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.
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. ;)
"Entitled by whom?"
By whatever it is that is objectively true.
sitetest
Let's back up. I said that Miss O'Connor's point of view is buttressed by the fact of human evil. You said that evil is a human construct. Okay, fine. I could just assume that you are a moral relativist. But I've glanced at posts where you seem to say something different. And I'm willing to listen.
But if evil is a human construct, at least in your view, then I want to know - is there one construct of evil to which all us humans must adhere, or may individuals have their own? I'm asking you what is your view. I'm not looking to find agreement with you. Just trying to see what you think.
sitetest
So MY view of good and evil aren't really relative, at least I don't think they are. I don't make allowances for other cultures: Arabs performing infibulations on 6 year old girls are doing wrong, IMNSHO, because they are doing something that is detrimental to human health. Any culture that forbids free inquiry into the nature of life is limiting the freedom to think, which is detrimental to human progress. We can see that simply by looking over at the Middle East and seeing how backward and sick they are. So there's nothing relativist in my views from what I can see. My main object is always human progress.
I simply don't tack on that final Official Seal of Approval that says "I want what God thinks is best for humans." No. I want what I think is best for humans. It may not jibe with what you think but it isn't relativist.
Moreoever, the God clause does not provide an objective starting point, otherwise there would be only one religion, not dozens of permutations all with differing emphases.
I still don't know if I'm answering your question or not. But do you see why I say evil is a human construct? We apply good and evil to things that are beneficial or harmful to us. Evil is that which is harmful to us. We don't judge non-humans in terms of good and evil, though. As I said in a previous post to JMJ, if a lion kills and eats a gazelle, is the lion "evil"? To us, generally speaking, he is not "evil" because animals aren't subject to these judgments. It's a little like that "if a tree falls in the forest" thing. Evil is the assessment of the action. If there is no one there who assesses things in that manner, there is no one there to say "that is evil." So there is no one on the savannah pointing at the lion and saying "evil." No one I know expects that lions will go to hell.
I guess the religious person's view is that there is a god somewhere doing this assessing. I don't think there is any such thing, therefore the direction the judgment is coming from is different. That doesn't make it "relative."
As for the special and intrinsic human dignity enshrined in the soul and endowed by The Creator, you're right, we aren't going to come to an agreement because I don't see any evidence of the dignity, the soul, or the creator. In fact, one of the reasons we never get anywhere is we can't even find a starting point to agree upon.
Then you consider yourself what? A mere animal? A complex machine?
It is true we find no starting point because I believe that sort of reductionism has led to the things I abhore; abortion/infanticide, euthanisia, cloning, ESCR, fertility clinics, etc.
I have no argument against the notion that women are more emotional, and viewed by men as having less intellect. You have a point in that I have heard that in Italy the majority of people left who go to church are women. I was only giving an example that there have been plenty of men that one can point to for piety.
Thanks for your reply. I'd like to roll it around in my head for a while before I get back to you on it.
sitetest
"Mere" animal? What do you have against animals? Anyway, animal is just a word meaning, essentially, "animated" as in "something alive, that moves." So yes, I think we are animals in that we are animate, mammals in that we are warm blooded, primates in that we have fingernails, fingerprints, dry noses, are bipedal, etc, and Homo sapiens. Definitely the smartest of the mammals, very clever, tricky little monkeys we are, in fact... but its only intellect that sets us apart.
I was only giving an example that there have been plenty of men that one can point to for piety.
Natually. And I am only making the point that to clear a path for faith, you must first degrade intellect and decree that there are some things it cannot do. I am also making a point that Western society has had its priorities straight for some time now if it was delegating faith to women and then telling them they can't vote.
Nothing! I have nothing against animals! However, I am not about to be reduced down to one. There is no comparison between me and rover in terms of my value! I can't imagine you think that your girlfriend and your cat are equal in value and only set apart by intelligence!
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.