DIS+7

DIS 7

Here is your chance: What do you think of Flannery O'Connor now? Does she express a spirit and theology similar to that of Hopkins? Think carefully. Then, write, write, write.

DIS 7 EM: Reading an article written by Flannery O'Connor, not to mention an article where she is critiquing another author's work, was a whole new experience. I was able to take a step away from how I originally saw Flannery O'Connor and look at her in a new light. I enjoyed reading Flannery critique her own work as well as another author's work. We have read other writers discuss the nature of O'Connor's work, but hearing O'Connor discuss the "terribleness" and the "comedy" of her stories was very interesting and shed a new light on what we have read. I would not say that I love Flannery O'Connor. I love Ernest Hemingway, but I do not love Flannery O'Connor. I have a great respect for O'Connor, and have learned a great deal from O'Connor, but I do not love O'Connor. I have not spent hours wanting to get to know more about her, I have not dreamt in a fashion similar to that of her stories, the way I have with Hemingway. However, I appreciate her willingness to step out of the box and be unique and original. This willingness allowed me to expand my own horizons, both religiously and academically. We began this class reading Gerard Manley Hopkin's work "The Grandeur of God." I was immediately drawn to this poem, as it was direct in its praise for the earth and open ended in regard to religion. I felt a great connection to Hopkins, and I quickly attained a sound understanding of his theology and relationship with God. My reading of O'Connor was a different experience. I definitely struggled with it initially. I had a hard time discovering any incarnational theology, and there were times when I doubted that O'Connor even practiced a strong faith. However, I believe it was this struggle that brought me closer to both O'Connor and myself. I had to strive to find God and His grace in each of her stories, and when I did, I almost felt like a new person. There were certainly times when I felt something deep within my mind and heart, and that is the kind of literature that I enjoy. As I discussed in class, the part in "The Artificial Nigger" when Nelson and Mr. Head are wandering through the quiet neighborhood after a busy day in the city truly reached me. I had a vivid picture of the scene in my mind, I thought about this scene long after finishing the story, and I still look fondly upon this scene. O'Connor certainly wrote certain things that will stay with me. Though her spirit and theology in her writing are not as blatant as these things are in Hopkins poetry, I certainly see them after reading several of her stories. In a way, I like that O'Connor is not as straightforward with her theology. Religion is open ended, and it should be open to individual interpretation. The fact that O'Connor does not force her own theology upon her readers was refreshing. I will forever think of O'Connor when I think of grace, and I will forever search for God's grace and strive to accept it--no matter what form it comes to me in. GG: So honest and so refreshing! I am also a fan of Hemingway and can see why you prefer him. Have you seen "Midnight In Paris"?? You must! I became a fan of Iris Murdoch and wrote to her as I found in her landscape a theology of Grace I am not sure she intended. She wrote back to me!

BK: Flannery O'Connor seems to be one of those authors that has a very acquired audience. I'm not a hater, but I'm not a lover. I love her sarcasm, her subtle jabs at humanity, and her flawless ability to intertwine grace throughout her stories. And, like Eleanor stated, reading and dissecting O'Connor's works has allowed be to "expand my own horizons, both religiously and academically." A reoccurring message that we've been discussing in class and for homework is the idea of grace that Flannery so often emphasizes in her "parable-like short stories." Intrigued by this, I found a quote of hers from //The Habit of Being// that really summarizes what I feel is reflected in many of her works: “All human nature vigorously resists grace because grace changes us and the change is painful.” I like that her characters experience grace in unexpected ways and in unexpected places. Her characters are often stubborn and prideful and, like most humans, resist grace from entering into their lives. Often O'Connor ends her stories before the reader can really see the effect that the grace will have in the characters day to day routines. I guess this just adds to that "mysterious" quality that grace so very often possesses and seems to be a trademark of O'Connor's. Change more often than not a hard thing to accept and embrace and is made even more so difficult when the people (or characters) are as stubborn as O'Connors usually are, ie. Hulga. But refusing and/or not immediately embracing change is part of every single person's life at one point or another. This part of Flannery's stories makes them so relatable, as well as the comical aspect of them. Humor is such an important part of living, like change and like grace. O'Connor's stories at times are off-putting to me and are sometimes hard to relate to because they can be so extreme until you look at the overall ideas and themes that are a part of any person's life: humor, change, and God's grace. I think that O'Connor does an excellent job of portraying these three aspects, especially God's grace, in her work without, like Mr. Grossman so often says, tying it up in a nice little box and putting a big red bow on it. Hopkins, on the other hand, in the poem "God's Grandeur," presents a more straightforward idea of God's incarnation and grace in the immediate world around us. There is nothing wrong with either method in my eyes; they are just two different ways of expressing and demonstrating God's presence. I agree with EM that I like the unique method that O'Connor uses to share with her readers God's grace in life and I definitely also "forever think of O'Connor when I think of grace." GG: Confession Time: I was not a fan of Flannery, but when I read her letters in A HABIT OF BEING, I became a convert. So, who is your favorite author?

JR: Flannery O’Connor writes timeless pieces that seem to set her apart from many other writers. Her works seem mostly relatable in the most morbid and flamboyant of ways. Her writing is quite unique as reiterated by Eleanor and Breanna. Her didactic tales leave a clear impression on readers’ minds and her messages through her stories are rather easily discernible. When I read “Good Country People” in class, I had no idea what kind of story I was diving into. The narrative seems predictable until the unexpected ending. Her writing style reminds me of De Maupassant because he also enjoyed throwing the readers an unexpected twist at the end. While his stories are far less graphic, they share a similar strength. His narratives seem to hit the reader with more of a slap on the cheek while O’Connor’s stories hit the reader with a knock-out punch. The detailed imagery and less than welcoming characters pulls the reader in to find out what is going on and what everyone’s true nature really is. Of course, the religious sentiments and undertones are noticeable but not overpowering which makes the literature more palatable for many audiences. Flannery displays God’s grace in subtle but slightly alarming and ironic ways. For Hulga, the absence of her leg helped her realize God’s grace and for Mr. Head, the grotesque “artificial nigger” opened his eyes to God’s incarnation as well as His grace. Of course, the grandmother in “A Good Man is Hard to Find” finds grace when confronted by the Misfit. Each story presents God’s presence in our lives in an unexpected manner which makes the message of God’s grace and incarnation in our lives all the more powerful. When we began the class by reading Gerard Manley Hopkins’ “God’s Grandeur” I thought that this class would be all about reading light yet meaningful flowery literature about God and his presence in our lives. Hopkins presents God’s power through the most obvious and delicate forms of nature while O’Connor throws aside the light and innocent aspects of life in which we can find God and demonstrates that he is present in the most unlikely of places. I disagree with both Eleanor and Breanna when they say that they are not big fans of Flannery and that her writing seems rather unrelatable at times. Flannery is a fantastic author and I thoroughly enjoy her style of writing. Her stories are gripping and unexpected which I find intriguing. Not only are they distinct and intriguing, I find them relatable because of the characters. The personalities of the characters are blunt and obvious, this, I believe, allows the reader to relate those characters to more subtle versions that they find in her life. Flannery’s stories are unappealing but they seem to me to be attractive. I like her more now that I have read some of her writings and I hope to read others in the near future! Her stories have helped me become more aware of God’s sometimes subtle presence in my life and I now know that I can find him in some of the least expected places. GG: Interesting that you cite De Maupassant! "The Necklace" is a favorite for English classes. When I taught Freshman English (Bernadette's class), the girls - especially Mia Swift - loved it. We readers seem to love the unexpected. Do you also like O. Henry? (Not the candy bars from Ethics class....)

Ld: To be honest, I had no idea who Flannery O’Connor was before this class. When you assigned us the first story, “Good Country People”, I assumed that it would be very “Hopkins” like, beautiful, angelic, hugely religious. I have actually been pleasantly surprised by Flannery O’Connor, not that I did not like Hopkins poem because I did. I like Flannery O’Connor because her blunt honesty and humor has been immensely refreshing!! I love that I can actually laugh out loud when I’m reading. I was genuinely shocked by each of her stories, and that is what I find so great about them. They make you think, question your beliefs. She really has no bounds when it comes to her stories, they are way ahead of their time. I know it sounds very “unstudious” of me (which also is not a word), but I also really liked that her stories were short. I am not going to lie, partly because I could read them easily, but also because I could really read them thoroughly. In longer books sometimes I feel like I can’t keep up with all the little detail, but with Flannery O’Connor’s stories you can look at everything with thoughtfulness. GG: (L): Sorry...no, she is not "Hopkins-esque.' There is something wonderfully refreshing about her blunt, unromantic approach, isn't there? Not only does this NOT sound "unstudious" of you, it sounds VERY studious of you!