Take a photo of a barcode or cover
mattdube 's review for:
Wise Blood
by Flannery O'Connor
I think this is the second or third time I've attempted this book, and this time I made it all the way through. I love O'Connor's short stories, and last summer visited O'Connor's old farm in GA and wished, wished deeply there was more O'Connor for me to read the first time, which really only left the novels, and still it took me another six months to get started.
My conclusion? Those people who say O'Connor is a better short story writer than novelist have it right. There are elements here, some of which are those same elements that make her stories sparkle-- cracked and weird descriptions of things that you're all too likely to see in real life, characters that are wracked and tormented by voices larger than themselves, some real wickedness from man to man, only some of it unintentional. But in the process of writing a novel, it's like O'Connor loses the determining elements of size and scope and then goes a little off the rail, loses the power of judgment.
Here, the narrative is a bit like a short story, only for three characters instead of one (I'm taking the "blind" minister as the protagonist that third story, though of course you could disagree-- really it's Hazel and the boy from the zoo, and maybe the preacher's daughter.... but this ambiguity proves me point). And the two or three stories start out parallel, or least propping each other up and feeding each other. But that drifts apart, after a while, so we've got a couple-three different stories going, without a clear sense of what's at stake.
The ending more or less just peters out-- the longish epilogue of Hazel and his landlady probably isn't really necessary, and I wonder about the theft of the tiny man... O'Connor writes well-observed, dynamic, funny sentences that you want to read, but here at least they don't seem to be going anywhere in particular. Maybe by summer I'll give "The Violent Bear It Away" a shot, or maybe I'll wait another decade.
My conclusion? Those people who say O'Connor is a better short story writer than novelist have it right. There are elements here, some of which are those same elements that make her stories sparkle-- cracked and weird descriptions of things that you're all too likely to see in real life, characters that are wracked and tormented by voices larger than themselves, some real wickedness from man to man, only some of it unintentional. But in the process of writing a novel, it's like O'Connor loses the determining elements of size and scope and then goes a little off the rail, loses the power of judgment.
Here, the narrative is a bit like a short story, only for three characters instead of one (I'm taking the "blind" minister as the protagonist that third story, though of course you could disagree-- really it's Hazel and the boy from the zoo, and maybe the preacher's daughter.... but this ambiguity proves me point). And the two or three stories start out parallel, or least propping each other up and feeding each other. But that drifts apart, after a while, so we've got a couple-three different stories going, without a clear sense of what's at stake.
The ending more or less just peters out-- the longish epilogue of Hazel and his landlady probably isn't really necessary, and I wonder about the theft of the tiny man... O'Connor writes well-observed, dynamic, funny sentences that you want to read, but here at least they don't seem to be going anywhere in particular. Maybe by summer I'll give "The Violent Bear It Away" a shot, or maybe I'll wait another decade.