Flannery O'Conner: Wise Blood

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.

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.

Dear Anamensis,

Okay. My first question has to do with the source of what you view as "good" and "evil". It ultimately derives from:

"...but because I'm human and I want what's best for me."

So, is this sort of a Golden Rule - "Do unto others..." - derived from the desire to establish a society based on mutual reciprocity?

sitetest

My first question has to do with the source of what you view as "good" and "evil".

Source? Source for the action or for the judgment of the action? In other words, are you asking "what makes people DO 'good' or 'evil'?" or are you asking "how do you judge what is 'good' or 'evil'?"

No, I wouldn't use that as my guide. If you really want to know, I think Ayn Rand said it best, and she said it in quite a few different ways and formats. I can try to synopsize but I'm not so hardcore Objectivist that I can rattle the stuff off as if it were my liturgy.

We start with the rights that a man needs in order to live a full life. We would start, then, with the right to live for oneself, to seek what pleasures or profits we want without physically harming or threatening others. When I say "right" of course I mean that no government should make a law infringing upon this, and a man should be allowed to protect himself against individuals or gangs attempting to infringe upon this. Rights are something that only other humans can understand or respect, so we don't say we have the "right to live" because we don't have the right not to be hit by lightening, eaten up by cancer, or attacked by lions. I'll stop here to see if there's anything I've said so far that you want to take up.

I don't "believe" anything. I like everything subject to constant tests and constant re-evaluation. The objectivist philosophy looks like the one that is most beneficial to man so far, so that is the one that most closely represents my own stance. Actually, and this is hard to explain without getting tagged "relativist" but the fact is, I consider it to be an objective within a relevant relative, if that makes any sense to anyone besides me. What I mean is, if you want what's best for mankind, and if you agree that what is best for mankind is the resources to develop technologically, the responsiblity to develop psychologically, and the motive and freedom to develop in both areas, the objectivist philosophy is the best - objectively - in town. But I'm not required to "believe" this, and take it on faith. I am free to observe cultures that stifle freedom, independence, and creativity, and observe the result.

Dear Anamensis,

Okay. Then what you're saying is that if a person prefers the results that you prefer (technological development, etc.), Objectivism is a good way (perhaps the best way - at least that we know) to get there.

But there is nothing that objectively requires one to have these preferences?

sitetest

Well, there kind of is. For instance, one can choose NOT to value technology, freedom, and advancement. One can live like the Taliban. One might get away with it for a while, but if there is ever an instance where folks of this ilk are in conflict with those who believe in freedom and technology, they are likely to get bombed out of existance. So there is no force out there that will prevent them from making this decision, but this decision will ultimately render them less competitive and that will eventually reap the predictable results.

Dear Anamensis,

So, what are the criteria by which one might objectively judge? Are you saying something like the more evolutionarily fit, the more successfully competitive is a society, the more objectively true or good are its values?

sitetest

Dear Anamensis,

I wasn't aware that I was asking for a "motto that can fit on a bumper sticker". I'm interested in what you believe (And of course you believe things. Currently you believe that Objectivism seems to be the best way of looking at things. I notice also that you believe that if you jump off a building, gravity will have its way with you.)

If you wish, you can answer with a motto that can fit on a bumper sticker. Or you can write a 50-page dissertation.

If you would prefer not to continue the discussion, just let me know, that's fine, too.

sitetest

Okay, well, one thing at a time.

Are you saying something like the more evolutionarily fit, the more successfully competitive is a society, the more objectively true or good are its values?

"True" and "Good" are not interchangeable words. I don't see how values can be "true." Values are indicative of priorities, but I don't see how they can be judged in terms of their veracity.

And of course you believe things. Currently you believe that Objectivism seems to be the best way of looking at things. I notice also that you believe that if you jump off a building, gravity will have its way with you.

You are confusing belief with knowledge. As I said, gravity is not a matter of "belief." It's testable, it's verifiable, it's independent of belief. If you are going to use words interchangeably that are in fact very different, we aren't going to get very far.

Dear Anamensis,

"'True' and 'Good' are not interchangeable words."

I didn't mean to suggest that they are. I'm just trying to find the words that you might use to describe your views, and suggested these two as possibly the right ones.

"You are confusing belief with knowledge. As I said, gravity is not a matter of 'belief.' It's testable, it's verifiable, it's independent of belief."

Does this mean that everyone knows the law of gravity who has observed the phenomenon that dropped items tend to fall to earth?

sitetest

The trend of this discussion that I'm noticing is, though you say you want to know what I think, I'm getting the impression that you want to tell me what I think. Every time I say something, you rephrase it slightly differently, usually changing or essentializing it in some way, and then say "you mean this?"

I'm just trying to find the words that you might use to describe your views, and suggested these two as possibly the right ones.

Why not just let me say it the way I say it? I already had words of my own.

Does this mean that everyone knows the law of gravity who has observed the phenomenon that dropped items tend to fall to earth?

I'm not trying to define the law of gravity, I'm trying to explain the difference between believing something, that is, accepting something on faith, and knowing something, that is, having the right to test a hypothesis until you can verify it. And if one day you come across something that is in defiance of the reality you know, the pursuit of knowledge allows you to begin testing again, backtracking if need be to reverify what you know to ascertain that you did indeed know, and nothing has changed. I'm not sure if I can explain it any better than that. If this is going to turn into an exercise in sophistry, the "how do you know we're even here" business, I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm really not interested.

I'm taking my evidence from your comments. I'm sorry you don't like how I characterize your approach but there are no assumptions involved. I'm describing what you are doing and I think we both know that it is exactly what you are doing. You aren't simply, innocently curious about my views. There is clearly a method in your approach that continually seeks to set up an essentialized straw man, and get me to adopt it. This is always the first signs of impending attack. I have been on Free Republic for almost 3 years, I know this approach when I see it. If I'm wrong, show me where I'm wrong. Show me where you haven't sought to boil my paragraphs down to yes-or-no sentences that would make easy targets for a hit.

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.

That's interesting. That may well explain the religious impulse. Maybe the socialist impulse too.

There is, however, something it doesn't explain. Why would a bunch of first century Jewish sectarians think their rabbi rose from the dead, and why wouldn't their enemies simply produce the body?

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.