Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.67 AVERAGE
3.67 AVERAGE
idk I don't think I'm smart enough for Flannery O'Connor. Admittedly I only picked this up because it's the name sake of musical genius Weyes Blood. Not "bad" in a traditional sense but just hard to follow. Can't really tell you what happens.
A brilliant writer, but I’m not interested in reading any more of her work. It’s Southern gothic in style, with the ever-present threat of violence, and a constant parade of contemptible people. It is unrelentingly grim. I don’t mind serious, heavy, depressing stories, but they have to have at least a little humanity to make them bearable.
It’s like Carson McCullers without the compassion, and Charles Portis without the humour.
It’s like Carson McCullers without the compassion, and Charles Portis without the humour.
adventurous
dark
mysterious
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Short and sweet:
I wanted to love this story, so so much, and there were parts that I absolutely did -- no one paints a character quite like O'Connor, but there was something that kept pulling me out of the story and I kept drifting off. I have experienced this before with reading early-mid-20th century literature, which is the colloquial style language comes of awkward and dated to me, and I have a hard time really digging into the writing. There is sort of a dissonance that prevents the story from gripping me. It is a terrible thing, and I hope with more time and experience in read early and mid 10th century literature it will improve.
I will give it a go some other time, but for the first time read it didn't go well.
I did, however, really enjoy reading about the book and the aspects of it, as well as about O'Connor herself. If you are a person who is not dense, unlike myself apparently (!), the nuances in this book, symbolism and tragedy will leap of the page. The after-the-fact explanations about the book were definitely more than enough to make me appreciate the books merit.
I wanted to love this story, so so much, and there were parts that I absolutely did -- no one paints a character quite like O'Connor, but there was something that kept pulling me out of the story and I kept drifting off. I have experienced this before with reading early-mid-20th century literature, which is the colloquial style language comes of awkward and dated to me, and I have a hard time really digging into the writing. There is sort of a dissonance that prevents the story from gripping me. It is a terrible thing, and I hope with more time and experience in read early and mid 10th century literature it will improve.
I will give it a go some other time, but for the first time read it didn't go well.
I did, however, really enjoy reading about the book and the aspects of it, as well as about O'Connor herself. If you are a person who is not dense, unlike myself apparently (!), the nuances in this book, symbolism and tragedy will leap of the page. The after-the-fact explanations about the book were definitely more than enough to make me appreciate the books merit.
dark
emotional
funny
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Disturbing but memorable.
dark
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
dark
sad
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
An absolute surreal trip.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Ableism, Racial slurs, Violence
First read: February 16, 2014
Second read: November 8, 2015
More like a 3.5]
I'm confused, which is not a bad thing because I'm fairly certain I'm not supposed to know what actually happened. Which is good, because I certainly don't know what actually happened.
Don't get me wrong, it was... good? interesting? a trainwreck I couldn't look away from? pleasantly pointless or disturbingly attractive? I'm not sure. I think I need to read it again a few times to see if I can track any definite symbolism throughout the book that would tie it together better.
I'm not sure what to think about Haze. Or Enoch. Or Asa or Sabbath or Shoats or the Prophet or the (mildly creepy) landlady... or any of it. They're grotesque and unpleasant and not exactly role models (gosh, Sabbath). But at the same time you like them. I'm not sure why. You just do. Haze - especially towards the end - has a pathetic, wistful, broken quality that you just want to fix (even though you're fully aware that he murdered someone in cold blood [no pun intended]). Enoch... you just feel sorry for Enoch. (What was with the gorilla suit? I need commentaries.) And why Asa and Sabbath are so likable, I have no idea, because they are scum, but still very... human scum.
I've said before that reading Flannery O'Connor gives me the same feeling that reading Eliot does, though not as powerfully - it doesn't really matter that you understand what you're reading, as long as you get the atmosphere/undercurrent of meaning. Which doesn't make it much less frustrating when everything seems so incredibly pointless and random, but it still helps a little. I do think I'll need to read it over a few times with the advantages of others' analyses and commentaries. It's intriguing enough to pull that off.
Second read: November 8, 2015
More like a 3.5]
I'm confused, which is not a bad thing because I'm fairly certain I'm not supposed to know what actually happened. Which is good, because I certainly don't know what actually happened.
Don't get me wrong, it was... good? interesting? a trainwreck I couldn't look away from? pleasantly pointless or disturbingly attractive? I'm not sure. I think I need to read it again a few times to see if I can track any definite symbolism throughout the book that would tie it together better.
I'm not sure what to think about Haze. Or Enoch. Or Asa or Sabbath or Shoats or the Prophet or the (mildly creepy) landlady... or any of it. They're grotesque and unpleasant and not exactly role models (gosh, Sabbath). But at the same time you like them. I'm not sure why. You just do. Haze - especially towards the end - has a pathetic, wistful, broken quality that you just want to fix (even though you're fully aware that he murdered someone in cold blood [no pun intended]). Enoch... you just feel sorry for Enoch. (What was with the gorilla suit? I need commentaries.) And why Asa and Sabbath are so likable, I have no idea, because they are scum, but still very... human scum.
I've said before that reading Flannery O'Connor gives me the same feeling that reading Eliot does, though not as powerfully - it doesn't really matter that you understand what you're reading, as long as you get the atmosphere/undercurrent of meaning. Which doesn't make it much less frustrating when everything seems so incredibly pointless and random, but it still helps a little. I do think I'll need to read it over a few times with the advantages of others' analyses and commentaries. It's intriguing enough to pull that off.
Odd book. Sometimes funny, but the characters really were rather obnoxious and quite disturbed. The message is that nobody listens to others?