She is routinely considered one of the greatest Christian writers ever. An avowed believer, passionate and unashamed to speak or write of her faith, O’Connor’s work is often upheld as a standard for what religious fiction should (or could) be. Nevertheless, many readers of contemporary Christian fiction still have a difficult time answering the aforementioned question: Did Flannery O’Connor Write Christian Fiction?
In her favor, O’Connor clearly had a “redemptive agenda.” In her collected letters, The Habit of Being, she writes:
One of the awful things about writing when you are a Christian is that for you the ultimate reality is the Incarnation, the present reality is the Incarnation, the whole reality is the Incarnation, and nobody believes in the Incarnation; that is, nobody in your audience. My audience are the people who think God is dead. At least these are the people I am conscious of writing for.
So O’Connor wanted to bring “the ultimate reality. . . the Incarnation” to “people who think God is dead.” I’m not sure I know a single Christian author who doesn’t aim for that end. However, it’s this “audience” issue that muddies the question. For in attempting to reach “people who think God is dead,” O’Connor eschewed didacticism in favor of shock. She explains:
The novelist with Christian concerns will find in modern life distortions which are repugnant to him, and his problem will be to make these appear as distortions to an audience which is used to seeing them as natural …. When you can assume that your audience holds the same beliefs you do, you can relax a little and use more normal means of talking to it; when you have to assume that it does not, then you have to make your vision apparent by shock — to the hard of hearing you shout, and for the almost-blind you draw large and startling figures. *emphasis mine)
Notice that the Christian novelist, when writing to an audience that “holds the same beliefs you do,” can… “relax a little.” Exactly how do Christians authors writing to Christian audiences relax? And does this “relaxation” hurt or help our stories? Whatever the answer, it was O’Connor’s perceived audience that prompted her to employ shock and grotesquery. And it is precisely these “large and startling figures” that often befuddle and offend the contemporary Christian reader. Take for instance, this paragraph from her story, Parker’s Back:
Suddenly Parker began to jump up and down and fling his hand about as if he mashed it in the machinery. He doubled over and held his hand close to his chest. “God dammit!” he hollered, “Jesus Christ in hell! Jesus God Almighty damm! God dammit to hell!” he went on, flinging out the same few oaths over and over as loud as he could.
O’Connor is undoubtedly a believer with a clear evangelical aim. But by current standards, language like this immediately disqualifies a story from the ranks of Christian fiction. So perhaps that’s the problem: We use today’s Christian fiction as the yardstick for what the genre should be.
It’s not a stretch to suggest that O’Connor would take issue with today’s religious fiction. In Mystery and Manners (p. 163) she writes:
Ever since there have been such things as novels, the world has been flooded with bad fiction for which the religious impulse has been responsible. The sorry religious novel comes about when the writer supposes that because of his belief, he is somehow dispensed from the obligation to penetrate concrete reality. He will think that the eyes of the Church or of the Bible or of his particular theology have already done the seeing for him, and that his business is to rearrange this essential vision into satisfying patterns, getting himself as little dirty in the process as possible. (emphasis mine)
The “sorry religious novel” is one where the writer gets herself “as little dirty in the process as possible.” Which makes me wonder whether or not our “family friendly” approach to Christian art isn’t somehow detrimental.
So on both of these counts — audience and language — Flannery O’Connor’s stories would NOT be considered Christian fiction. However, I think that says more about how we have come to view Christian fiction than anything. Which is a shame.
* * *
What say you? Did Flannery O’Connor write Christian fiction?
The reason I have nothing against writing swear words, is because I don’t believe swearing is sinful. Violence? Because I don’t believe depicting violence — not commiting it, and not glorifying, but merely depicting it — is a sin. Now, of course, even Stephen King in his book On Writing admits (when speaking about language) that you must take audience into account. And that’s true. If I write for a Christian audience, yes, I’m afforded certain liberties — I can, as O’Connor said, “relax a little.” I’m not trying to convince my audience that crude is crude, and so I have no need to be very crude. If I write for a secular audience, well, I agree with O’Connor to an extent on that point as well.
However, my single greatest commitment is to my God. Nothing will stand in the way of that. Not family, friends, and especially not a silly, new-age, commitment to my art. Because, yes, in the end you as the writer ARE indeed responsible for what goes down on the page. The characters are not truly in control, no matter how much we like to pretend they “take over the story.” They are not real. And so when you DO commit sin in writing, you have gone too far. You have betrayed your Lord for the sake of art. In trying to glorify Him, you have shamed Him. Like using his name in vain, for example. . .
And it is because of this, even though I’ve just heard of O’Connor, that I don’t believe she can truly qualify as a Christian author. Or at least, that her standards were slightly below those of what a Christian author’s should be, because her standards were slightly below those of what a CHRISTIAN’S should be.
Higher. Her standards were much, much higher. After this entire generation of Christian authors has passed from memory, O’Connor’s work will be remembered, revered…and viciously apologetic.
Her witness to the darkened mind of unbelievers is shocking, fierce and effective. I have personally witnessed hundreds, literally hundreds*, of unbelievers drawn to and struggling with O’Connor’s brilliant and unabashed creative illustrations of the living Lord in the hearts of unbelievers and the rejections of the damned, readers who wouldn’t come within 1000 feet of an overtly CBA book.
I’ve encountered more opportunity for advocating the gospel with the unbelieving fan of Flannery O’Connor than I have with, quite literally, all other fiction authors, combined.
I strongly recommend that you read her work before dismissing it.
*In my studies and teaching at universities and community colleges, personal friends and acquaintences and family. I can’t name a single Christian author who even comes close. C.S. Lewis is a very distant second, and then, only his children’s books.
I won’t be reading O’Connor’s work because I have no interest in it. I’m not dismissing it. I’m sure it’s very good for what it is. I’m simply responding as honestly as I can to what I see, perhaps more honestly than most because I have no attachment to O’Connor.
O’Connor sinned while writing, and sin does not glorify God. This is something on which I’m sure we can both agree. And if she did sin in her writing, and if sin does NOT glorify God, then she is hardly a role model for how we as Christian writers should approach the craft. Not precisely, anyway.
All this to say: Write what you want, but never, never, never sin. No matter what. The end cannot truly justify those means. I will not spit in the face of my God to save my brother, no matter how much I love him.
Whoah. Who hasn’t sinned while writing? It’s impossible not to! We do it without realizing it, and when God brings it to light, we repent, but none of us are perfect in that regard. We do the best we can and God takes care of the rest, despite our faults and mis-steps. To assume our writing is sinless…is…a sin in itself, I’d say.
To assume our lives are sinless is just as ridiculous. Even the most dedicated Christian lets slip subtle sins without realizing. But when we DO see sin in another, something obviously wrong, do we point to them and say, “There, that’s how I want to live my life.”? Of course not.
Just as I don’t think a man who has premarital sex on a weekly basis is a good example of how Christians should live, I don’t believe a woman who uses the Lord’s name in vain in her fiction should be an example of how Christians should write.
If anything, she’s a great example of how even those of us with the best of intentions can fall short. Something we should accept, but not embrace.
I just can’t equate an author describing someone else committing the sin with the author committing it themselves.
For one, I have to think God has a firmer backbone than this.
I also have to think God wants us to help him find the lost. That means bending down to the level of the lost and looking them in the eye where they are. To do so does not “sully” us. If it did, Jesus would have sinned many times. The Pharisees were the ones worried about their “holiness” being marred by association.
So, if the author imagined her character taking the Lord’s name in vain, wrote it and then scribbled it out and replaced it with “he swore”, what’s the difference, really, in the heart of that author?
I really think your position (if I am understanding it correctly) ties the artist’s hands. The artist is apt to get writers block for fear of constantly messing up, and then they’re really not contributing to God’s kingdom, merely crouching in a corner for fear that this world might tarnish their purity.
All that being said, is Parker supposed to represent authentic Christianity? If so, and I were writing the story, he’d have to have some kind of realization somewhere along the line that he has a potty mouth, and he’d need to feel compelled to change. If I didn’t want my character to go through that arc, I wouldn’t have him taking the Lord’s name in vain. But if he’s a non-Christian character, then I think different rules apply.
“I really think your position (if I am understanding it correctly) ties the artist’s hands. The artist is apt to get writers block for fear of constantly messing up, and then they’re really not contributing to God’s kingdom, merely crouching in a corner for fear that this world might tarnish their purity.”
I’d argue that Christians — especially Christian artists — are too relaxed. A little fear might do us good. In all things, even art, we should constantly be on the look out for sin. Being a writer does not excuse us from that duty. The bible demans vigilance.
“I just can’t equate an author describing someone else committing the sin with the author committing it themselves.”
I’ll point you to my reply to Eric.
Again, I don’t see many restrictions here. Just don’t take the Lord’s name in vain. But then, I don’t see swearing in general as sinful. . .so maybe I’m at an unfair advantage compared to some. If I thought swearing was a sin, I admit, it would be very difficult to write quality fiction (not impossible, I think Frank Peretti and Ted Dekker prove that). But then, I’d rather avoid sin whenever possible, than commit it for the sake of art. . .
Anyway, I’m willing to bet we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
I respect your opinion, but I also respectfully disagree. 😉
Sure thing. Thanks for the lively debate.
Granted it’s sinful if I (as a Christian) took the Lord’s name in vain, but how is it a sin to say, “Parker took the Lord’s name in vain”? I’m not Parker, and neither was Flannery O’Connor.
Explain what you mean by “glorify God.” Is God “glorified” more if I tell a story about a blasphemous sinner who repents, or if I tell a story about a saintly person who never does anything wrong?
No, it isn’t a sin to say, “Parker took the Lord’s name in vain.” Because you have not taken the Lord’s name in vain, you’ve told us someone else did. She did not write “Parker took the Lord’s name in vain,” however, she actually took the Lord’s name in vain. For example, it isn’t swearing to say/write, “Bob swore.” Or “Bob said the “ef” word.” But it IS swearing to say/write (I’ll censor this) “Bob said ‘f*ck'” You’re not Bob. . .but then, you’re still saying exactly what he said. Just because you’re only repeating it, doesn’t mean you’re not swearing.
On your last point. . .I think you’re shoving me into a position I have not taken. I’d argue that God can be glorified either way, as long as the writer is not required to sin. And yes, I believe you can show sin without committing it. In the paragraph Mike presented above, however, the sin WAS committed, for the sake of showing it.
O’Connor sinned while writing, and sin does not glorify God.
Her character swore, not the author herself. She painted her character accurately. And because she did, people took her seriously. Her unflinching look at real life issues bought her the right to also look at afterlife issues.
(To be clear, I was quoting an earlier comment in my first sentence.)
This is the new age mantra I cannot subcribe to. That we are not responsible for what comes out of our character’s mouths. As if the story really were a “found thing” as Stephen King claims. His idea that a story is something beyond the writer (who is a mere vessel), and that we have no real control over what occurs, what is said, who lives, who dies. That, what happens in the story is part of another world.
The idea is enchanting, but nonsense, no offense to King.
She wrote it. Her characters words ARE her words. And if a certain word is sinful — and considering the power of words, why couldn’t they be? — then to say/write the word, even if you’re attributing it to a make-believe person in a make-believe world, is also sinful. Writing a swear word, for example, is still writing a swear word. Quotation marks make no difference, in my opinion anyway.
One of the concessions many readers understand is that there is a disconnect between an author and a character. If a character rapes another character in a story, we understand it is a work of fiction and a) no actual people were raped in real life, and b) it is not possible to derive the author’s actual principles and stances on rape in real life just from that act occurring in that fictitious piece. They’re telling a story.
When O’Connor used that language in her story, she herself wasn’t taking God’s name in vain, she was painting the picture of a profane character. She used shock tactics to unsettle people, get their attention, and then convey spiritual truisms that they had not perhaps thought about before.
I think writing a swear word isn’t the same as swearing. If I write ‘Josie threw off her mother’s hands. “Stop trying to control my life! **** you, Mom!”‘ That says more about Josie and her family relationships than it does about me.
(Back to O’Connor – her use of this kind of language is why I personally think she was a Christian author but that she didn’t write Christian fiction. I think her work is all the more effective for that, myself, but I’m reading everyone else’s responses with great interest.)
Wouldn’t you say that is an unfair comparison?
With swearing, the power is in the word, not the sound. The word always means what it means, and is what it is: A word. A potentially offensive word, but a word nonetheless. A word is a word, spoken or written.
However, writing, “Joe stabbed Sue,” is not the same as actually stabbing Sue. No one is actually getting stabbed. The action of stabbing is not truly being performed. A stab is an action, not a word. . .simply saying it is not the same as doing it.
Am I making sense here? Because I’ve tried to communicate this for some time without much success. It seems so random, to me, to compare violence in novels with swearing. The two are not the same.
For clarification, you think that writing a swear word is not the same as saying it — in fiction, and non-fiction? Or only in fiction? (or when repeating something someone has said)
Depicting an action is not the same as committing the action, whether the action is of someone “saying words” or of someone “riding a bike.”
I think you have overthought this.
Jesus said this: “whosoever shall
say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”
So…was he ever in danger of hell fire because he literally said the words, “Thou fool?”
It is preposterous to think that he was. Your logic, while well-meaning, falls completely flat in this fairly simple scriptural example.
Jesus did not sin when he dipicted someone using “bad” words. Nor did O’Connor.
I agree with what Tony’s saying here. Unbelievers can use that word and we have no business passing judgement. Unbelievers don’t know Christ as their Lord and Savior. But when believers, who know what Christ has done for us – use His name as a swear word. How can anyone say God is pleased with that? Or that this glorifies Him?
So…was Jesus under threat of hell for saying the words, “You fool?”
Or was he illustrating the actions of a theoretical other?
The answer to that question is the same as the answer to yours… Either Jesus sinned and risked hell for saying “You fool” and O’Connor sinned, or neither did.
I believe Jesus was saying it was a sin to accuse someone of being a fool, not to say the word “fool.”
Anyway, thanks for the interesting discussion. I’ll be stepping out here. Just didn’t want to leave Katie hangin’. 😉
…but that isn’t what Jesus said.
He used dialog to depict a sin in action. So did O’Connor.
Did Mike sin in reprinting O’Connor’s “sin”?
This notion is ridiculously off the rails. I can agree to disagree as long as we both agree that you are both plainly and simply wrong on this matter! 🙂
I’m relieved to read this, and couldn’t agree more. As a Christian who has just turned to catholicism, I’m troubled by the catholic leaders, Fr. Bob Barron for one, who find her a ‘great’ catholic writer. She offends God. Her juxtaposition of the divine with the grotesque is empty. She’s writing for an audience who couldn’t care less about God. Why?
Tony, I appreciate your thoughts. I differ with you on a couple levels. First — and this may sound incredibly nit-picky — I believe that taking the Lord’s name in vain involves much more than just wishing God to damn something. In fact, the action may not involve words at all. Second, I believe it is dangerous to ascribe sin to specific objects, words, events practices, celebrations, clothing, food, etc. It is as potentially misguided to say that any author who writes the word “God” + “damn” has sinned as it is to say that wearing red dresses automatically makes one a prostitute. I jus don’t think it washes.
Mike, could you expand on this a little? It sounds like you’re flirting with something I’ve been thinking about for quite awhile.
Which part, Johne? The “taking God’s name in vain” or ascribing sin to objects / words?
Either. Both. They’re both thoughts I’ve been thinking about, but haven’t quite settled in my own mind.
I’m working on a post for next week, Johne. Teaser: Saying “God bless you” when someone sneezes can be as “vain” as saying “God damn you” when someone doesn’t.
Awesome. Thanks, man.
I’m afraid I have not read Flannery O’Connor’s work. Did she write Christian fiction? To be honest, I’m starting to dislike that word. I think its more of a matter of who has God lead you to write to (your audience).
To put one group down because of their audience is not right. We are each uniquely equipped to reach different audiences (Christian, non-Christian, romance, fantasy, mystery).
We need writers who are reaching into ABA market. We need Gap writers (who straddle the line, showing a glimpse of who God is, planting seeds).
And yes, even the Christian audience needs to be reached. Not with clean fiction (I think that’s what you term “Christian fiction”), but with books that stretch the reader’s faith, that encourages the reader to do what is right, even when it costs so much, that is is worth everything to follow God.
Each of these groups could be labeled as such: tilling the soil, planting the seeds, and watering. We need all three. And God uses all three. But in the end, only He can cause growth.
So let us embrace the writers God has made us, use our gift or calling or whatever you want to call it, love our audience, and write the best books we can.
Help me understand, Morgan — You would define Christian fiction primarily in terms of its audience. So on those grounds you would not consider O’Connor to have written Christian fiction. Is that right?
Actually no. For example, I would not say I write Christian fiction, I would say I write for a Christian audience. I’m not sure how I would define the term “Christian Fiction”. For some it means clean fiction, for others it means a Christian wrote it and for others it means they wrote specifically for Christians. That is why I would define my work by who I write for.
Like I said, I have not read O’Connors work, but based on your quotes, she seemed to have a pretty good idea of who she was writing for and why: She was writing Incarnation for “the people who think God is dead. At least these are the people I am conscious of writing for.”
Okay, this is a problem. Whether we believe O’Connor to be good, not good, faithful or not…it is critical that all believers interested in fiction get to know her really, really quick.
Ignorance of O’Connor and her impact (again, whether you think it is good or bad) may very well be a root cause of our general confusion of what we face in the industry today.
It is a really, really bad thing if non-believers who read O’Connor (and there are millions of them) have no Christian fiction readers to turn to for understanding. Furthermore, I can’t see how Christian readers and writers can begin to produce their best (which is what our faith demands) if we don’t even have an awareness of a Christian author who has had an impact on literature at a slot just below Hemingway.
Eh? Connor was a Christian? I read Wise Blood and did a review of it a year or so ago. I wasn’t into it all that much, and I didn’t know she was a Christian. Interesting. It wasn’t as bad as the Sound and the Fury because you could tell she had some kind of talent for storytelling.
Was there a CBA or a CBA-type of industry in her day? I’m assuming no, but it looks like bad religious fiction was an issue, even if it wasn’t what it is today.
I just hopped over and read your review. Interesting perspective. I’ll definitely need to read some of her stuff to develop an intelligent opinion. (And I like the tiny smiley face at the bottom of your site.)
Thanks Jessica. The smiley face is actually a Wordpress creation, but I let it stay when I was re-designing.
Wise Blood’s theme was that of man’s desire to see himself seated as Lord, to own the powers of unity and eternal life, while rejecting Christ. This is why society is depicted as a continually whorling catastrophe, all while people struggle to “get theirs.”
Church, without Christ, is the worst thing that ever could be, and the devil’s object for himself.
And, in our darkness, we covet that too, unless we are able to see it for what it is: to paraphrase Lewis, a staring into the cold embers of a long-dead fire.
If an unbeliever doesn’t at least consider to turning his life over to the holy power of God after reading Wise Blood, then I would suspect he didn’t read it very closely.
“If an unbeliever doesn’t at least consider to turning his life over to the holy power of God after reading Wise Blood, then I would suspect he didn’t read it very closely.”
I would say that’s going a little far since someone could sincerely interpret something different. I catch your spit, though.
Yick!
Wrong interpretations happen all the time, and an unbeliever who reads Wise Blood as a a sort of cool but depressing story about bad people doing bad things isn’t to be faulted for not heeding the image. They simply didn’t see the image, but that is not because the image isn’t there!
Christians are more likely to fail to see it: we are living in a Kingdom, after all. It is a trial…and depressing…to peer outside of it into the kingdom of this world, stripped so naked before us.
When a Christian reads Wise Blood and goes, “Eh. Sad.” that’s a different interpretation than when an unbeliever does. If Wise Blood doesn’t wake something up inside of the dead and the dark, then it is my prayer and hope that they didn’t read or interpret it closely!
Wow. Very thought provoking and inspiring quotes. Thank you for bringing them to my attention.
I have not read any of her work, but based on what you’ve presented thus far, I would say, yes, she wrote Christian fiction, because she was a Christian. Maybe I’m being overly simplistic, but…does it have to be any more difficult than that?
Well, perhaps is does…
Granted, someone may “call” themselves a Christian and write trash with no redemptive value, that holds sin as the highest virtue. In that case, not Christian fiction.
There’s a difference between showing people sinning (like the exerpt you chose…which made me chuckle, actually, so am I a heathen?) and showing the true negative consequences of that sin, versus saying “this sin is cool, everybody go do this”. To tell the difference requires discernment on the reader’s part.
I have to wonder if Christians are getting enough training in literature, picking it apart, analyzing over arching theme, etc. because it’s really the over arching theme and whether that theme is compatible with the Bible that makes it “Christian”. It’s not the presence of an individual cuss word, or whether a character takes the name of the Lord in vain. That kind of focus is much too narrow. We have to be able to draw the lens back, but the ability to widen and narrow the lens comes through training.
Why do we try and pin everything like a bug on a board, as if it has to be neatly labeled in its proper category? Shades of the heresy hunters exacting scrutiny?
Trotting out the overquoted Clive: “We don’t need more Christian writers – we need writers who are Christian.”
Whatever she was, God help me to write as well as she did.
“God help me to write as well as she did.” Oh, yeah, I’m asking the same–although I must admit that my writing sucked when I was in my 20s and trying to copy her. So now I just try to write to her caliber.
Okay, O’Connor is included in so many literature anthologies that I’m surprised anyone can go through high school or college w/o having read at least one of her short stories–The Turkey at the very least. She has become a classic American author–loved and anthologized for her dark wit, irony, and honest portrayal of human hypocrisy.
Yes, I would say she is a Christian author. Look at her themes. They aren’t “feel good” or “inspirational”. But they certainly highlight wrong thinking–expecting God to do whatever we demand, creating God in our own image, magical thinking.
I haven’t read O’Connor in years, so I might have to pull out some stories to refresh my memory. From what I remember, though, her stories almost always work on an allegorical level of human dealings w/ God and their misconceptions of God.
This comes back to the definition of terms. What is Christian fiction? I guess in my own head, I think of it as something written by a Christian to other Christians; it involves two facets and includes both author and audience. But that begs the question: Is fiction written by a non-Christian to a Christian audience using Christian precepts Christian fiction?
I LOVE that you addressed this question, Mike! And I have to chuckle that it did come down to hair-splitting and profanity. I have an amusing and slightly heretical thought: What if God is up reading all these comments and says, “What? There’s ‘Christian’ fiction?”
Oh, yes. To be Flannery O’Connor. I must read more of her immediately.
Wow. I have to say I did not know O’Conner was considered a “Christian writer.” I’ve read almost nothing on her and nothing she wrote about herself and her writing. I did, however, once have a book of her collected short stories and read maybe half of them. This has been thirteen years ago and I don’t recall ever once feeling she was a “Christian writer” in any sense from those stories. Maybe that was due to my reeling over the “shock” aspect she used, which was too much violence and darkness for my taste. I ended up donating the book before finishing it and have read nothing else of hers since, even though I considered her an excellent wordsmith and crafter of images.
Almost every story she ever wrote was about the high cost of discipleship or the tanglible, sacrificial price that Christ paid or the unquantifiable depths of sin, and why we should never take the sacrifice of God unseriously.
Even her funny ones, and, in a way, they are all funny.
Her primary audience was the general audience, with a secondary audience for those Christians so “in the light” that they had forgotten to care for those still held captive by darkness.
I think the fact that, even after all these years, so many Christian readers can casually dismiss or ignore one of our most relevant, talented and confrontational artists says all that there needs to be said about “how far” “Christian fiction” has come.
Again, I have no problem with any reader who argues against her theology, her Catholicsm, or even her characterizations or methods. [In other words, the violence put you off – I can accept that, at least you read her, even if you missed her core themes and significance]
But ignorance of O’Connor by her own people, fiction fans, no less, is a crying shame.
It isn’t about tastes: it’s about taste. If we haven’t even tried the banquet, do we realize how foolish we look declaring our gruel to be the best and only? And I’m not talking the good kind of foolishness, the God kind of foolishness, but plain old, won’t read 1 Peter 3:15 to save a life, kind of foolishness.
Try O’Connor’s “A Good Man Is Hard to Find” for a start. And read her letters in “The Habit of Being.”
O’Connor didn’t write for a niche market. She wrote because she was a writer and she sent her work out to established mainstream magazines and publishers. The reality of the Incarnation imbues her work, and if you haven’t thought long and hard about the God-becoming-human and the implications of that, you’ll miss some of the richness of her work. On the other hand, her work will make you think about the Incarnation and that is well worth the reading.
Flannery O’Connor was a Catholic.
“Flannery O’Connor was a Catholic.”
You know, I’ve heard they can be Christians. Along with Baptists, Lutherans, Greek Orthodox, Methodists…
What is the Kingdom coming to?
I think a very good present-day example of a Christian writing for a mainly non-Christian audience would be Dean Koontz. Love his stuff or hate it (and I love it, lowbrow tool that I am), you cannot ignore his sales.
And yeah, he’s Catholic (gasp!) *G*
Maybe all of the problems can be traced back to her chicken! Check out this video!
http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=28819
Hmm. Sounds like I need to re-read O’Connor. (When I get a round tu-it. Has kind of low priority at this point in my life.)
Oh, boy. Talk about a hanging curve ball… I’ll force myself to brevity on this one.
I was first motivated to read O’Connor by a non-believing acquaintance, who confessed that she was his favorite author. At that point, I only knew two things about her: She was a she, and she wrote Southern literature with religious overtones. As xdpaul expresses, I kind of felt like I “should” be more familiar.
So I ordered a Complete Flannery O’Connor, and devoured everything…including her personal letters and beautiful essays.
Wow…hooked deep from the first words.
Jesus had an irritating habit of hanging with sinners, and it made the religious types furious. What Our Lord did in the streets of Palestine, O’Connor does in the pages of her fiction…she dives in, unafraid, and mixes it up with those in dire need of a physician. More than any writer I’ve ever known, she loves these weird, quirky, sometimes deranged people she’s created with God’s love…dares to touch them even in their filth, just as surely as Mother Teresa touched the Unclean.
Like most believers, I am usually more comfortable grazing with the other sheep…So I love it when O’Connor shoves her concern for the Parker’s of the world into my face and says: “Look closely…*this* is the one God loves.”
O’Connor had a mesmerizing talent for showcasing Redemption in the midst of raw reality.
Did she write Christian fiction? Like Morgan, I’m losing interest in that term. By my personal definition, she certainly did! Far more importantly, she was a Christian who wrote.
Interesting post for a number of reasons. First, because I just purchased one of O’Connor’s anthologies for my NOOKcolor because I wanted to reacquaint myself with her writings. Second, because as a southern writer I can only hope to capture a small portion of the magic of writers like her, Eudora Welty and Harper Lee. Third, because my favorite “Christian writer” is Athol Dickson and his writings have often been compared to those of O’Conner.
I just find it intriguing how this discussion always seems to work its way around to language as though that is the main thing that made these writings so powerful. Before anyone protests the language part is a minor component then why is it that a main point almost always made in explaining why fiction written by Christians doesn’t quite make it as realistic fiction? Of course Harper Lee avoided most of the earthy language in what is considered the greatest example of 20th Century southern literature and continues to be an annual best seller.
O’Conner chose salty language at times to show us the raw underbelly of the human condition while Lee chose the ugliness of racism as her medium. O’Conner had no desire to write to a target audience and was certainly her prerogative. She was also fiercely opposed to genre fiction terming it pulp on more than one occasion. So what does that say to all of us who write suspense or horror or romance or whatever? It says she chose one path and others choose another.
Tim, I chose the language to illustrate the one thing that would automatically exclude O’Connor from inclusion as Christian fiction (although she employs other grotesqueries that might also render her banishment). I do believe great Christian fiction can be written WITH and WITHOUT language. Which is why I’d include O’Connor in the Christian fiction camp.
By the way, you never answered my question: Did Flannery O’Connor write Christian fiction?
Since she would have been violently opposed to having her fiction labeled “Christian” I have to respect the late O’Connors wishes and say no.
Like Koontz she wrote with strong faith elements. So she was a Christian who wrote. Pure and simple.
I’m not so sure she WOULD oppose having her fiction labeled “Christian.” Her objective was clearly “Christian,” i.e., Incarnation. And her body of letters and essays reveal a mind passionate for God, to reach others, and grapple with religious complexities. It makes me wonder what exactly Christian fiction is…
Damon Knight, a Grandmaster of Science Fiction, is supposed to have said, “Science Fiction is what I say it is when I point to something and say that’s science fiction.” Who would you say is the Grandmaster of Christian Fiction, and how does that person define Christian Fiction?
But she DID a oppose that label on many occasions. So how can I call her writing what she didn’t want it to be called herself?
Tim, would you consider The Resurrection Christian fiction even if I don’t?
Let me preface my reply by letting everyone know what a favorable review I gave your debut novel at href=”http://www.tegeorge.com/unveiled/?p=754″>Unveiled. Too bad my Wordpress meltdown wiped out all the great comments left there. Here is what I wrote toward the end of my review:
… the conclusion will leave you thinking long after the book is put away. Duran masterfully blends fear, evil, hope, and redemption to paint a memorable portrait of how even the least of the servants of the Light can overcome the prevailing darkness around them.
Now to answer your question. I have to consider it Christian fiction for several reasons:
1) Because you chose to be published by a CBA affiliated publisher that has chosen to identify itself as Christian.
2) Because the story is clearly built on the platform of Christian themes.
3) Because that is the prevailing label that is now accepted for novels published by CBA publishers that contain themes that are overtly religious. And The Resurrection is overtly faith-based.
Since O’Connor is the subject of this thread, here is the difference. She steadfastly refused to be identified as a religious writer. She was not published by a Catholic imprint nor by any press that identified itself as Christian.
Right or wrong, those are just the facts. This argument against being labeled Christian fiction will never be won as long as the authors making the argument find a home for their work at imprints that identify themselves as Christian.
You asked so I answered. Personally, I really don’t care how The Resurrection is labeled. I’m just glad it found a home.
Tim, I really don’t intend to be combative here, and if I come off like it, please give me a (cyber)slap. You said, O’Connor “steadfastly refused to be identified as a religious writer.” I’m wondering what you base that conclusion on. Any links? She wrote so much about religion (see Flannery O’Connor’s Religious Vision in this weekly Catholic Magazine) and is commonly included in discussions about religious literature. Also, thanks so much for your kind words about my book. Blessings, Tim!
I didn’t consider your question combative at all. I’ll have to dig back and find some quotes for you. She is hard to pigeon hole because she wrote numerous non-fiction articles for various Catholic presses. But, when it came to fiction, she just really hated the whole idea of genre anything.
This blog post floored me–in the best of ways. I love Flannery O’Connor. I, in fact, admit part of me hopes to attain that sort of literary impact and longevity. I’ve read all sorts of arguments, especially lately, about what’s appropriate and inappropriate for Christian Fiction.
While I unabashedly and unashamedly bow to Jesus Christ as Lord of my life, I do not see in the Gospels where he shied away from cultures or circumstances. In fact, it is in the shocking, admonishable, shameful and in fact lewd places we find some of Jesus’ greatest miracles. I am writing a novel which delves into the rather taboo subjects (especially in Christian circles!!!) of incest and molestation. Am I sinning because I write about what the people who commit those acts do? Because I develop characters and plot lines which enable them to commit such atrocities?
Let he who has not sinned cast as many stones at me as they wish. I know I write the story of the sinners, for the sake and indeed freedom of the victims. If I can be half of a Flannery O’Connor, then I will be grateful God used my pen to move a tiny part of the world. Thanks so much for this post.
Very thoughtful post, Mike. Thanks. O’Connor’s work is brilliant and disturbing.
I’m going to seem a little tangential now, but I think it’s relevant.
A new friend who is publishing outside of the CBA was pressured to remove references to a character’s faith in a historical situation in which it would be very inaccurate and misleading to remove those references. This is a very common problem in historical fiction today–the erasure of historical Christianity in almost ludicrous ways. I also have tremendous respect for another friend of mine who reads Christian historical fiction even though she is not a believer. She believes the best quality Christian historicals are often a more accurate representation of historical reality than the mainstream historical fiction.
My point: O’Connor might have trouble getting published these days in *any* market because of the very deliberate erasure of Christianity from mainstream fiction. Can you imagine someone telling her to remove the Christian references from the end of “A Good Man is Hard to Find,” possibly the most intense, tragic, memorable short story I have ever read? Christians might tell her it wasn’t Christian because of the language and brutality, mainstream editors would tell her it was far too Christian to appeal to a wide audience.
I really don’t care about the label of what is Christian fiction and what is not, except for the blessing of removing pornography from romance for the readers who want romance. I just care about the individual books I discover in both markets and whether or not they have any transformative power for the Holy Spirit to work on our hearts. And that is a very rare and precious thing, because few of us achieve it even when we aim for it.
Just read “A Good Man is Hard to Find” again for the first time years the other night. Your thoughts are spot on. This is the reason the small presses are important in today’s publishing climate.
Great comments, Rosslyn! While I agree with this statement: “O’Connor might have trouble getting published these days in *any* market,” I’m not sure agree with your conclusion why. First, I am reluctant to play the “conspiracy” card when it comes to mainstream fiction. There are plenty of books with faith themes, explicit and implied, that exist in the general market. Secondly, I think the Christian fiction industry needs to take some blame for excluding O’Connor from their canon. Thanks for participating, Rosslyn, and congrats on your new book!
After reading through this it occurred to me that if it was sin for O’Connor to write that piece of dialogue then it would also be sin for Mike to quote it here. And I don’t think anyone would accuse our kind host of sinning simply because he quoted the words of another without asterisks, which is, precisely, what O’Connor did.
Did she write Christian Fiction? First we have to ask ourselves if the word Christian was ever meant to be a modifier. And second, she was a Christian and a writer and that’s all that matters.
Okay – have to jump in on this conversation.
Let me just say – that I agree with some of this. I agree that we are so concerned about being clean that we ostracize ourselves from any reader who is not Christian. And many who are. Life is gritty and raw. We are sinful people living in a fallen world and we shouldn’t shy away from those truths or leave them out of our fiction. I think we should embrace them. Let’s be real.
BUT, and this is a BIG but. My toes literally curl – CURL – when I read the name Jesus Christ used in vain. For some reason – God damn it doesn’t have the same effect, although I’m not a fan. So for me – let’s be real. Let’s be gritty. Use the f-bomb. I could care less about the f-bomb. But what are we saying to people who don’t know Him, when we throw out His name as a curse word? When we curse the very one who saves us? Call me old fashioned, but it reeks of irreverence. I don’t think that should ever be a part of “Christian fiction” – whatever that may be.
Katie, thank you so much for commenting! I share your repulsion for the misuse of those words, especially the use of Jesus Christ flippantly. (As I said above, I believe many of us wrongly define what it means to take God’s name in vain. But I think I will have to post more at length on my feelings.) Nevertheless, I agree with xdPaul in this comment, “Depicting an action is not the same as committing the action, whether the action is of someone “saying words” or of someone “riding a bike.” ” Some of your characters will say, do, and be things you don’t like. Just because you depict them saying, doing, or being it does not make you complicit in their sin. Katie, thank you so much for joining this discussion. Grace to you!
My rant about JC used as a swear word aside, this post did do something for me. Reminded me the importance of showing redemption in our novels. And the only way to portray redemption that is powerful and life-changing, is to portray the ugliness in our world and in our souls before that redemption takes place.
Okay, confession time. I have four novels out that were commercially published by two CBA houses (click my name if you’re curious). They did fairly well, and most of the folks who tried them liked them. That said, with my my next two works, I’ve made the conscious decison to try the general market route.
There are a few reasons for this, but the most salient one is in these two stories I’m exploring themes that most CBA houses–in their present incarnation–would be loathe to take on.
That’s not to say I’ll never again write for the CBA; many people (not enough, alas!) have asked for more of my Joe Box novels, and I have two more in the planning stages. But absent a great big “hold on there!” from God, for the forseeable future I’m heading to the Dark Side.
Okay – I understand what you are saying here, Mike. I understand that there will always be a disconnect between author and character. Where our characters will say and do thing that we, as authors, would never do. Like rape. Or drugs. Or murder.
But if we have a crass character who swears like a sailor – why, with the whole arsenal of swear words, would we choose to use Jesus Christ as a swear word?
As a Christian author, I would choose the f-bomb. Or other like words. I would want my readers to know that that is one word I will never use as a swear word – because Jesus is my Lord and Savior – and I won’t write His name flippantly (in whatever form) for the sake of “realism” when there are other words to choose from.
Okay – I’ll stop now. I realize this is getting off the actual topic you wanted to discuss. Which is “what is Christian fiction”.
Oops – sorry. I meant for this to be a reply to Mike’s response to my comment up above. Not it’s own comment. My bad.
In the case of this particular story it is essential that Parker use the Lord’s name in vain. Because it shows how littleregard he has forGod and how angry he is. When he does decide to gice over his untouched back to Christ–literally–in the form ofa tattoo it is all the more powerful a statement because the reader has seen where the journey of his relationship to God began.
As a Christian reading those words you are shocked and sickened and angered. And in that you can begin to identify with Parker’s feelings.
You may not use those words in your writing. But you may also not be called to create the same kind of work as Flannery O’Connor.
I’ve held off in participating in this conversation because I was so angered by Tony’s first comment about Flannery O’Connor’s standards being “less than Christian.”
First off, I’m angered that any of us feel in any sort of position to sit in judgement on the Christianity of another person. And please spare me the prooftexted verses about “by your fruits you shall be known”. Because clearly Tony had very little exposure to who FO’C was and what her work is before he made that decision.
You chose ONE paragraph of “Parker’s Back” to point out this agenda you seem to have of taking the Christian Fiction world to task for its draconian language restrictions. You fail to add a few points of exposition.
1. Parker’s Back was written LITERALLY on her death bed. She died of a disease very similar to mine, and in horrible pain at a very young age. This story was her last, desperate plea with the world to show them the power of redemption. It was her story of making peace with the God who had decided to allow her to have a journey in this world crippled by Lupus, ending early and coloured with a type and intensity of pain most people seldom experience. You can FEEL that pain as you read the story.
2. Parker is, I think, Flannery O’Conner herself. In the story he is wrestling with God. He is tatooed over every part of his body except his untouched back. He decides to get a tattoo of Jesus Christ on his back. To turn over the last untouched part of himself to Christ. This is FO’C on her deathbed, making her peace with turning over every bit of herself to God even though the cost is incredible.
I am so heartsick that you have used that one section of Parker’s Back to illustrate a petty bit about swearing in novels without talking about what the story is really about. It is a conversion story. A story about surrendering to Christ no matter what. A story about pain and death and the redemption of giving every bit of yourself over to Jesus. And it was written for people who think Jesus is a joke; people who to this day are in secular colleges talking about the redemptive power of Christ in classes that wouldn’t ordinarily touch such things.
All because Flannery O’Connor gave her last moments of life to craft this deeply human story.
No. She didn’t write Christian fiction. She wrote the stories God gave her to tell.
Quite frankly, I’ve heard of more people who have come to Christ through Flannery O’Connor’s work–Parker’s Back in particular–than ever came to Christ through the pablum sold as Christian Fiction. Because she didn’t write for Christians.
I wish in your post, Mike, you’d at least had the decency to explain the full story of Parker’s Back instead of just turning it into a “Look! She Swears!” example. Because what is everyone talking about now? The fact that O’Connor took the Lord’s name in Vain. When in fact I would argue she didn’t. She used it in such a way as to reach people. Which is NOT IN VAIN.
I am so angry right now. So very angry.
It is only right that I leave most response to this to Mike. But Katherine, you touch on the very issue I take with most of these discussions. There is absolutely no need to compare O’Connor’s works to any modern day “Christian” fiction. Most CBA writers have no aspirations of writing to the audience O’Connor’s stories touch and she certainly had no desire to be the next Grace Livingston Hill.
Both wrote what was within them to write and as such both should be allowed to stand for what they are. Hill’s novels were adored by thousands of young women during an era in which much of the church frowned on fiction of any kind. O’Connor let her soul bleed for those willing and who needed to seed redemption painted on a different canvas.
Setting your very great anger aside, this is a great post which clarifies a number of things I was idly wondering about, and explains a great many other things I didn’t know. Thanks, KC.
I don’t know that I’ve ever finished a FO’C story. Stylistically, they’re greatly removed from the pulp fiction / adventure tale I personally prefer. I think there is much to learn from her, but I won’t be trying to copy her style. It’s hers, not mine, and I’m fine with that. I’d like to learn her methods without aping her style, if that makes more sense.
And I’m eager to see that how that discussion about what taking God’s name in vain really means. I’m convinced it means so much more (and so much less) than how most people take it (especially with regard to its use in literature, which is what brought that thorny issue back up in this thread).
Katherine, I’m so sorry you feel that way. I intentionally used that paragraph for its shock value. However, I did not anticipate the type of reaction it would receive. (And I think Tony’s initial comments definitely influenced the direction of this thread.) To be honest, I’m not sure if the response proves (1) I over-stepped my bounds in an act of crass sensationalism or (2) Christian readers really do have a “sensibilities” issue. I would argue, along with you, that O’Connor did not take the Lord’s name in vain, but used it (and other such surprises) in an attempt to reach people. Heck, I wonder if this discussion isn’t evidence of that. Frankly, I don’t think explaining the context would change people’s opinions, although I’m glad you did. Anyway, I appreciate you fighting through your anger to comment.
What angers me is that here we are, discussing a universally-acknowledged master of the craft of writing and what does it boil down to?
Swearing.
Again.
It’s like looking at the Sistine Chapel and complaining about Adam’s penis showing. Here we have this great work of art, and whether or not you LIKE it or enjoy it the workmanship is indisputably awesome. Yet we are going to get caught up in discussing it on the most superficial level possible.
The fact that some of these people get caught up on “language” is growing awfully old to me. It’s the same thing over and over. Is it bad to say “shit”? Worse to say “goddam?”
The writers of Christian fiction (I am not one) seem to be stuck in this feedback loop when they should be–as all writers should be–asking themselves how they take their craft to the next level. Low talk (shit, f*ck, crap, fart) and cursing (the various iterations of the name of God) are tricycle things. Cosmetics. How about talking about a dramatic structure? How about talking about a convincing character development arc or how to improve written dialog? How about looking at the way O’Connor wove symbolism in her stories so artfully?
How about talking about this? While Parker utters the name of God in a profane way he is doing so in front a tree that catches fire when he wrecks a tractor, and he’s standing there missing his shoe.
In other words, if we pull back just a few words from what you quoted we see that on one level we see a really fed up guy blowing his lid at yet another thing going horribly wrong.
On the next level we see a man standing in front a burning bush, his shoes removed, calling out to God in abject despair and frustration to have himself removed from slavery.
It’s an artful thing far beyond what most of us can do in our own work. We do well to discuss that sort of thing and to move beyond “I want to let my characters say ‘shit’ and I don’t want you to pick on me for it.”
I apologize for offending you. I wasn’t out to offend anyone. Mike asked a question and I gave him my honest opinion. Many disagree with me, and they responded kindly, and I hope I seemed just as kind in my responses.
We will always find times when we don’t see eye to eye with our fellow Christians. And it’s wrong of us to keep our differences in the dark. If we disagree, we SHOULD talk it out, at least to an extent. At least until we understand both sides. What we should avoid is acting out of anger, or allowing anger to grip us because of our disagreements.
Again, I apologize for offending you, and anyone else remaining silent in their anger.
I will say you make a very interesting point about whether or not you could truly call her use vain. (“She used it in such a way as to reach people.”) I’ll admit, I hadn’t looked at it in that “bigger picture” sorta way, and while I’m not sure I agree, it’s worth thinking about.
Anyway, on that note, I’ll step out of the conversation.
Sorry for the trouble.
God bless.
Tony, just to clarify, I think you’ve handled yourself fine here. I disagree with your main objections (as I wrote in my comments to you), nevertheless, your spirit has not been an issue here. So please don’t feel like you’ve dropped a bomb and left us in the rubble. Peace.
Tony, just to clarify…
I had no objections to your presentation and wasn’t offended by the way you handled yourself in the ensuing debates.
What I was offended by is the fact that you appeared to seize on the smallest possible amount of information about a long-dead woman and to decide–based on that nugget of information alone–that
“her standards were slightly below those of what a CHRISTIAN’S should be.”
You then admitted that you hadn’t read any of O’Connor’s work and THEN proceeded to dismiss it wholesale based yet again on one out-of-context paragraph and a whole mess of preconceived notions.
To me that is a sort of prejudice akin to driving by the scene of a five-car-pileup, seeing one woman standing by a mini-van with a crumpled bumper and saying “See, women shouldn’t be allowed to drive because all women drive badly.” You have maybe 1% of the facts and are making sweeping judgments based on that very small amount of information.
Sweeping judgments that are harmful to others.
Ms. O’Connor lived her too-short, very painful life in devout service to the Lord. For you to decide upon one paragraph of information that she hadn’t any Christian standards is appalling. Hence my offence and a degree of my anger.
Could have done without the clarification, to be honest. I would defend myself, but somehow everything I type comes out a little too blunt, a little too rude. So I’ll just say this: I DO apologize for offending you. I do not apologize for sharing an unrefined opinion in a casual environment among (for lack of a better word) friends.
Hopefully we can leave it at that, and agree to disagree.
Oh, yes! I had wanted to come back to this discussion to point out the difference between a Christian author using this language in the context of a fallen human who is lost in darkness and doesn’t know how to come to God–in an ironic and powerful way–and a non Christian author using the name of Christ in flippant or lewd speech. The answer is always in the context! Thank you for this comment.