The Bookhouse Boys discussion

We'll publish a podcast discussion of the book on May 29th, but we can all talk about the book here, in the meantime.

Can't wait for the discussion!

What a great book. Well-rounded, yet dysfunctional characters with distinctive voices and dubious motives and morals.
A naive boy who lived exclusively on guttural instincts. Righteousness is not the divine. Religious motives are put to question. The veil of ignorance is slowly lifted. Sigh, I love Flannery.

"And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him."

Or, more plainly, from Hebrews:

"By faith Enoch was transferred, that he should not see death, and was not found, because God had transferred him; for before his transference he had the witness that he had pleased God well."

Enoch, who lived only about a half to a third as long as his peers (a mere 365 years) is often thought never to have died, but to have been removed from the Earth alive by God. He's also noted as an ancestor of Christ by Luke. He seems to be unique in Biblical mythology as a mortal who was made into something akin to an angel.

EDIT: Also wanted to add a bit on the word "emery." I think this is the quotation we're meant to recall, from Ezekiel: "Like emery harder than flint have I made your forehead. Fear them not, nor be dismayed at their looks, for they are a rebellious house."

This is said in the context of God telling the prophet Ezekiel to go spread a message in Israel without fear even though he's going to encounter a lot of resistance. This seems basically to be the approach Enoch Emery takes with Hazel, but I think O'Connor is having some fun in invoking the imagery of him as a hard-head.

Asa, as described in Kings, was a ruler of the House of David. He is most famous for purging idolatry from his kingdom, i.e., conforming his country to a very strict observation of Judaism. In Biblical mythology, worshiping "false" idols is a big no-no. So, all religion save Judaism was removed forcibly from the land. He also outlawed prostitution (worth noting for the way Asa Hawks interacts with his daughter in the book).

Towards the end of his life, Asa developed a bad foot disease (maybe some sort of gout?) and is said to have sought the help of doctors rather than God. Again, this is frowned upon in the Bible, because doing pretty much anything that doesn't involve God is a big no-no.

Hawk imagery in the Bible alternates between noble and abominable. Hawks are mentioned in Leviticus' nutty "abomination" lists as being unfit to eat; in ancient Israel, these birds were pretty ubiquitous as carrion feeders ('cause, you know, all the sacrificing and slaughter that was going on). Conflicting with this very negative view of the birds is probably the most famous mention of hawks in the Bible, in which God answers Job: "Is it by thy wisdom that the hawk soareth,/And stretcheth her wings toward the south?" This is part of a very long answer God gives to Job when he questions God for torturing him, which basically boils down to: "Bitch, did you make all this shit? Didn't think so. Now commence to supplicatin'." Still, the hawk imagery is not treated as ignoble, but rather as beautiful, majestic, and of God.

See, this. This is what I'm talkin' about! Dave bringing the no bullshit science to this forum!


Hopefully I'm not spoiling things, but since Dave alluded to it, I am curious as to the relationship between Asa Hawks and his daughter. Are you inferring, Dave, that their relationship was a bit more lascivious than patriarchal? I hadn't gleaned that from the text, but I wouldn't be surprised, either.

I'm only halfway through, but I thought Asa agreed a liiiiittle too quickly to his daughter's plan to get herself foisted off onto Hazel. I don't think they have a sexual relationship (at least, not that I've seen thus far), but it wouldn't surprise me a bit if Asa had pimped Lily out in the past judging by this reaction.

I could see that. And isn't interesting that a homely girl such as Lily would be named, Lily? Oh, the irony!

I haven't come to a conclusion about Lily yet. Lilies represent a number of different things in Biblical lore: they are at times sweet-smelling, ever-present, various. At the halfway point, I'm leaning in one of two directions for her interpretation:

1. Easter lily. Being of Easter, these have a tight relationship with Christ, and represent the resurrection, beauty, purity, hope, and innocence. Considering O'Connor's twisted, fun house mirror reflection of these various iconography, it would make sense to me that Lily is meant to recall that imagery.

2. Lily, short for Lilith. In apocryphal texts, Lilith was Adam's first wife, created at the same time as him (as opposed to Eve, created from one of his ribs). She ended up banging the archangel Samael and then left Adam as an act of defiance--she refused to be subservient to him. (Bitchez, amiright?) I'm less convinced of this interpretation, because I think O'Connor would have just gone ahead and named her Lilith instead of being coy.

This takes us to Lily's surname, Sabbath. Notably different from her father's name (leading me to believe they may not actually be related?), the sabbath is of course the traditionally observed day of rest/worship. Is O'Connor trying to tell us that Lily, in her way, always worships, or always "rests" (perhaps on her back)? Or both?

Dang, Dave! Your more in-depth than Vince B. talking about Morrison!

Here I sit drinking a Sam Adams Black Lager while trying to figure out what to say about Wise Blood. I see that Matt, Dave, and Jason have all rated the book 5 stars, and Rob has sung hosannas to it as well.

And I don't get it. Not at all. I powered through the last twenty pages to one of the least satisfying endings I have ever read. My adjective of choice here would be absurd -- not in a good way, but in a very, very bad way.

Are momentous, profound points about faith or morality being made here? How the hell am I missing them so blindly?

Seriously, what the hell just happened here?

Apart from Rob, I have no idea what you guys are seeing in this book that's so admirable. If you want to hold your fire until the BBoys' discussion, that's fine. But I am baffled.

Heya Jim. I can't speak for them other two guys, but I can tell you my impression of the book. I really enjoyed its strangeness, its frankness, and O'Connor's crisp prose. I won't go too deep into details because I'm saving that for the podcast discussion, but I will say that I think the novel makes greater points about the effect of a religious society on individuals than about religion itself. I don't think an attempt is made to answer Hazel's questions regarding the existence of God; frankly, though the novel is strongly tied to the Christian mythos, I think the story could have been transposed to just about any other religion that dictates a strict moral code. Hazel is obviously a deeply mentally disturbed guy, which is what allows the story to play out in true, splendid Southern Gothic form. At the end of the day, (view spoiler)[Hazel is a seeker of truth who blinds himself, a prophet who has renounced all faith, and a man with a deep-rooted sense of justice who goes out of his way to commit increasingly vile, even evil acts (hide spoiler)]. He's a walking contradiction, but at the same time seems capable of any wrong save hypocrisy, and it is the hypocrisy inherent in any religious society that he finds so abhorrent.

Just watched the film adaptation by John Huston. Good stuff... Brad Dourif stars as Hazel Motes, Harry Dean Stanton is Asa Hawks, and Ned Beatty is Hoover Shoats. The guy who plays Enoch is probably a little too old for the role, but he captures the childish, idiot energy well. And Amy Wright is pretty much perfect as Sabbath. Like a lot of Huston adaptations, this one is quite faithful to the source material; there are a few omissions (most notably, perhaps, being Enoch's dragging Hazel through the zoo and his encounters with the waitress he's always bothering) but I think what those scenes are meant to express is captured elsewhere by the staging and performances. Otherwise, the biggest change is that it takes place in the 1970s instead of the 1940s, which makes a lot of the openly racist language seem maybe a bit out of place. My only real knock, though, is a pretty persistent--and pretty terrible--soundtrack. I still prefer the book but as adaptations go this one was strong.

Note: the Criterion disc I got had as a bonus feature the only known audio recording of Flannery O'Connor reading her fiction. Enthusiasts might find it worth checking out for that alone.

Thanks for the review, Dave. I'll keep my eyes open for that one!

I can't imagine better casting for Hazel than Brad Dourif. The rest of the casting is pretty much perfect too, though I would have gone with M. Emmett Walsh over Ned Beatty.

*I too like the casting of the Wise Blood movie, esp. Brad Dourif, an inspired choice for Haze.

*On Dave's note: I too would have described Haze as mentally unstable, if not outright disturbed. In fact the entire cast seemed to be comprised of con artists, maniacs, and fools. And to me, the effect of religiosity on such characters really doesn't serve any purpose at all. The corrupting/deranging factor could have been money, or sex, and the story would be pretty much identical. In any event, I'm very much looking forward to hearing your WB talk so I can better understand the BBoys' admiration.

*Maybe Southern Gothic just doesn't agree with me.

*Glad to see I haven't been banned. :)

Robert wrote: "Thanks for the review, Dave. I'll keep my eyes open for that one!"

www.hulu.com/watch/215865/wise-blood

Don't mention it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mhz7RA...

Oh man, I wish I had the time to read more of the Bookhouse Boys books on a regular basis. This one looks so interesting! Might have to hold on to listening to the episode and actually read the book sometime this summer ...

I know your reading list is monstrous long, Jeppe, but do read it if you get the chance. It's probably the shortest book we've read too.

Matt wrote: "Robert wrote: "Thanks for the review, Dave. I'll keep my eyes open for that one!"

www.hulu.com/watch/215865/wise-blood

Don't mention it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mhz7RA..."

It must be me, but I'm getting a message saying I need to be a Hulu+ subscriber to watch, WISE BLOOD.

But, thanks!

In terms of the discussion, first, thanks again for doing this podcast, guys. It's greatly appreciated!

Secondly, I don't think this was mentioned, but I find it curious how several characters within the text seem inexplicable drawn to Hazel, despite his solemn, gruff and grim nature.

Beginning with the woman seated across from Hazel on the train and ending with the landlady at his boarding house, it's not as if Hazel has the charisma to charm the pants off people. It's as if characters feel obliged to serve him or be near him. I don't know if this is a Messiah reference, but just an observation.

Also, I don't know who this VERNSON, cat is, but what the fudge?! Vernson? Sounds like a douche.

Robert wrote: "Secondly, I don't think this was mentioned"

I mentioned the strange evolution of Mrs. Flood's relationship or regard for Haze, but you're right. Lily, Enoch, and even the lunch-counter gal seem to see something in Hazel that we can't/don't. I still don't know whether they're drawn to him in a Messiah sense, or whether they see some kind of conviction that's compelling. I feel like the concept of conviction is a pretty big one in this book. We see lots of phony religious types and it seems the only truly "religious" person in the book is rabidly anti-religion.

EDIT: As mentioned on the show: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith
The "In the Bible" heading is the one I was trying to recall. Here's the text I was talking about: Lilith's Cave: Jewish Tales of the Supernatural, recommended for fans of folklore, folktales, mythology, and the supernatural.

Robert wrote: "Matt wrote: "Robert wrote: "Thanks for the review, Dave. I'll keep my eyes open for that one!"

www.hulu.com/watch/215865/wise-blood

Don't mention it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mhz7RA..."
..."


Dang! It was free about a month or so ago. I was going to re-watch it, too! :(

EDIT: The discussion of the book is available here: http://bookhouseboyspodcast.podomatic...

We are none of us bible scholars, but in trying to think of a title for the episode (and failing), I found this, variously translated but always with the same meaning:

"John 9:41: Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains."

I think she had that firmly in mind when she wrote this.

My eyes have been opened! I CAN SEE!!!!!

Nah, just f**kin' with ya.

Reliably with this group, my appreciation of the novel increases with your/our discussion of it. You guys clearly got so much more out of it than I did. Maybe my mind wasn't open to it, maybe it just wasn't my cuppa. But thanks for another great analysis.
Needed more tangents, though. More "Cheers" shoutouts.

As a wise man once said: "I'm always happy when my friends are reading books they like."

Jim wrote: "Reliably with this group, my appreciation of the novel increases with your/our discussion of it..."

That's my favorite part of doing this with all y'all. Even books I disliked are elevated due to the insight and analysis of our lovely members.
To be fair, tangents are harder when I'm the only one imbibing. Dave's pulling a Jason lately and I'm so cold and lonely! ;)

Matt wrote:To be fair, tangents are harder when I'm the only one imbibing. Dave's pulling a Jason lately and I'm so cold and lonely! ;)

I thought the booze would warm the cockles of your heart! *ZING*BANG*BOOM* :)