« | Main | Meaning of life, what? »
March 13, 2006
O'Connor, ''The River'' -- Jerz: American Lit II (EL 267)
"'You count now,' the preacher said. 'You didn't even count before.'"
Jesus was a great man whose reputation was forever ruined by his terrible fan club.
So according to this preacher, before Bevel was ceremoniously dunked in a river, he didn't matter? I didn't think Jesus had that attitude when he was eating with the Gentiles and tax collectors and prostitutes. Whatever happened to all the things he had to say about acceptance and tolerance and love? I'd always understood Jesus' basic point to be, "People of earth, you ALL kind of suck at life, but THAT'S OKAY, because I'm here to get the crap kicked out of me so that you don't have to suffer as a result of your suckage at life." Unless I've been understanding it all way wrong, this would mean that all lives have VALUE, whether you're baptized by immersion or worship cattle or don't believe in anything.
Posted by MeganRitter at March 13, 2006 05:32 PM
Comments
The preacher Bevel isn't necessarily the voice of Flannery O'Connor the author. Mr. Paradise also plays an important role, too, and his attitude is completely different. Of course, what he planned to do with that huge club-like stick of candy is anybody's guess. Was he going to be friendly? Or taking advantage of a lost soul? Was the preacher sincere? Or was he a trickster, preying on the superstitions of the weak?
Do you see evidence in the story that O'Connor wants us to take one side or the other?
I think it's perfectly okay if your response to the story is to insist that the boy had value even before he was baptized. As you can probably tell from "A Good Man..", O'Connor isn't necessarily interested in getting us to identify with the actions of the characters in her stories. Even if the protagonist does not grow in wisdom, the readers do.
I think O'Connor would be perfectly happy to encounter a response to her story, such as the one you wrote here.
Posted by: Dennis G. Jerz at March 13, 2006 06:43 PM
I'll respond in greater detail later, but for the record, I understand that Flannery O'Connor herself wasn't espousing this point of view. I just felt the need to climb up on the soapbox for a few. Apologies.
Posted by: Megan Ritter at March 13, 2006 10:17 PM
No apologies necessary, Megan. What's a blog good for if you can't use it as a soapbox? I enjoyed reading your response.
Posted by: Dennis G. Jerz at March 13, 2006 10:20 PM
Megan has such a way with summing things up in a few words-actually Megan, you were the inspiration for my Paper #1 on William Carlos Williams, not by your repeated perplection at why in the world his parents named him as they did, but by your simple summation of his work "UP WITH PEOPLE" (Yes, you did say that-Thank you!). How else could the preacher justify himself and his life's work if not by discounting Bevel before his crude baptism? That's what's wrong with organized religion - it's leaders are human.
Posted by: BrendaChristeleit at March 14, 2006 11:13 AM