15755. (Flannery O’Connor) Wise Blood

08-03-15 READ 15755. (Flannery O’Connor) Wise BloodThis is a mas­ter­piece of Amer­i­can lit­er­a­ture that will present dif­fi­cul­ties for a Cana­dian read­er. This was Flan­nery O’Connor’s first nov­el, writ­ten in 1949. O’Connor (1925–1964) was a native of cen­tral Geor­gia, and the old seg­re­gated Amer­i­can South that she writes about more than con­firms the adage that “the past is a for­eign coun­try.” The world of Wise Blood is clos­er to anoth­er plan­et than a mere for­eign coun­try. Wide­ly regard­ed as the heir to William Faulkn­er, lit­er­ary con­ven­tion has placed O’Connor in the annoy­ingly patron­iz­ing aca­d­e­mic com­part­ments of “South­ern Goth­ic” and “Region­al Fic­tion”. (If you write in New York, of course, that isn’t “region­al”). Much is made of the “grotesque” ele­ments in her fic­tion. But she was not much pleased with that kind of peg-board­ing. “Any­thing that comes out of the South is going to be called grotesque by the north­ern read­er, unless it is grotesque, in which case it is going to be called real­is­tic,” she once remarked.

O’Connor was a Catholic, some­thing which is pret­ty nor­mal here in Cana­da, where it doesn’t involve much in the way of meta­phys­i­cal or psy­cho­log­i­cal com­plex­ity. But in Geor­gia, it makes one an out­sider, and philoso­pher. O’Connor was fas­ci­nated by faith, apos­tasy, sin and redemp­tion, and in the reli­giously super­charged world of the South, and espe­cially the region where the Moun­tain cul­ture inter­acts with the Deep South, there was plen­ty of mate­r­ial to chew on. Wise Blood tells the tale of Hazel Mote, trau­ma­tized son of a preach­er who hates reli­gious faith, but finds him­self involved in every kind of reli­gious expe­ri­ence. He is a vir­tual cat­a­log of here­sies and bizarre reli­gious prac­tices, while he tries to avoid belief. He is sur­rounded by an assort­ment of odd char­ac­ters, each one dri­ven by some equal­ly pecu­liar belief. One char­ac­ter ends up wor­ship­ing a mum­my in a muse­um. It all does seem grotesque, a kind of sur­re­al­is­tic fan­tasy. But the irony is that noth­ing hap­pens in the book, and no char­ac­ter is rep­re­sented, that has not exist­ed in real life.

That is the real pow­er of the book. Every­thing in it is relent­lessly faith­ful to real­ity. It’s writ­ten with incred­i­ble con­trol, pre­ci­sion and econ­omy (it is real­ly a novel­la, rather than a nov­el). Not a word is wast­ed, not a word is wrong, not a word is out of place. Dialect and idi­olect are ren­dered with absolute per­fec­tion. Some­times a sin­gle, short sen­tence will cre­ate a crys­tal clear visu­al image in the reader’s head. The prose sings,

I could not come from a more dif­fer­ent cul­tural back­ground, and my inter­ests and pre­oc­cu­pa­tions could not be more dif­fer­ent than O’Connor’s, but this book still held me in com­plete absorp­tion. What must it do for some­one for whom it’s clos­er to the bone? I would love to sit down and talk over this book with my old friend William Brei­d­ing, who must sure­ly have read it. William? Send me your thoughts on this one.

Leave a Comment