. What's illogical about it? And remember, the word is "illogical," not "intimidating" or "overwhelming." Because I understand that the massive amount of things we do not know can be overwhelming. But so?
There are certain things we were not meant to understand...are not capable of understanding.
That's what people say when what they want to do is make a space for faith, and say that through faith we can "know." Well, if we can't "know" then we can't "know" and "knowing through faith" would still be "knowing," according to your worldview. Wouldn't it?
I do not think her choices were faith or apathy alone, as Motes demonstrates rebellion. I wouldn't call faith self-protective either. I would call it a love affair .
I wasn't going to bring this up, but religion is definitely a love affair with the self, in a very unhealthy way. How can I describe this... let me start with this: a world view that holds that humans are the one creature with a spiritual existance that will go on forever, specially created by a god so enamoured of them that he slaughtered his own son so that he could love their flaws and still respect himself in the morning (as long as they acknowledged the sacrifice it meant) has no business calling "arrogant" the atheist world view that we are just another animal and when we die, we rot. It's the religious world view that has an arrogant and inflated view of man.
BUT the religious view of man is still a cruelly unhealthy one. It reminds me of a relative I have who is nothing but one hard luck story after another. This person always has something wrong with them, one injury and illness after another, their life is a saga of jobs lost because the boss was a jerk, friends who betrayed them, relatives who hurt their feelings, unjust landlords and conniving authorities, all scheming to injure the already-set-upon victim who is always hunting for a fresh audience to sit and listen attentively to their extremely lengthy tales of woe.
You may wonder where I'm going with this. It's just this: this person is actually utterly self-absorbed. The evil stacked against them as well as the betrayal of their own weak and defective flesh fascinate them to no end. They are the never-ending heros of a never-ending drama. In conversation they bore their captives because they have no capacity to consider that the story of their life is NOT the riveting drama they think it is, and they cannot read restless body language. It's all about them, as the cosmic good-n-evil story is all about man.
But they have no pride. They lay their sores out for all to see. See me! Pity me! Commiserate with me! Listen while I run through my long list of grievances and agree with me that my luck is worse than most peoples, my hardships more plentiful!
If they had any strength and self respect they would not wallow in this litany of lamentations. But they don't have self-respect. They have self-love of the most pitiful yet obsessive variety. So no, I'm not rolling my eyes at the statement that religion is a love affair. It most certainly is.
What I like most about Flannery is that she shows how mankind has lost its natural religious instinct to respect something greater than ourselves.
That's another thing. Why do you suppose this is? What is the first few months of every human life like? Think about it.
She shows the continual drumbeat of western thought of divinizating man-- the religion of man as the new God.
Well, if you are making the point that what she is doing is pointing out the differences between Catholicism and Communism, that's fine. I considered saying that myself when I said that she offers the false choice of religion vs apathy but I was mentally saying "communism" where I put apathy. I refrained for fear it would sound paranoid, but since you've said it for me I'll go ahead and say sure: but those are not our only two choices. It's a false choice like "Coke, or Pepsi?" Neither! I want water!
To me it outlines wishful thinking on behalf of the followers of modern atheists who champion "new morality," the subjectivity of Truth, the sexual revolution, and absurdity in thinking everything material.
Again, there is another option. There is an atheist stance that is respectful of objective truth.
Appreciated. I would rather butt heads with you than be on a thread where everyone agrees. I enjoy a mind challenge.
Since your answer was in depth, I'll break this post down into 2 parts so its easier on the eyes.
There was a time the human mind could not conceive of higher math, either. And some minds (like mine) still aren't terribly good at it. It doesn't mean that we should shrink back from trying.
I am all for higer learning, I just think that we are incapable of understanding certain aspects of our existance and of the universe. I am not advocating that we stop trying to research, only that our intellect can only penetrate so deep.
It simply isn't logical to believe that science is capable of unlocking every mystery in the unviverse and of understanding everything in a pure material way.
Sure it is. What's illogical about it? And remember, the word is "illogical," not "intimidating" or "overwhelming." Because I understand that the massive amount of things we do not know can be overwhelming. But so?
There are certain things that the mind of man simply cannot discover or ascertain. For example, the placement of the earth. If it were a little farther away from the sun the entire planet would be an antartica; if it were a little closer, it would be a continuous Sahara desert. The placement is precise, and that is not by chance. There is no way to scientifically unlock this mystery in material terms.
There are certain things we were not meant to understand...are not capable of understanding.
That's what people say when what they want to do is make a space for faith, and say that through faith we can "know." Well, if we can't "know" then we can't "know" and "knowing through faith" would still be "knowing," according to your worldview. Wouldn't it?
Actually, I am of the belief that we can know about faith, since I believe in a personal God. I am referring more to the above paragraph on mysteries of the universe, or the conditions necessary for life on this planet.
It is precisely a science of love and mercy, though. Our view is sometime falsely misrepresented as a bargain with God, or a dry series of do not's with heavy sanctions. Its not. Its just a simple surrender of the creature to its creator. God's revelation enters through the heart. Even at the crucifixtion it was our Lord's purpose to leave us in such balanced uncertainty that belief in His divinity still required an effort of faith; And faith is not in understanding alone, nor in instincts..it is also in the will. The intellect presents the target, but the will shoots the arrows.
Faith cannot be embraced except by an act of will to which intellect gives fully conscious approval, and it is an act of will that implicates the whole personality. That you are not willing or able to make that step is understandable given your worldview.
BUT the religious view of man is still a cruelly unhealthy one. It reminds me of a relative I have who is nothing but one hard luck story after another. This person always has something wrong with them, one injury and illness after another, their life is a saga of jobs lost because the boss was a jerk, friends who betrayed them, relatives who hurt their feelings, unjust landlords and conniving authorities, all scheming to injure the already-set-upon victim who is always hunting for a fresh audience to sit and listen attentively to their extremely lengthy tales of woe.
You may wonder where I'm going with this. It's just this: this person is actually utterly self-absorbed. The evil stacked against them as well as the betrayal of their own weak and defective flesh fascinate them to no end. They are the never-ending heros of a never-ending drama. In conversation they bore their captives because they have no capacity to consider that the story of their life is NOT the riveting drama they think it is, and they cannot read restless body language. It's all about them, as the cosmic good-n-evil story is all about man.
But they have no pride. They lay their sores out for all to see. See me! Pity me! Commiserate with me! Listen while I run through my long list of grievances and agree with me that my luck is worse than most peoples, my hardships more plentiful!
If they had any strength and self respect they would not wallow in this litany of lamentations. But they don't have self-respect. They have self-love of the most pitiful yet obsessive variety. So no, I'm not rolling my eyes at the statement that religion is a love affair. It most certainly is.
Yes, but you and I have a totally different version of that love affair. I do not know the person you describe, but surely there are plenty of them as human nature is so very flawed. However, quiet suffering is a virtue. I do not mean parading it around for all to see. I mean that suffering quietly and offering it for another person is a way to attain grace. It strengthens character.
One more post to follow..
Thanks for your thoughtful response. You certainly have gotten to the heart of the matter. There is a difference in world view. Miss O'Connor believes that we arrive on the scene already marred by original sin, and that as we grow and mature, we make more of a mess of it.
You believe otherwise. And if you're correct, then her fiction is worse than grotesque, it's morally odious.
However, Miss O'Connor might cite in her favor the fact that much evil is done in the world by human beings. They are not the actions of good, straight, and already whole human beings.
sitetest
That's another thing. Why do you suppose this is? What is the first few months of every human life like? Think about it.
Precisely! It is in the innocent baby that humbles me! And how do you explain so many people who suffer mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual need for supernatural consolation? The source of their grief goes to the core of their being, and has no superficial remedy. This spiritual vacuum, though very often easy to ignore, is like groping around in darkness. So, it comes down to trust in ultimate goodness--souls are won by words, example and above all..sacrifice.
To me it outlines wishful thinking on behalf of the followers of modern atheists who champion "new morality," the subjectivity of Truth, the sexual revolution, and absurdity in thinking everything material.
Again, there is another option. There is an atheist stance that is respectful of objective truth.
But concrete truths do exist! On this we will forever disagree!
Like this: the first year of our lives we are helpless. The first experiences we have are of being hungry and crying out... and a large, seemingly omnipotent being (mommy) comes and feeds us. We are wet or dirty and we cry out... and a large, seemingly omnipotent being comes and changes our diapers. We are frightened or angry or upset and we cry out... and a large, seemingly omnipotent being comes and comforts us. In other words, mammals are imprinted early with a template for crying out for help and being helped. I've seen kittens do the same thing, do you think they believe in god? No. They just know that when they cry, someone comes. Things that are hatched from eggs and then slither away, like snakes, have no such early experiences. So when you talk about the "instinct" to look beyond ourselves for aid from an omnipotent force, all you are talking about is the residue left from our earliest experiences of dependency.
Again, there is another option. There is an atheist stance that is respectful of objective truth.
But concrete truths do exist! On this we will forever disagree!
We aren't disagreeing! Read what I said, please. You'll never understand who you are arguing with as long as you try to shoehorn me into the little category you have carved out for post-modernists and commies, which you have labeled "atheist".
You are looking at this 100% backwards, like the man who marvels that his mouth is just big enough to fit a spoon into, and how miraculous it is that our mouths are just the right size for spoons. Well of course they are, the spoon was built for the mouth, not the other way around.
Yes, we are helpless, but I cannot reconcile our helplessness with that of a reptile or animal because of our unique and intrinsic dignity. Further, once animals are weened of their mothers, they do not pine for the supernatural. The human soul [for many] yearns for the love of God.
We aren't disagreeing! Read what I said, please. You'll never understand who you are arguing with as long as you try to shoehorn me into the little category you have carved out for post-modernists and commies, which you have labeled "atheist".
I understand, but I am nit-picking because their is a strict definition on what concrete truth is. I am not trying to disrespectfully pigeonhole you into a corner--but I have to make the distinction between our belief systems on the subject of objective reality. I do not think you are a communist. A post-modernist? Yes, simply because of your stances on the value of human life and the lack of unimportance you place on "higher things." That isn't a slap at you--just an observation.
Modern because non-believer before Machiavalli still held a sense of piety, the natural religious instinct to respect something greater than yourself, the humility that instinctively realizes man's subordinate place in the great scheme of things. Moderation or temperance went along with this, especially in classical civilization. You would agree then that you philosophy is certainly more post modern?
I know some people with dignity, but I know plenty without a shred of it. "Unique and intrinsic human dignity" needs to be further defined and verified if I'm going to accept it as a given starting point for our purposes.
Further, once animals are weened of their mothers, they do not pine for the supernatural. The human soul [for many] yearns for the love of God.
They don't "pine for the supernatural" but if they are in trouble, they will cry out and I'm sure they don't know to whom or to what they are crying out. They just do it because they can't do anything else and it worked once before. As for the "human soul" that's another fiction to me so I don't think I can start with you there either. What you call a "human soul pining for the supernatural" I call a Emma Bovary like yearning for Romanticism to fill the void left when learning is abandoned as useless because our minds aren't capable. This is probably why women were traditionally considered more devout. Empty brains, full hearts, so to speak.
Modern because non-believer before Machiavalli still held a sense of piety, the natural religious instinct to respect something greater than yourself, the humility that instinctively realizes man's subordinate place in the great scheme of things. Moderation or temperance went along with this, especially in classical civilization. You would agree then that you philosophy is certainly more post modern?
Well, I certainly have enough respect for the laws of nature to be quite respectful of its force and I know that no matter how subjective a truth I think gravity to be, if I stepped off the top of a 40 story building I would go splat whether I believed in gravity or not. As for my assessment of the value of human life... its value to whom? Sheep? Do sheep value human life? Do sharks value human life? No, of course not, you mean "the value of human life to humans." That is why the value of human life is relative. It has exactly the value we place on it, no more, no less. I don't think this makes me post-modernist as that is a very recent phenomenon and you have indicated that the break happened just after Machiavelli. I'd rather think of myself as Machiavellian than post-modernist! (-:
I usually don't bite. ;-)
"As for the evil in the world, evil is a human construct."
Is each human entitled to his own construct?
sitetest
Entitled by whom?
I do not mean dignity defined by behavior. I mean life itself is indowed with intrinsic value define at conception--a topic you and I have hashed about repeatedly and have never come to an agreement on.
They don't "pine for the supernatural" but if they are in trouble, they will cry out and I'm sure they don't know to whom or to what they are crying out. They just do it because they can't do anything else and it worked once before. As for the "human soul" that's another fiction to me so I don't think I can start with you there either. What you call a "human soul pining for the supernatural" I call a Emma Bovary like yearning for Romanticism to fill the void left when learning is abandoned as useless because our minds aren't capable. This is probably why women were traditionally considered more devout. Empty brains, full hearts, so to speak.
LOL, I would feel insulted if I didn't know you better! I consider myself many things, but empty-brained isn't one of them! And I disagree with the assertion that men are less pious or devout, as the number male saints in the Catholic church is plentiful.
I have enjoyed the debate, as usual, and will see you again next round. Cheers. ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.