On the Southern Literary Trail discussion

Comments on this board should be written with the assumption that not all readers have finished the book. Please avoid revealing any spoilers.

I will do my best to get to this one in August. It's one I haven't read, and fairly short.

Audio for this one on hoopla. FYI

I probably will not get to a reread of this one but my review only said “depressing and dark”. Stay strong fellow readers if you do this one and The Road. I support you!!!

When you’re facing the “dog days” of August in the South, particularly during a global pandemic, you might as well sink on down into the deep waters. I hope to read both because I’ve never read either, and they’ve been on my shelf for years. Thanks in advance for the support, Laura, because All The Pretty Horses is on my favorites list but I haven’t met an O’Connor yet that I liked. We shall see.

I found The Road dark, but not depressing at all. O'Connor doesn't do happy, but I'm hoping some of her dark humor might make this one a little easier.

Agree with that statement Diane.

The Violent Bear It Away is one of the few books I've read twice. The first time I really enjoyed it, the second time I loved it. It's dark and very funny. I'm probably a tad biased because it was Flannery O'Connor who brought me to the wonderful world of Southern Literature, and for that reason I'll read it a third time.

Good to know who to turn to when I get lost, Dave. Happy to hear about that dark humor.

I have re-read The Violent Bear It Away for the third time. My first read was way back in 1973 for Professor O.B. Emerson's Southern Literature class. I was blown away. After the third read, I remain awestruck. For those interested, The Habit of Being: Letters of Flannery O'Connor, offers her own interpretation of the novel. Absolutely fascinating. Contains spoilers. I will be posting kindle highlights that particularly struck me. I'm thrilled to follow our discussion.

And we are thrilled to hear from you, Lawyer.

Diane wrote: "And we are thrilled to hear from you, Lawyer."

Y'all keep me going more than you know! I do keep up. :) I'm up for chemo again on Tuesday. No uncomfortable side effects other than my mustache and beard began to fall out. SO, I SHAVED. I have a thinning monk's tonsure. Call me Cadfael! I did not shave my head. Just wasn't ready for the "egghead" look. BUT, should that happen, I'll post a new profile photo. HAH!

Though biographical material is never a suitable basis for literary interpretation, I do recommend Flannery: A Life of Flannery O'Connor byBrad Gooch. It's especially good. My review is here:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... .

Dave and Lawyer, have either/both of you read ‘Wise Blood’? Outside of a few O’Connor short stories, I base my “dislike” comment on that particular novel. I’m very encouraged by your positive comments on TVBIA and hope to start it sometime next week.

Lawyer wrote: "Diane wrote: "And we are thrilled to hear from you, Lawyer."

Y'all keep me going more than you know! I do keep up. :) I'm up for chemo again on Tuesday. No uncomfortable side effects other than my..."

I second, Diane! Very good to "see" you, Mike. Shaved heads and tattoos are totally in vogue so maybe both, with pictures ;-)

If you've not gotten your copy, The violent bear it away is now available for Kindle for only $3.00. Be aware this appears to be a public domain version with a plain black and white cover. I found NO difference between the text of the LOA edition.

During our final discussion of A Cry of Angels, I raised the issue of how the novel might be viewed by "modern" readers, not to imply we are a group of "antiques." GRIN Others contributed that books should never be subject to censorship. I couldn't agree more.

I raised the issue for I anticipated our read of The Violent Bear It Away. I had just read "How Racist Was Flannery O'Connor," Paul Elie, The New Yorker, June 22, 2020: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20... .

The article made my blood boil. Typically, Elie viewed O'Connor through a 21st Century lens. IMHO, Elie also cherry picked his facts.

Response to the New Yorker article was quick. I felt considerably better reading "How Flannery O'Connor Fought Racism," Jessica Hooten Wilson, First Things, June 24, 2020: https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclu... .

However, in "The Artificial Jesuit," Randall Smith, TheCatholicThing.org, July 29, 2020:
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2020... , revealed that the Jesuit President of Loyola University announced Flannery O'Connor's name would be removed from a residence hall because of recent information coming forward that some of her personal writings reflected a racist perspective.

On July 30,2020, Lorraine Murray followed up on Smith's column with "Flannery O'Connor Was Not a Racist," The Catholic Thing:

https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2020...

The column is a doozy, beginning, "Flannery O'Connor is the latest cultural figure to be canceled. The very title of Paul Elie's New Yorker article 'How Racist was Flannery O'Connor' assumed her guilt." Certainly did.

I never thought the catch phrase "Cancel Culture" would apply to books. But a cursory search reveals it has happened especially in YA literature. A number of YA authors have withdrawn novels because colleagues successfully cancelled their works.

The cancel culture movement amounts to censorship in the form of social media. Pure and simple. Paul Ilies practices it in the name of scholarship. It's a poor way to criticize an author as great as Flannery O'Connor.

I'm especially proud to be a part of "The Trail." Our bookshelf shows how many great works we have read and discussed since our first novel explored, A Confederacy of Dunces by John Kennedy Toole in March, 2012. My sincere thanks to my fellow moderators and all you steadfast readers without whom On the Southern Literary Trail could not exist. Y'all are all dear to my heart.

“You have to carry the fire."
I don't know how to."
Yes, you do."
Is the fire real? The fire?"
Yes it is."
Where is it? I don't know where it is."
Yes you do. It's inside you. It always was there. I can see it.”--Cormac McCarthy, The Road

"Lawyer Stevens"

I'd really like to take a shot at this book. I've read a couple of O'Connor's short stories and was impressed. Since then I've had it in mind to read one of her novels.

Candi wrote: "I'd really like to take a shot at this book. I've read a couple of O'Connor's short stories and was impressed. Since then I've had it in mind to read one of her novels."

Candi, I hope you will join us. While I loved Wise Blood, I love The Violent Bear It Away even more. I've read all of O'Connor. With the exception of her A Prayer Journal. I will remedy that while we discuss the novel.

It is hard to believe O'Connor only wrote two novels. However she was a perfectionist. O'Connor took seven years before completing TVBIA.

A reread worth the mental calories, as the saying goes. What a deep dive into a dark world it is, IIRC.

Wyndy wrote: "Dave and Lawyer, have either/both of you read ‘Wise Blood’? Outside of a few O’Connor short stories, I base my “dislike” comment on that particular novel. I’m very encouraged by your positive comme..."

Yes, Wyndy. I've read Wise Blood. It's a great read. Although I love TVBIA more. WB was published in 1952. It is the story of Hazel Motes returning home after WWII. As a result of his experience in war, Motes has lost all faith. He sets out to start a ministry of non-religion. I find WB more comic in tone than TVBIA.

Both novels are Southern Gothic to the max. I agree with Dave there is humor to be found in TVBIA. However, I think it more on the dark side.

Richard wrote: "A reread worth the mental calories, as the saying goes. What a deep dive into a dark world it is, IIRC."

Glad to see you're along for a dive into the deep, Richard!

Ok, I will give it a shot. I bought the kindle version since no library near me has this one. I did see the hoopla audio version but not a fan of audiobooks. I’ve never read any O’Connor and hoping I can keep up here! Ha! You guys seem quite knowledgeable so I can learn!! 🤓

Mike, I read your comments with a heavy heart. I so agree that this censorship of authors is a frightening development. We should read everything we can, even, and perhaps especially, things we might disagree with. I hate the way people seem to want to re-interpret and so often misinterpret the writers of the past. This narrow lens is going to backfire on our entire society. It is one of the reasons that current writing so often leaves me cold--there is so much of the cookie cutter to it because so many ideas simply cannot be expressed or the media will ban you.

I simply cannot fit this read into my schedule this month and I am sorry for that because I have only read one of her novels, Wise Blood, and I did not like it at all. I would like to make the comparison and hear what others think on this one.

Have a good read, everyone and take care of yourself, tonsure and all, Mike.

I hear you, Sara. I recall Pat Conroy saying 15 years ago that this PC world would be the death of literature. I recently had the unsettling experience of an online Southern magazine asking me to send them my newest book, only to have it raked through the coals for "tokenism" and all that business. I'm re-reading Shelby Foote's fiction these days and thinking, were it viewed through a modern- day lens, the roof would fall down.

Sadly they discourage new voices and want to obliterate the older ones. Those of us who own our own libraries may be glad for the books that we have accumulated as we see them disappear from library shelves and book stores. I hope not, but I fear it might happen.

Lori wrote: "Ok, I will give it a shot. I bought the kindle version since no library near me has this one. I did see the hoopla audio version but not a fan of audiobooks. I’ve never read any O’Connor and hoping..."
Great, Lori! i'm distracted by audio books except on long drives. My favorite O'Connor are her short stories. TVBIA concerns the struggle between God and the Devil over the soul of a 14 year boy. it's good!

Without breaking the confidence of the source, I recently received guidelines on what the bigger publishing houses will consider for submissions. Let's just say we're having a timely conversation here!

Sara wrote: "Mike, I read your comments with a heavy heart. I so agree that this censorship of authors is a frightening development. We should read everything we can, even, and perhaps especially, things we mig..."

I understand your passing on TVBIA, having disliked Wise Blood. I will miss your inciteful comments. But know I will see you discussing many more reads.

It's warming up in Alabama. Hot and humid. I'm beginning to appreciate that wispy tonsure!

Claire wrote: "I hear you, Sara. I recall Pat Conroy saying 15 years ago that this PC world would be the death of literature. I recently had the unsettling experience of an online Southern magazine asking me to s..."

The blast of "tokenism" seems to be an ever increasing battle cry against southern voices. Shelby Foote may avoid the current cancel culture trend as his fiction does not share the degree of readership of authors such as Faulkner and O'Connor. If he catches Hell I anticipate it will be over his narrative history of the American Civil War.

Maybe this explains why, more and more, I prefer the older books over the new. When you start "cleansing", you lose so much that gives heart to a book. Sterile words mean nothing.

Let's just hope, Claire, that the publishing houses stick to regulating new fiction, and don't go back and edit their older publications. Every day now I feel the world of just six months ago slipping away, being replaced with no one knows what at this point. It will require a lot of courage from all of us.

Wyndy wrote: "Dave and Lawyer, have either/both of you read ‘Wise Blood’? Outside of a few O’Connor short stories, I base my “dislike” comment on that particular novel. I’m very encouraged by your positive comme..."

Hi Wyndy,
Yes I've read Wise Blood , it's a fabulous book , but along with Mike I prefer TVBIA .

I just finished Hannah Coulter and need some recuperation time. Will try to start tomorrow.

I will be getting to this one probably in a day or two. I'm trying to finish up another read right now and then I'm in. If anyone is interested, the Kindle version is $3 on Amazon.

I did just get started, and it's holding my attention so far. The inside of O'Connor's brain must have been an interesting place.

Diane wrote: "I did just get started, and it's holding my attention so far. The inside of O'Connor's brain must have been an interesting place."

After reading so many of her short stories and works, I'm thinking the same thing about O'Connor.

Diane wrote: "I did just get started, and it's holding my attention so far. The inside of O'Connor's brain must have been an interesting place."

Franky wrote: "Diane wrote: "I did just get started, and it's holding my attention so far. The inside of O'Connor's brain must have been an interesting place."

After reading so many of her short stories and work..."

I just completed The Habit of Being: Letters of Flannery O'Connor and am in my second reading of Mystery and Manners: Occasional Prose. Those two books reveal the essence of O'Connor's beliefs and how she distilled those into the art of writing. The cardinal rule for a writer was to create a community which he knew and never put to paper people who were but an abstract in the writer's mind, those people who were real, but from whom the writer isolated himself. O'Connor blamed Television required the creation of a phoney South. GAWD, what she would have thought of "The Dukes of Hazzard!

I suppose one could make the argument that all the characters in The Dukes of Hazzard were misfits and grotesques, but they just don't have the same impact when it's played for laughs. In many ways, TV has dumbed us all down. Maybe O'Connor saw what all of us see, but she highlighted these characters whereas the rest of us just take them for granted.

Lawyer wrote: "The cancel culture movement amounts to censorship in the form of social media. Pure and simple. Paul Elie practices it in the name of scholarship. It's a poor way to criticize an author as great as Flannery O'Connor. "

First off, it's great to see you at it, Lawyer, and proceeding with your treatment, and, most importantly, feeling good enough to joke about it. My off and on again participation in "The Trail" doesn't indicate how much I've enjoyed this group and it's importance to me. For that, I thank you and the other moderators too.

I also saw Elie's New Yorker article and was going to post it here myself, but you beat me to it. Frankly, my reaction was a "hmmm ... I'm not surprised." And I'm a big fan of O'Connor, was happy to see TVBIA as one of this month's selections, and am now in the middle of reading it for the third time. (And, like you, I like it better than WB.) I just didn't see the great injustice in Elie's article that you did.

I don't think Elie "cancelled" O'Connor and I don't think that was ever his intention. Here's the end of his article (boldface added for emphasis).

"[T]he reluctance to face [the bigoted passages in her letters] squarely is itself a stumbling block, one that keeps us from approaching her with the seriousness that a great writer deserves.

"There’s a way forward, rooted in the work. For twenty years, the director Karin Coonrod has staged dramatic adaptations of O’Connor’s stories. Following a stipulation of the author’s estate, she uses every word: narration, description, dialogue, imagery, and racial epithets. Members of the multiracial cast circulate the full text fluidly from actor to actor, character to character, so that the author’s words, all of them, ring out in her own voice and in other voices, too."

Applauding on-going presentations of O'Connor's work, using all "the author's words" as the touchstone for the praise, doesn't sound like cancel culture to me.

I found the other articles you linked to be very interesting as well. To my eyes, Jessica Wilson's critique of Elie was more a matter of tone and emphasis rather than the truth of whether or not O'Connor was bigoted. [Frankly, for individuals, particularly those like O'Connor who had little political or economic power, I much prefer the word bigoted to racist.] Wilson admits that she was, but strove mightily in her fiction to counter-act her prejudices.

"She wrote with courage as she pointed a finger at racial bigots—and at the bigotry she saw in herself."

Elie, though he doesn't emphasized this point as much as Wilson does, still mentions O'Connor's "struggle to overcome an outlook that is an obstacle to a greater good, the letting go of the comforts of home."

I must confess, when I saw the title to Elie's article, I thought "oh brother." But, like I said, when I read it I didn't think it was all that bad, or unjust. It left me thinking that O'Connor probably didn't like that many people anyway. She has a great satirical pen, and she takes a very sharp angle on her characters. She'll often mock them, give them harsh-sounding or outrageous names like "Tarwater," "Turpin," and "Obadiah Elihue." And she makes them do, or suffer, the most outrageous things. [Spoilers from other stories](view spoiler)[Emery Enoch finds his life's vocation dressing up in a gorilla suit. Hulga Hopewell's gets her artificial leg stolen by a no-good Bible salesman. (hide spoiler)] I think she rolled her eyes at most people.

She's not nice in her stories, and that's why we all love her (or dislike her, as some do here--maybe that's why).

Anyway, this is America. When people get all upset about this or that famous American being racist, I just think, "Well, who wasn't?" Up until very, very recently, just about every famous white American was racist. Up to the 1960s the belief in racial inequality was this country's norm. Racial equality was the ideology outside the mainstream. Thomas Jefferson was racist, and he wrote the Declaration of Independence. Abraham Lincoln was racist, and he freed the slaves! So, IMHO, the important consideration has to be, is so-and-so famous American justifiably famous for something other than his or her bigotry? I think, no doubt, that Flannery O'Connor is. But I also think it's good that we do remember the centrality of racism to this country's history and prosperity, and we do that, in part, by remembering that, yes, Abraham Lincoln was bigoted, and Flannery O'Connor was too. The genius of white supremacy in this country is that it convinces so many of us that it doesn't exist, or did exist but only tangentially in our history, or that it once was a big deal, but that was so long ago and we're so different now, or that yeah, there has always been racism but--thank God!--it's confined to the Mrs. Shortley's of the world (see O'Connor's "The Displaced Person"). Never have the poor been so empowered than by the American belief that our 200+ years of structural inequality is due to the machinations of the poor white people of the American South.

Oh, and Loyola University's removing of O'Connor's name from a residence hall is just plain stupid. But I think her reputation will survive it. I have faith in the enduring power of her words, racial epithets and all.

PS: I'm looking forward to your posting highlights from The Habit of Being.

I like your thoughts on racism, and completely agree with your assessment. "Who wasn't" a racist indeed. People who can't put things in the context of the times do more harm than good.

Diane wrote: "I like your thoughts on racism, and completely agree with your assessment. "Who wasn't" a racist indeed. People who can't put things in the context of the times do more harm than good."

Well, slavery was normative in the context of the times. It was also, in an absolute sense, terribly immoral. It's one thing to posit that any amount of racism in a person's life always cancels out the good in that person's life, particularly when the magnitude of the good overwhelms the magnitude of the racism. (And, of course, those relative magnitudes probably will be calculated differently by people of color than they are by whites.) But I worry that "putting things in the context of the times" can be a way of minimizing the indefensible.

I recently read An Interpretation of Christian Ethics by Reinhold Niebuhr. (Yeah, I read stuff like that. So I'm a 66 year old nerd.) His view of Christian ethics was that the transcendent values of an absolute morality (which is the providence of God) should always inform our judgments of our own moral beliefs and social arrangements. As people bound in time and space in a fallen world, we can't ever "get there" but that "there" is still apparent to us, however distorted our vision of it may be, and we should strive to at least approximate it. That can make for real social and moral progress. So, IMHO, we should always view "the context of the times" as something that should have been pushed further to something better by those who lived in those times. That is how we should judge them--to the degree they did that. And that judgment will necessarily be one of greater failure than success. And certainly that is how we should judge ourselves as well--by how much we try to push past the context of our times to create a better society, with a more complete justice, and greater room for each of us to love one another.

I can only say AMEN to that.

Randall wrote: "Lawyer wrote: "The cancel culture movement amounts to censorship in the form of social media. Pure and simple. Paul Elie practices it in the name of scholarship. It's a poor way to criticize an aut..."

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your thoughts on Paul Elie's article "How Racist Was Flannery O'Connor?" It's interesting to note that title only appeared on the online article. That the print copy appeared with the title "Everything That Rises," perhaps reflects The New Yorker editorial staff's concern that Elie had gone a bridge too far.

Paul Elie has generated a number of responses which take umbrage to his New Yorker article. See "Flannery O'Connor Should Be Studied Not Canceled, Scholar Tells Loyola Leaders," Catholic News Agency, August 6, 2020: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/ne...

The scholar in question is Fordham Professor Angela Alaimo O'Donnell, author of Radical Ambivalence: Race in Flannery O'Connor, who has most directly addressed racism in the works of O'Connor.

Forgive me for quoting Professor O'Donnell at length. However her views are worthy of consideration.

So when the Fordham professor heard that Flannery O’Connor’s name would be removed from a residence hall at Loyola University Maryland, due to concerns over apparently racist remarks in some of her personal correspondence, O’Donnell decided to act by petitioning the university to reconsider. Her petition has been signed by more than 200 people, including O’Connor scholars, theologians, and writers of color.

So far, O’Donnell has not received a response.

“I was hoping to get a note from Father Linnane (president of Loyola University) just acknowledging the letter, but I haven't heard anything from him. He probably is besieged by a lot of letters. I'm hoping that he will eventually respond, but so far I haven't heard anything,” O’Donnell told CNA.

“I thought it was a great teachable moment for Loyola to have an opportunity to talk with students and take their time. I really don't understand the rush,” she said. O’Donnell’s advocacy for O’Connor is not so much about a building, she said, and it’s not to deny O’Connor’s racist comments.

Rather, it’s about the swift erasure - the canceling, if you will - of O’Connor without the campus community considering a fuller picture of her person and what her work has to say to the current generation.

“I know Father Linnane says people can still teach Flannery O'Connor, that she's not being removed from campus,” O’Donnell said. “But I don't think Father Linnane realizes that, effectively, she's not going to be on campus anymore, unless the faculty member (teaching her works) is tenured and also is very brave, and wants to have these conversations about race.”

...How do you teach Flannery O'Connor in the classroom? What can you do? Because I think it's worth us considering it from the angle of pedagogy and culture, how you encounter every writer. Every writer needs to be reevaluated with each new generation, and then we decide what it is that he or she has to offer, and whether or not it's helpful. And so this is a really good moment to reevaluate O'Connor in a thoughtful way,” she said, “and not the way that Elie does, and not the way that Loyola has done.”

In many ways, O’Donnell noted, O’Connor is the perfect author for this moment in history especially because of how she treats racism in her work, which faces its ugliness head-on and views it as a sin.

“Her stories are powerful, iconic stories, and very realistic gritty depictions of what it was like to be alive in a culture, the very, very racist culture of the American south during the Civil Rights Movement, during a time of enormous change,” O’Donnell said.

And O’Connor’s favorite description of her job as a fiction writer was to live “hotly in pursuit of the real," O’Donnell said, so her stories “do not look away from very difficult and challenging situations.”

In her stories, O’Connor portrays “a complex sort of dance that black Americans and white Americans had to negotiate in order to live together in a segregated culture. And it always reflects badly on white people, because they were - most white people are - ignorant of their racism. And the few who do know it oftentimes are proud of it and think it's a badge of honor. And she just mercilessly exposes those people,” O’Donnell said.

O’Donnell said there are “all sorts of ways” in which Americans today experience the same or similar kinds of racism, whether personally or systemically. “And the fact that we have this writer who exposes it so knowingly, and exposes it to censure, it's a powerful way of seeing how far we have not come,” she said.

As a devout Catholic, O’Connor also “thought about this in theological terms. She thought that racism was a sin. A sin against God, a sin against human beings, a sin against grace. And so in a number of her stories the people who are the most egregious racists really get their comeuppance in the course of the story,” she added....

The best that we can do is be knowledgeable about the fact, be knowledgeable of our blindnesses, and try to work against them and do what we call now anti-racist work. And one of the forms that anti-racist work took for O'Connor was: ‘Okay, I know I have this problem. I know all the people I live with and love have this problem, including my mother and including my aunt and my friends. And so I’m going to write stories that expose this problem.’”

For those who want to read some of O’Connor’s most poignant fiction that treats racism, O’Donnell recommended four stories. The first, “Revelation,” was one of O’Connor’s “last stories and one of her most powerful stories. It is a portrait of a racist who has a wake-up call and understands very clearly what she's guilty of by the end of the story. And in some ways that person, that main character, is a portrait of O'Connor.”

Another story by O’Connor about race that O’Donnell recommended is “Everything That Rises Must Converge,” in which one of the characters seeks to atone for the racism of his mother, and must confront his own hypocrisy.

Another story, “The Geranium,” is one of the first that O’Connor ever published.

“It's about an old white man who goes to live in New York with his daughter, and is horrified when he moves next door to black people. And he has a wake-up call,” O’Donnell said.

“And the last story that Flannery worked on on her death bed was a rewriting of that same story, it's called 'Judgment Day.' So, O'Connor's work - she only wrote 31 stories- is book-ended by these two stories and that story she rewrote four times in the course of her life.”

“And with each new version, her depiction of the relationship between the races gets more and more complex as she goes along. That is a sign of somebody who, throughout the course of her professional life as a writer, is growing and changing and developing,” O’Donnell said.

“She’s at war with herself in many ways and trying to figure out what she thinks. But the victory is you can see in the stories where she's going and what she thinks,” she added.

O’Donnell said that going forward, she hopes that Flannery O’Connor gets a fairer and more honest consideration than a cursory glance at some of her racist remarks in her personal letters.

At Loyola University Maryland, Flannery O’Connor’s name could be used on a more appropriate building, such as a literary arts building or theater, she noted.

I'll definitely be adding Professor O'Donnell's book for a closer review of the issue.

Randall wrote: "Diane wrote: "I like your thoughts on racism, and completely agree with your assessment. "Who wasn't" a racist indeed. People who can't put things in the context of the times do more harm than good..."

I add my Amen to Diane's.

Lawyer wrote: Randall wrote: Lawyer wrote:

I very much enjoyed your long quote.

A couple of questions: Did Elie write the on-line title for his article? Or the different, in-print one? From what I understand, editors often write the titles, at least in newspapers. I don't know The New Yorker's policy. It could be Elie didn't write either title. It could be he complained about the first. Or others did, thinking it made the article more contentious than it was. Or, it could be you are right, Elie wrote the first title and The New Yorker dialed it back. So, the origins of the titles and the reason for the switch (is it standard policy for The New Yorker to change its titles from on-line to print versions?) would be interesting information to know.

Did Elie advocate for Loyola University to remove O'Connor's name from the building? Was the name change sparked by Elie's article, or by the publication of her unpublished letters, Good Things Out of Nazareth: The Uncollected Letters of Flannery O'Connor and Friends that Elie's article references?

I think O'Donnell makes an excellent point, that the removal of O'Connor's name could have a chilling effect on any professor (tenured or not, but especially for the non-tenured) who plans to teach O'Connor's work at Loyola in the near future. If any student objects, professors would have to argue against the stance of their own administration.

Part of what's going on here is that Elie and O'Donnell are having a good, old-fashioned academic joust. Elie critiques O'Donnell in his article and O'Donnell answers back. I'm in no real position to pick and choose between them. I do think, in Elie's critique of O'Donnell's interpretation of the story "Revelation," he strains a bit. He does acknowledge that the closing scene of revelation references Jesus's parable where "the last shall be first." Then he complains the throngs were still segregated. But, of course, they have to be, otherwise the first wouldn't be last. If they were integrated everybody would be mixed up together. And given O'Connor's religious beliefs, she wasn't going to ditch that biblical reference. (One could argue, tongue-in-cheek, that separating God's people by race and class reflects Black Nationalist and Marxist influences rather than a segregationist one. In this game of literary poker, Elie bets ML King Jr., but O'Connor could see and raise with Malcom X!)

Anyway, again, the controversy to me amounts only to a difference in emphasis and tone. O'Donnell points to the stories. Elie to the correspondence (which O'Connor, and her present-day champions, wanted published). Both agree on the evidence that's plain as day. But O'Donnell says our interpretive emphasis should be on O'Connor's efforts to combat her bigotry. Which she did. Elie would have us not forget that, in some ways, those efforts weren't successful. Which, in some ways, they weren't. So I think this is a classic case of YMMV.

PS: As if I haven't written enough already, I'd like to add a fifth story to O'Donnell's list: "The Displaced Person." It's the first O'Connor story I was exposed to (I saw it dramatized on a PBS series "The American Short Story," with a young Samuel L. Jackson and an old John Houseman!). I loved it and it still remains a favorite.

(I couldn't successfully copy the link, but if anybody is interested, you can find it on You Tube.)

Even if you aren't reading a book, it is fascinating to browse through the discussions.

I couldn't agree more Tom. Fascinating

I finally got to this one and about a third of the way through. I'm going to read up more on this novel and the background. I can definitely see so many O'Connor staples: sort of that bizarre kind of story line, grotesque characters and quite a bit of symbolism to explore her themes about religion, faith, etc.. I'm not sure what to make of everything quite yet, but I think there is definitely a metaphorical message that O'Connor is getting at. These characters are something else.