Disturbometer 9-10 out of 10
Number 3 in my “quest to find the most disturbing (short) story” effort.
Dear fellow reader and fellow critic/reviewer, I write these passages for you. If nobody reads what I have written, my text has no meaning, and I have wasted my time writing it. I’d like to use the experience of this disturbing text under review and it’s enigmatic, intensely complex writer, to elaborate a little on critical theory. And make no mistake, each and every one of you implicitly believes in a certain “correct” way to read fiction, of how to analyze and review a text. I see it in your reviews.
I’ll mention the main groups I most often encounter here. Some of you write a little (or long) précis of the plot of the story, and put that up as your review. I think of these as the “Blurb-writers”. Of these reviewers I think: “Well, there goes a person who believes they have just saved me the time of reading this story for myself. You guys are probably closer to “New Criticism” than most others, since you look at the text and only the text.
Others close to this ‘text only' approach, will name salient features of the text and the mood of the text (you’d inform us that there’s beautiful flowing prose, tragicomedy, racism, sexism, etc. etc. in the text). I tend to often incline to the latter myself.
Then there are those of you who write a beautiful historical and/or contextual background about the piece of fiction and often its writer. You guys would tend to fall in the camps of Historical and Biographical criticism, as well as New Historicism and/or Structuralism. I myself often tend toward New Historicism/Structuralism when I have the time for it – because make no mistake, this is a time-consuming mode of critique.
Then we have our often poetic and lyrical “Reader Response” reviewers, who tell us about how their personal experience of this text went, and these reviews are often very entertaining, artistic and original pieces of writing, something that I have often wished I could do, but lack the spontaneity to do, since I tend to hide personal emotions and prefer to intellectualize stuff (even when I talk about my emotions I prefer a distance, a remove). It feels safer that way.
With this story, I personally had quite a “reader response” experience, then strove to intellectualize it afterwards, but I feel myself breaking my own mold, because… sigh, let me try to explain.
I came into this knowing that Flannery O’Connor was a prominent writer in the Southern Gothic tradition, but knew nothing about her and hadn’t read anything by her, so I came in as a complete virgin, white as the driven snow.
I initially found the story pretty funny – in fact I laughed at the characters’ foibles and mishaps. When the story turned darker, I saw it starting to turn into dark comedy and black humor, with a terribly ironic twist. I mean there’s irony in this story from the start. The grandma is overtly manipulative, and so one never knows whether she sincerely means anything she says, since the writer very successfully gave you a few clues early on already, that this grandma does things ‘for effect’.
Not knowing that O’ Connor was a devout Catholic, I assumed that the story is a cynical attack on Christianity and that it was meant to point out the folly and futility of believing that God or Jesus will protect you – as well as cynically pointing out how false and hypocritical some Christians can be (something I have personal experience with). I mean, the grandmother is depicted as a relatively unsympathetic character who, for example, sees no pathos in a little black child having no pants, but declares that the status quo is the acceptable way of being – even finds it cute, and wanting to paint a picture of it.
She also manipulates her son in various ways, and most ostensibly, through his children. She is a comic character, who through her own various manipulations and stupidity, gets herself into worse and worse hot water, time and time again, including the climax at the end. If I had left things then and there, I would have given this story 5 stars, with the commentary that the writing was astute and excellent, that the author is obviously an excellent observer of humanity, and even now, nothing about that has changed for me.
Despite what she said to people in interviews and letters, her writing shines on its own and its evocative power cannot be renounced, even by its author. For the author, who by her own insistence was a devout Catholic, and who continually flouted her religion and claimed that it was the raison d’être for her writing, stated clearly about this very story, that what for me seemed to be an ironic demonstration of a human being’s utmost folly, was actually intended to portray a moment where an individual is touched by divine grace. She even goes as far as to claim (extraneous to the text) that the character “became Jesus by grace of the Holy Spirit”.
After learning of this, I started wishing I had not poked further and that I had taken the New Criticism approach of just letting the text shine for itself. That would have been so much easier. But, to strike a slightly moralistic pose myself, growth and development only comes through conflict and strife. Wars always tended to have improved technology as a result. Perhaps I can grow from this experience.
I find myself grappling with this conflict in myself, of how to report on this text with integrity, given my inner conflict between my personal experience of the text and the intention of the author.
She had meant the story to be a redeeming experience for non-believers, she said that she thought it would bring non-believers closer to Christ. I had read it as being the opposite, in fact, as an attack against religion so able and well executed that I could compare it to the intentions of the Marquis De Sade - I had read his novel Justine, and Justine's story and O' Connor's Grandma's stories are comparable to me.
This question is forcing me to re-appraise my entire personal paradigm of how to approach a text, and fiction in general. I think the answer is already there, deep within myself; - that as much as I would have loved for, and even as a child hoped for and fantasized that reading literature could be a meeting of an author’s mind and mine, I realize now that that is folly. Any “meeting of the minds”, any feeling that “this author gets it” is pure fantasy and wishful thinking.
There could perhaps be kindred spirits in this world – but don’t take it for granted that they are easy to recognize. In a way this shatters a part of my soul, reminds me of the terrible fear of the black chasm of nothingness and loneliness that I had to deal with when I gave up all illusion of religious faith – that takes a special kind of courage, no matter how pragmatic a person might be, and I do have my fanciful side.
Flannery O’Connor, much as you break my heart with your letters and explanations, knowing therefore that we are not kindred spirits in any way that is easy to conceive of, I still bow to the enormous talent inherent in your art, to your incredible ability to write well.
I was going to give the story five stars, but I think it would be more appropriate to give it four and a half.
If you have read up to here, thank you for your forbearance with this baring of the soul.