The Habit of Being
discussion
Constant Reader Classics Corner
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Sherry
(new)
-
added it
Apr 29, 2008 10:09AM
Let's start discussing this book December 1, 2008.
reply
|
flag
In the spirit of it being December 1 somewhere in the world, I now declare the Habit of Being discussion open.For background on Flannery O'Connor, there is always Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flannery... Feel free to contribute other background sources you feel fit.
For those of you who have finished all 600+ pages (or not), how has the book changed how you view Flannery O'Connor as a writer and a person? Which correspondence did you find the most interesting? What surprised you the most?
I am not nearly finished yet, but I am really enjoying it. I love how she talks about the writing process and I am especially fond of her correspondence with "A" - all her reading recommendations and thoughts on the Church.I wish we got to see some of the letters sent to Flannery. Last spring I read a great book of letters - five O'Clock Angel - the letters of Tennesse Williams and Maria St. Just - it was especially nice to see both sides of the conversations. I think that is the main thing that is slowing me down with these letters.
It is also probably just a coincidence, but so interesting to be reading her letters alongside "Gilead" for Constant Reader this month.
I had the same thought, Al, about the reading the two books together. Enough religion to last me for a while. I am enjoying the O'Connor, but it's one of those books that I will read slowly. I'm not expecting any big spoilers, so I will follow the discussion.
I can't imagine anyone reading these letters quickly. It's not a page turner, but I think you are probably right about there not being any major spoilers ahead.
I became aware while reading this that I have always confused Flannery O'Connor and Eudora Welty, and also that I've not read much F O'C. I remember reading a short story not too long ago in the CR Short Story Conference. At that time, someone posted about her obsession with Catholicism and offered an interpretation of the story based on such--an interpretation that had never entered my mind.It won't happen again. After reading her letters I will never be able to read anything by her again without thinking of her religious diadacticism. Not a good thing, for me anyway.
That said, I did enjoy her caustic wit, if not her self-conscious application of "folksy" language.
I don't think I would have liked her in person. Of course that's neither here nor there in evaluating or enjoying a writer's work.
I remember reading "A Good Man is Hard to Find" in the Short Story conference. I had no idea it had any relevance to religion either. I thought it was very well-written, but odd and kind of perverse.
Please define "obsession with Catholicism" and "religious didacticism"! I'm thinking one persons "sincere belief" is another person's "obsession"! It seems to me that O'Connor's Catholicism was deeply held and that her writing (both fiction & these letters) often emerged from her meditation on various aspects of Catholic theology, in which she was, apparently, well read. (anyway, better read than I am!) Isn't it inevitable that a writer writes from his or her own perspective, or world view? I agree, Ruth, that the folksy language is a bit wearying. More troubling is the racist language. Last spring I read "The Life You Save May Be Your Own" by Paul Elie, a parallel study of O'Connor, Thomas Merton, Dorothy Day & Walker Percy (Ruth, I do NOT recommend this to you!), 4 Catholic writers of the mid-20th century. (Elie strains somewhat to keep the parallels, IMHO, but it is an interesting book.) Seeing O'Connor in the midst of her "peers," so to speak, countered my tendency to excuse her racist language as being typical of her time & place; not ALL people of her time & place held the same attitudes.
Mary Ellen
Mary Ellen, by saying she was obssessed by Catholicism I meant that it seemed to permeate everything that she did. There are many writers who are Catholic who don't use Catholicism as the framework for everything they wrote. There are many Catholic people who don't write letters to friends discussing religious affairs so assiduously. Maybe didacticism is the wrong word, it means concerned with teaching. It seemed to me that she was very concerned that her stories be properly understood with all their religious symbolism.
I meant neither observation as a denigration. Just an observation. The "not a good thing" remark was just a statement of my personal taste.
Yes, I agree the racist language was disturbing. Like you, I tried to remember where and when she was.
Well, I have given it up and just came here to confess (quite Catholic, isn’t it?). I tried, but even the letters to A, which are more interesting, did not fuel my desire to keep on going. I have just too many more books waiting. I will lurk and follow the discussion though.
As far as I can recall I have never read any of O'Connor's stories, so the letters were my first introduction to her. I thought the various discussions about the process of writing were the most interesting part. She was very aware of the workmanship in her stories and I thought the way that she sought input and then used or ignored it as she felt best was fascinating. I also thought the references to things going on in her mother's life (there were more in the second half of the book I think than there were earlier on) created a compelling portrait of a very strong and impressive woman. She was caring for dying relatives, dealing with wayward employees and their assorted troubles, and running a farm basically by herself.
Is this discussion still going on? Am I in the right place? I haven't finished the book...probably wont. But I have written down several thoughts and questions about what I have read. I just want to make sure this is the place to do it, since the discussion seems to have dried up. Thanks!
I'll admit to reading this book piecemeal, over a long period of time. In general, I liked O'Connor's voice, as self-mocking as it was often good at mocking other targets. (But see my comments in message 8 for things I didn't like!)An undercurrent to much of the book, of course, is the serious illness O'Connor had -- an illness which she had seen kill her father. I was pretty impressed by her resilience in the face of this. (Wholly unrelated aside: lupus also killed a good friend of mine, when she was 29, about 20 yrs ago.)
Mary Ellen
At the rate I'm going, I will finish it in 2010. But I do have a thing for finishing books and am enjoying it, even though other books are calling me.
I ran across this whilst slouching around the internet. It's what's called a "found poem," and those of us who've read far enough in this book will recognize it:Taking the Thought for the Dog
by Katharine Auchincloss Lorr
I plan to be the world authority on peafowl. Believe I'll be offered a chair someday at the chicken college.
—Flannery O'Connor
Certainly are nice
to want to give me that dog.
I raise peacocks—
you can't keep dogs
and them on the same place.
People come here
have to leave the dog in the car else the peachickens take to the trees
with nervous prostrations.
I have twenty-seven. Place
sounds like a jungle
at night. They yell
and scream at the least
atmospheric disturbance
or mechanical noise.
Sitting on the back steps, I spend
days studying how
they could decorate
the lawn to advantage. They prefer
to sit on the tractors,
the top of the chicken
house or garbage can lid. I adjust
to their taste, which
is anti-dog. Thanks
but I'll take the thought for
the dog. Appreciate
you wanting to give it.
Come visit. Nothing to do here
but sit, walk,
collect red bug bites,
show you a peacock before
his tail gets ratty.
Source: Poetry (August 1998).
Ruth, I love that quote from Habit of Being. :) I wrote it down in my "quote journal." I love Flannery's sense of humor. I'm not sure how to describe it, but I love it!
Ruth:What a perfect poem! thanks for sharing it.
Al
Ruth, that is terrific. Thank you for sharing it.I also love your phrase "slouching around the internet".
I'm meandering through the letters. I've found in the past that the collected letters of a single author aren't something that I can read all at once. Although I'd love to have the opportunity to try making it through Gore Vidal's letters. Let's hope that someday we'll have a chance to try. Meanwhile, I'm enjoying her humor and find her a nore interesting person than I had realized.
In the interest of generating more discussion on this book:What are you finding interesting about Flannery O'Connor as you read her letters? How does she differ from your expectations of her?
From the brevity of this discussion, I guess that I'm not the only one who didn't finish it! I found the supposedly "country" language she used as well as her casual racism very off-putting. I reminded myself repeatedly that she was being "clever" writing to friends, not intending the letters for publication, but that doesn't seem to help. I find myself in the distressing position of having fallen in love with her short stories when I was in high school in the 60s but finding out that I don't like her as a person at all. And these letters weren't written so terribly long ago - I expect any post-WWII writer to do much better than using the "n" word, even in Georgia.We discussed in another discussion the problem of enjoying the work of a writer whose attitudes we find offensive (antisemitic, racist, etc). I think that if I am going to continue to read her short stories, I'd better put her letters down.
Mina, I was offput as well by the nonchalant racism. It's disconcerting to realize that this still existed among the well-educated, thoughtful folks. Also, her down-the-nose look at what I guess she would call "white trash" made her seem less than likable. But I just read a longish article about a very prominent author whose works I love: he was a flaming horror in real life. All these things can surely get in the way of enjoying their works. It's a puzzle.
