On the Southern Literary Trail discussion

Comments on this board should be written with the assumption that readers have finished the book. If you haven't finished and don't want any spoilers, you may want to wait before reading these posts.

I rarely re-read, but Wise Blood was one of those books--short as it is--that haunts you, taunts you. So after reading it for the first time just this last October, I was glad for the opportunity to re-read it here with others On the Trail in December.

The first time, the overriding impression I took away was of its pathos and violence. I felt a swath of pity, not just for Hazel, but for everyone we meet, all those unhinged, wandering, lost souls.

This second reading, I enjoyed the humor more, indeed found more humor to enjoy. It is a galloping messy tale! I gave up trying to put it under my contemporary psychological light, accepted humanity as baffling. (Humanity is baffling.) Then Dave pointed us to that excellent O'Connor essay. Aha. I then accepted to enter the world that O'Connor intended, as an observation of large mysteries of the human experience that sometimes require a literary short cut, so to speak. Thus the grotesques who not only leap from the pages but leap over reason and logic.

Here's what O'Connor herself says in my copy.

"AUTHOR'S NOTE TO THE SECOND EDITION (1962)
Wise Blood has reached the age of ten and is still alive. My critical powers are just sufficient to determine this, and I am gratified to be able to say it. The book was written with zest, and if possible, it should be read that way. It is a comic novel about a Christian malgre lui, and as such, very serious, for all comic novels that are any good must be about matters of life and death. Wise Blood was written by an author congenitally innocent of theory, but one with certain preoccupations. That belief in Christ is to some a matter of life and death has been a stumbling block for readers who would prefer to think it a matter of no great consequence. For them Hazel Motes' integrity lies in his trying with such vigor to get rid of the ragged figure who moves from tree to tree in the back of his mind. For the author Hazel's integrity lies in his not being able to. Does one's integrity ever lie in what he is not able to do? I think that usually it does, for free will does not mean one will, but many wills conflicting in one man. Freedom cannot be conceived simply. It is a mystery and one which a novel, even a comic novel, can only be asked to deepen."

I think I read it this second time with more suggested zest.

I think that considering it's nearly 75yrs old, Wise Blood still packs a punch.
It's the 2nd time I've read it also, and I enjoyed more the 2nd time, which was also very much the case for The Violent Bear It Away.
One thing I loved about it was the spectacular names: Hoover Shoates, Sabbath Lily Hawkes, Solace Layfield. I'm sure that I read something recently that said she used the local phone directory to help her with the names.
Hazel Motes clearly had PTSD from both his experiences in the war, and with his preacher grandfather. I'm not sure PTSD was a thing in 1952.
There was strong symbolism throughout. Haze's eyes are a big feature. He's too busy tilting at windmills to see what's going on around him, such as the attention Sabbath Lily gives him. He wants to start a church where "the deaf don't hear, the blind don't see" and yet it's only when he blinds himself that he can truly see.
As far as the grotesque goes, O'Connor addresses that in her essay "The Grotesque in Southern Fiction" (from Mystery and Manners: Occasional Prose) when she says;
"Whenever I'm asked why Southern writers particularly have a penchant for writing about freaks, I say it is because we are still able to recognise one. To be able to recognize a freak, you have to have some conception of the whole man, and in the South the general conception of man, is still, in the main, theological"

Thank you for your many excellent observations, Dave. They have me thinking...

I hadn't thought about that, that 75 years later WB still packs a punch. In general, we've become more desensitized than the 1950s, making it remarkable she can still shock our senses.

I love that tidbit about the phone book, new to me. You can't accuse O'Connor's characters and names being a blur and hard to keep track of, ha! I also looked up the etymology of two main character's names, Hazel and Enoch, and felt sure that O'Connor selected them very aware.

Remember at the end of WWI when soldiers were diagnosed with "shell shock"--I think it's the same as or related to what we call PTSD now. We even have CPTSD identified now, which is a reaction to long-term trauma, often from childhood. Every childhood recounted in WB was a childhood from hell. For Hazel's trauma I was also thinking of all the family deaths and loved ones in coffins that he thought about while confined in the train berth at the beginning of the story. And how he felt they weren't dead, should rise up, but didn't. Thinking like that would freak me out, too.

Oh yes, the eyes, Dave! "The windows to the soul." And eyes seeking that which cannot be seen. Then there's Hawkes' attempted sacrifice of his eyes, now used to cynically bilk passerbys. That sacrifice so impressed and puzzled Hazel. Then, sadly, inspired him as well.

From that same essay (it was an excellent awakening of grotesque literature for me), O'Connor wrote also this, a concept that helped me most with WB:

"[The writer is} looking for one image that will connect or combine or embody two points; one point is a point in the concrete, and the other is a point not visible to the naked eye, but believed in by him firmly, just as real to him, really, as the one that everybody sees.

It's not necessary to point out that the look of this fiction is going to be wild, that it is almost of necessity going to be violent and comic, because of the discrepancies that it seeks to combine."

That literary connecting of two points--the concrete and the not visible but firmly real--and its discrepant nature is one O'Connor so deftly traverses. Then, wham, perfectly lands her punch.

That's a great point you make Debi. I almost want to re-read WB straight away to pick up on the many things I missed.
It's of no surprise that Wise Blood frequently appears in list of the best novels of the last century. That said, I accept that it's not everyone's cup of tea.

Dave wrote: "That's a great point you make Debi. I almost want to re-read WB straight away to pick up on the many things I missed.
It's of no surprise that Wise Blood frequently appears in list of the best nov..."

I wonder did O'Connor ever write about a Catholic "grotesque"? Or did she only write about Protestant ones? Do you know, Dave? Since I plan on reading more of her fiction in the upcoming year, I guess I'll find out.

It was a real pleasure hearing your thoughts, sharing this weird, acquired taste cup of tea. Now I look forward to watching the biopic Wildcat very soon.

I just finished today but haven't gotten to the essay yet. My appreciation of the book has improved with each reread. Like most of you I am better able to enjoy the humor with concerning myself that I am missing deeper meanings. As I think was mentioned, There is a film of the book by John Huston, and it is always nice you see you grotesques realized on screen. Here is a link to a trailer.

https://youtu.be/ph-oCWpQWlE?si=9kp62...

I have really and truly appreciated reading the commentary in this group on WB. I have been reading a number of reviews and one word stuck with me: “perplexed”. Realize this is a literary classic; I can find that I don’t “get” the classics at times. This is one of those times and maybe I just need a re-read! I feel like there should be something I am “getting” that I am missing. Nonetheless, following along on the commentary in this group has been highly entertaining! Appreciate all this group has opened my eyes to. This is my first novel by this beloved author.

Sam wrote: "I just finished today but haven't gotten to the essay yet. My appreciation of the book has improved with each reread. Like most of you I am better able to enjoy the humor with concerning myself tha..."

Hi Sam. I appreciate reading your thoughts and agree. I wonder if this is the kind of novel most of us experience the first read shocked and puzzled. Then, if it gets under our skin enough and we read it again, it's then when we can enjoy.

Carol wrote: "I have really and truly appreciated reading the commentary in this group on WB. I have been reading a number of reviews and one word stuck with me: “perplexed”. Realize this is a literary classic; ..."

Hi Carol! I could make a shamefully long list of books I never did get, nor enjoyed. The list would be mostly classics I read as a personal challenge. (I could have thrown Ulysses across the room had it not been an eBook on my tablet.)

There were non-classics, too, books that are highly rated and loved but left me wondering what did I miss. (I downright loathed Tobacco Road, which easily could be compared to WB. Go figure.)

I admire you for sticking with it and for reading the comments here, even while not falling in love with WB. (Parts of it are perplexing to me, still.) Here's to you🥂! Hope your next read is a five stars.

Carol, I know what you mean. The first time through WB, I gave it 2 stars and felt like I had wasted 2 days of my life following around 3 fake “conmen preachers”. So this time around Frankie mentioned the movie & I thought I’ll watch that before the 2nd reading. I felt more of the comical side that Ms. O’Connor was portraying more in the movie than the book & the 2nd reading was easier & more enjoyable to understand although I only bumped it up another star. Maybe the next time I read it, I will experience more aha moments & bump it up another star.