Look — it’s not like a Goodreads review is something written in stone. When I went into these stories, I listened to the audiobook narrated by a very nasal voice, and I had no idea that I was walking into a complicated labyrinth of symbolism and allegories.
So I’m still far from a point where I can express a deep and appropriate thought about this author.
First time around, I did not like this book. But I didn’t realize I was reading a mine-field of unreliable narrators, shifting perspectives and ironic twists!
I KNOW the next read will be a better one.
Here’s my old review:
—-
These stories are not about the power of religion to lift your soul. On the contrary, they emanate a really, really bad energy. And I don't mean the bad energy that the author consciously gave as a personality trait to her doomed characters (especially the "young ungrateful intellectual male", who is everywhere in this book), no, I have no problem with dark stories or dark characters. What I'm talking about is the raw emotional energy of old Flannery herself. You know, that feeling you get as a reader when you touch the soul of the writer? I felt Flannery's soul was seriously tormented. And, most of all, angry. That feeling had nothing positive about it. Nothing forgiving, nothing joyous, nothing constructive about the underlying soul of her stories. Maybe her own rationalization of her work sounded great, but in reality there is something creepily off in her writing.
Through these emotionally tense stories, she gives out whiffs of unhappiness, of frustration (personal issues, maybe?). She judges her non-redeemed characters mercilessly, she hates them with a passion, she tortures them until things inevitably end up in disaster for them.
How is this supposed to dispose me, as a reader, in an open listening mode at all? How am I supposed to "accept the grace of God" after reading these stories? What dark brand of Christianity is this? Maybe one that was popular in the 13th century?
Perhaps most importantly, I found myself in complete disagreement with the author's "moral of the story" every single time.
Let me explain.
Her goal was to portray characters who did not allow the grace of God in their lives, and to show how badly that works out for them (as she openly and very clearly explained in an interview). But the way she does that is by constantly siding with the wrong character, and by condoning any type of nasty, anti-social behaviour as long as a character is adhering to some very superficial / formal aspect of catholicism.
Examples:
1) “Wise blood”: one can be an insane, violent criminal (like the old guy in her story "Wise blood"), but as long as he is driven by the obsession to baptize his kid, he wins and he gets the moral high ground in O'Connor's world.
2) "The enduring chill": One can be a rude, annoying, disrespectful and aggressive priest who barges into your room while you're actually dying and you don't want anyone around, but as long as he declares that you need to open up to the Holy Spirit, he is the real hero of the story. You are wrong and he gets the moral high ground. Attitude doesn’t matter one bit.
3) "Greenleaf": One can be a poor single mother who had to work hard all her life to raise two sons, but if she doesn't accept God in her life, she gets the Wrath of Flannery: there is a gigantic bull ruining her property, and all the poor woman wants is to get the f-ing bull out of her loan, but no. She is godless, so she needs to suffer. Her employees, who are responsible for the bull, are lazy and totally unreliable. However, because they are superficially "open to God", they get to win first prize: they have happy children, wealth, and serenity. While the poor woman is the baddie of the story, the one whom the author tortures until the end.
I could go on and on, but I hope this is clear.