On the Southern Literary Trail discussion

The black porter on the train was not grotesque, nor do I believe that Sabbath was, she had too much common sense and was just trying to survive. The same was true of Hawkes, he was an opportunist and saw a way to bilk people out of their money. Sabbath and Hawkes had no religious or ideological fervor; their motives were purely selfish. The same was true of Mrs. Flood, the landlady. She saw a way to use Hazel for her own good while salving her conscience by taking care of him. Hazel and Enoch were the true grotesques in this novel, but Hazel was tragic and Enoch provided comic relief. Even though we really don't know what the future held for Enoch, I had the feeling that he would be okay. Maybe that's the source of the title; his "wise blood " would carry him through, even though on the surface he seemed like an innocent idiot.

Diane wrote: "The black porter on the train was not grotesque, nor do I believe that Sabbath was, she had too much common sense and was just trying to survive. The same was true of Hawkes, he was an opportunist..."

I think O'Connor's use of "wise blood" is ironic. It caused Enoch to do the craziest stuff. (view spoiler)[ I think Enoch's closing scene, standing in his gorilla suit, his hand out to be shook, and wondering why the couple ran away in fright, sets the template for his life. His end and Hazel's are two sides of the same coin, in my opinion. Enoch's end will be comic equivalent of Hazel's tragic end. the only difference is that Hazel knew what haunted him. Enoch, I think, wasn't haunted, and that makes him more tragic than Hazel. (hide spoiler)]

I kind of think just the opposite (today, anyway--it could change tomorrow): Enoch had the wise blood because his actions were almost instinctive, like an animal. And in the end, that's what he "became." Hazel was too much in his head. If he'd just listened to his wise blood, he would have accepted his redemption as a done deal and stopped fighting his fate.

Jessie wrote: "I kind of think just the opposite (today, anyway--it could change tomorrow): Enoch had the wise blood because his actions were almost instinctive, like an animal. And in the end, that's what he "..."

Jessie, I think I agree with your wise blood analysis for Enoch and Haze... Enoch listened and responded to his inner voice or his intuition in an instinctive way. He was a natural animal.

Tell me about grotesque.

Isn't the the crucified Jesus image grotesque?

Isn't eating the body and blood of Christ grotesque?

Zorro wrote: "Tell me about grotesque.

Isn't the the crucified Jesus image grotesque?

Isn't eating the body and blood of Christ grotesque?"

Those are two separate images, both growing out of older traditions than Christianity, and then co-opted by Western images in art (and literature). I don't think they apply in this sense. Or, in Everitt's terms, there is no paradox. They make perfect sense to me; but perhaps the rawness of early religious attempts (*actual* personal sacrifice, for the sun to rise, or crops to grow) doesn't make sense to everyone.

Jessie wrote: "Zorro wrote: "Tell me about grotesque.

Isn't the the crucified Jesus image grotesque?

Isn't eating the body and blood of Christ grotesque?"

Those are two separate images, "


Yes, I see that they are two separate images. Are they grotesque?