How objects work in Theft and Magic

****Catch up post****

I'm really interested in inanimate objects in stories and how they can play really important parts in telling stories, often even driving the story. In Magic, it is definitely the hair. Hair is told not only in the story we are reading, but also in the story that the Madame is hearing. Hair represents power, and when someone else has your hair, they have power over you. In the case of Magic, it takes it another step further and it is always women who have power over other women.

In Theft, I think it is a couple things. Obviously, it is the purse with the woman. It is the McGuffin, it drives the story where it is supposed to go, but it isn't all that important itself. The women at the end of the story believe it holds something more, but then neither of them end up wanting it, because I think it does lose its power or appeal to them. It's just a purse.
I also think it is the hat. The man's hat that cannot get wet. The hats he wears are described in great detail. Why? It's probably because the hat fits into the material theme in the story.

Struggling artists in Theft

I'm having a hard time finding more in Theft than gender relations and everything else we've already talked about so I'll just aim low at something minor. Once again for Porter, in this story we see a string of struggling artists depicted rather unfavorably. First, we have Roger: presumably a painter of some kind whose gallery showing is mentioned. Roger tells the protagonist that "nothing has sold yet" at his show but that he means "to keep right on the way that I'm going and they can take it or leave it." The implication here seems to be that Roger thinks his work is not selling because people don't understand/appreciate what he is doing, that it could not possibly be that his art is simply not so good. This is an interesting phenomenon that I encounter often enough myself: 'artists' who have no audience so far but still imagine a relationship with one. "It's absolutely a matter of holding out," the woman tells Roger, as if his nonexistent audience is pushing him to cater to some elusive tastes.

The next struggling artist encountered in Theft is Bill, the playwright. Bill is upset because a director has canceled his play. He is offended by this, out of what seems to be some sense of being 'owed' praise or attention. Bill lives beyond his means, owing money to an ex-wife, a Victrola, a piano and the protagonist herself. Perhaps he is counting on profits from plays yet to be written or produced, in a way trying to live out the character of an extravagant, successful artist. Then of course we have the woman, who is mentioned as writing some scenes with Bill.

I think, in this story, Porter portrays (non successful) artists as whiners and social climbers with delusions of grandeur, who live in poverty, but with an implied assumption that they will one day be recognized. Maybe not, I'm just reaching for something to say really but if anyone else has something to add to this feel free.

Masculinity in Theft

I loved how KAP used a prop as simple as a hat to mark such profound differences between her male characters. Genius characterization! In a few deft strokes, KAP gives us Camilo's humble circumstances and his pride. His refusal to take off his hat in the rain allows the reader an intuitive understanding of his sense of chivalry. He is almost immediately foiled by Roger in one of Katherine Anne Porter's most profound and subtle comments on masculinity: Roger, who could easily afford a new hat, does not feel the need to protect his pride by affecting a lack of concern over his material property (whereas Camilo, who clearly cannot afford a new hat, insists on pretending that the destruction of his property is of little consequence). I'm tagging this as a "masculinity" theme because the relationship between each man and his hat touches implicitly on courtship through the observations of the woman.
And note: Roger puts his hat under his coat to keep it from getting wet, with "his long, imperterbable face...streaming with water." I can't believe it took me two readings to recognize the patent absurdity of protecting a HAT from RAIN by putting it under your coat while your HEAD gets WET. (This sense of obvious absurdity repeats itself in the story again, both when Bill whines about finances and shows off his fancy new rug in the same breathe, and when the laundry woman brings back the purse only to turn the accusation of theft back on the purse's original owner.)

power relations in Magic

Power relations are really what struck me for this re-read.  Forgive me if we have already covered this.  I do not remember, but I did not see any previous posts on it.

So since we know the plot already, we can focus on other things more acutely this time.  I was looking at how different the structure is.  We begin with the narrator's words in something like a quasi second person narration.  Madame Blanchard is addressed throughout, but she only has two lines of her own dialogue.  These must be there for a reason.

Perhaps they show that power relations are not what they seem.  The first line is about the narrator pulling too hard on her hair.  It is ironic, that Madame Blanchard is the lady of the house, yet within the context of this story, it is the narrator maid that gets all the power.  We only have her words to rely on as truth, and she quite literally has Madame Blanchard by the hair.

The second line is "Yes, and then?" which hints that she is so enthralled in the narrator's story to be at the mercy of it.  Thus the power structure is inverted:  the servant has power not only over Madame Blanchard, but also over us, by being the only vessel through which we are getting information.

Discussion: Gender in Theft and Magic

For discussion on Friday I would like to discuss the ideas of women and how Katherine Anne Porter portrays them. With "Theft," some things I was wondering include what his her relationship with these men and who knows about it? Also why is the female narrator never named even though we get the names of the men she meets? Also who gave her the purse is it one of the men we are introduced to or is it another male/person? If it is another person how does this person play a role in her life and how does that reflect her actions when the purse is stolen? For "Magic," I was wondering why does Porter develop this story in which a woman is competing, controlling and mistreating another woman? Also how do the men in this story play an important role? Also what can we say about the structure of the story, the conversation between Madame Blanchard and the girl brushing her hair? Why is the conversation between these women important?

Otherness in Maria Concepcion

****Catch up post****

I don't really have a whole lot to say that hasn't been said about Maria Concepcion. I was thinking about using this story in my essay, but I'm thinking against it. The reason being because I am writing about otherness in the Mexico stories, and I just think the MC would complicate things for me. MC tells about otherness through the "other's" eyes. Except that the person writing the story is not the other. I am not saying that Porter is a bad writer, or this is was a bad move on her part, but I cannot take anything in the story too seriously because she is still writing as an outsider. Even if she lived in Mexico, she is still not Mexican.

Actually, now that I'm writing this post, I just got a bunch of ideas on how I can use this story to benefit my essay. I love blogging!

The Body in "Flowering Judas"

Usually we talk about O'Connor's focus on the body, and specifically how it makes her work Grotesque. (Most recently in my mind is the film reel that Mrs. Shortley saw of the heaped up bodies after the Holocaust; her revelation, and the question, Who will remain whole? and the stroke when she joined that heap of bodies in the family car.)

But "Flowering Judas" has a real dismemberment of character, their limbs removed from their selves. Braggioni considers Laura the "simple girl who covers her great round breasts with thick dark cloth, who hides long, invaluably beautiful legs under a heavy skirt," her clothes the physical manifestation of that "holy talismanic word" No. (97) Laura keeps her body hidden away.

Whereas Braggioni puts his body on full display. He spills over the "straight-backed chair [that is] much too small for him", and "heaves himself into song", his fatness affecting not just his appearance but his behavior, his actions (90). When he's singing to Laura, "he sits pampering his bones in easy billows of fat" (98), his skeleton swallowed by the rest of his body. Even before Braggioni's fat years his body had nothing to hide. When he was young and desirable "he was so scrawny all his bones showed under his thin cotton clothing, and he could squeeze his emptiness to the very backbone with his two hands" (98).

Why the disconnect between young, skinny Braggioni and fat, older Braggioni? Is his hidden skeleton the core of him, those experiences in youth which direct a man in maturity? Is Braggioni's fat holy and talismanic, like Laura's No?

And what of the body of the guitar? When Braggioni plays it, "the strings of the instrument complain like exposed nerves" (98); Braggioni "curves his swollen fingers around the throat of the guitar and softly smothers the music out of it" (100). Braggioni is murdering the guitar, he's strangling the music from it; Laura is confined within her thick, unbecoming clothes (who is she under there?); Braggioni's skeleton is hidden deep within him.

Are they all so different, after all? All of them surrounded, all of them confined . . . Laura denies temptations, Braggioni denies himself nothing, and the guitar is something to be played, and used, at his discretion. For Braggioni, Laura is much the same as the guitar: an instrument of revolution. But Laura and Braggioni bear more resemblance to each other than they would probably like to admit, each of them hidden within themselves, Laura keeping her motives and desires safe and Braggioni swallowing his jilting and the kitchen sink.

Flowering Judas

While reading Flowering Judas I looked at the gender roles and how they portray negative roles for women. IN Flowering Judas. Laura develops these negative roles because she allows for Braggioni to control her. In the beginning of the story all she wants to do is go to bed but Braggioni is there so she is polite and allows him to play her a song she even asks him to play his favorite song if he does not have a new one. Later, Laura states, "sometimes she wishes to run away but she stays "(92). She never leaves she spends all her time wanting to achieve action but she is subbmissive and allows Braggioni and Eugenio to control her. Eugenio controls Laura from the grave even though his death was not entirely her fault she takes all the blame and is haunted by him. Braggioni also controls his wife, she stays at home while he partakes in the "revolution". Then when he returns home she treats him like a king, washing his feet and what not. These women in this story lay down their independence and allow these men to control them. What is Porter doing with this and why??

Gender in Maria Concepcion

So, today in my Shakespeare class, we were talking about how gender can be considered a performance (I believe we have had a similar discussion in this class as well).  I think this notion of gender as a performance could be applied to Maria Concepcion.  In many ways she is just performing her gender as she is cooking for her husband and taking care of the baby.  These are just things that women are expected to do.  It is interesting how Maria Concepcion is introduced.  This is why I first wanted to read the story (way back a couple months ago), because I was so interested in how we keep just getting little tidbits of information.  She is described as standing up straight and lugging fowls to clean and sell to the market.  This strikes me as kind of a masculine thing to do because she has to slit their necks, and it shows that she is the one who is supporting (or helping to support) her and her husband.  After that, she switches into the more "feminine" role of taking dinner to Juan and talking to the neighbors.  

Also, I think there may be some unexplored symbolism with honey.  Most analyses that I could make would be fairly obvious, but I especially think it is interesting that Maria Concepcion is buying some of Maria's honey when she first sees Juan with Maria Rosa.  

Braggioni and Mexico

So for the readings last night, I focused mainly on Flowering Judas because I started seeing Braggioni in a new light. The topic I am writing about is otherness and the Mexico stories and I think that Braggioni could represent an image of Mexico.

In the last class, we talked about how Mrs. Shortley was described as sort of a mythical creature and I think Braggioni is described in a similar way. I actually got an image of Jabba the Hut in my head, and Laura was like Princess Lea (I swear I'm not a Star Wars junkie!). I thought that this could be an image of Mexico through Porter's eyes (as Laura). Laura feels almost like a fake being in Mexico and doing what she is doing, yet she still connects herself with Braggioni. He is mythical, untouchable in many ways, and he could be the ineffable that Porter tries to attain while trying to integrate herself in the Mexican culture. Perhaps she felt she did since she wrote Maria Conception through the eyes of Mexicans.

Actually, as I'm writing this blog and thinking about my paper topic, I realized I need to actually research Mexico and the culture...

There is something so wrong and unnatural about Braggioni that he seems right. Could he be the exotic other representation of Mexico?

Maria Concepcion - Gender

As I was rereading Maria Concepcion today, I was actually drawn to the question of female roles in the story, as well. I found that Juan strayed from a woman who was, in many ways, superior to him; he was drawn to a younger, more fragile girl. Maria Concepcion is portrayed as an extremely independent, strong woman. What surprises me each time I read this story is the face that Maria C. blames Maria Rosa for the affair. After she witnesses it, Porter explains, "her anger against him died, and her anger against Maria Rosa grew" (pg 8). Being that Maria C. is represented with strength, almost as powerful as any man in the story, I would think that she'd understand Juan's faults in the situation. Because Maria C. is a female in Mexico, "...she [was] being punished for her pride" (pg 9). Had Juan paid for his own wedding, there would not have been such talk around town. Maria C. is portrayed as being at fault for the outcome of her marriage, mainly because she is undeserving of her power as a woman.

Gender/Sexuality in Maria C.

I wanted to post some of the questions that I am going to ask tomorrow so you guys can think over them while reading "Maria Concepcion". I am interested on how gender and sexuality are constructed in this story. I am trying to figure out what Porter is trying to do with the women in this story and want to explore what it means to be female in Mexico (vs. the United States). I find that there seems to be a stark difference between Maria Rosa and Maria Concepcion. While Maria Rosa has more "freedom" in her love/sex life, she ends up dead at the end of the story. She is young and opinionated and risks her life by going to war. Maria Concepcion is holding up the norms that are expected of her as a wife and religious woman, but she becomes a murderer. As a murderer, Maria is protected by the mother of her victim and the community, even though she slowly has distanced herself from her friends. She is unable to have her own child, and takes Maria Rosa's child and treats it as her own. Both women desire a man who is cowardly, vain, and lazy. I am not sure what to make out of all of these things, so hopefully this helps you guys to get thinking about the ideas that are presented.

Marriage in the Church

Juan Villegas' relationships with Maria Rosa and Maria Concepcion were different but his attitude towards both women was extremely selfish and insensitive. When he describes the way he feels about both of them to Givens he explains that he expects Maria Concepcion to be silent and subservient because she is his wife. He then says that Maria Rosa sometimes talks so much that he needs to hit her but that she pleases him more than his wife. When Maria Concepcion kills her husband's lover, her neighbors protect her from the law because "she is a woman of good reputation among [them], and Maria Rosa was not" (pg19). Maria Concepcion is a more sympathetic character in general because she was married in the church. I think that Katherine Anne Porter is suggesting that future generations of Mexicans who desire political change should be quiet and patient like Maria Concepcion. She didn't directly oppose Juan but was empowered enough to oppose him through the support of the institution of marriage and the opinion of the community. Maria Rosa died because she was a revolutionary who opposed tradition and was openly rebellious, but her son will learn how to bring about social change from his adopted mother, Maria Concepcion.

A Catholic D.P.

****Catch up post*****

So for a while my internet was not working, and I'm finally going to sit down and catch up on the posts. But I'm changing the dates so as to not disrupt the blogging flow.

We talked about in class that the DP might actually be Catholic and not Jewish. I had never thought of this before that particular class, and now I'm a little ashamed of myself. Granted, I do not know a whole lot about either religions, but I kind of feel like I fell into some racism in thinking that the Jews were the only ones being displaced.

I do find it interesting though, but I'm not really sure what to think of it, considering that not only is O'Connor Catholic, but racist. The DP is obviously murdered, after being treated terribly throughout the story through the narrative. However, when he dies everything falls apart (but maybe they were already falling apart, because of Mrs. Shortley's stroke?). His religion is described as primitive, so I guess I'm not sure how this would apply to O'Connor. I wish I had thought about this in class, but not I'm just putting the two together.

O'Connor Continued

After discussing "A Good Man..." and "The Displaced Person," in class, I've continued to think about the appearance of violence and grace in O'Connor's stories. Austin made an interesting point today, examining the idea that the beauty of O'Connor's works lies in her characters, whom she must love and sympathize with...they represent everyday people, whom we come across frequently...but what makes her stories intriguing is that she throws events of violence and grace at her characters, and allows us to watch how they handle the situations.

I think that I attempt to find the deeper messages O'Connor is giving us, and I miss the simple ones. She hands us simple characters who tend to be, quite frequently, stereotypes. The are people, who, if we ran into them on the street, we wouldn't know whether or not to take them seriously.

I keep wondering, does the misfit shoot the grandma by accident, in response to her moment of grace? In reference to Vince's topic for his paper...I wonder if violence occurs "on camera" in "A Good Man..." because it is unintentional? We hear gunshots off camera, yet we witness the grandmother's moment of grace...O'Connor only allows us to see the Misfit shoot her, in reaction to her calling him her son. In O'Connor's letter on page 1125, she says, "His shooting her is a recoil, a horror at her humanness." I think it is possible that O'Connor shows us this image because it is an accident on the Misfit's part. I don't doubt that his intentions in the story are to kill the grandmother, but I disagree with the timing. Maybe the only reason why this image is revealed to us is because it was on impulse...

The Misfit says, "It's no real pleasure in life" (pg. 153). Bobby Lee finds pleasure in his actions off camera, while the MIsfit finds his reasoning in the occurrence on camera.

O'Connor continues to confuse me, as she leads her characters to contradict themselves. My question today was, "Does O'Connor express her true opinions in her letters, but demonstrate her doubts/confusions through her characters in her stories? The reason why I am so hung up on O'Connor using her characters to portray her own opinions is because of the letter we discussed on page 1208. O'Connor writes to Maryat Lee, (Grace Bug) and tells her that if Griffin sat down next to her on a bus, she would have gotten up and sat by a "genuine Negro." She goes on to say, "I prefer Cassius Clay. "If a tiger move into the room with you...Just means you know you and him can't make out. Too much talk about hate'" (pg. 1208-1209).

So if this is O'Connor's genuine opinion, then how can we rule out the stereotypical characters she has created, and the assumption that they represent her own ideas? There is good and evil in everyone, and we all have doubts sometimes, even on topics that we stand strongly on...is it possible that the "ignorant" and "deplorable" judgements which her characters portray represent O'Connor's underlying uncertainties?

Maria Concepcion

On reading "Maria Concepcion" a second time, I am struck by the concealment of Maria's emotions. Even at the begining of the story when her thoughts on Givens are revealed, these opinions are almost glossed over. The whole story seems to revolve around everyone else in the story even though she is such a central character and the title is her name. I will put together some questions that deal more closely with questions from my topic, however I did notice Porter's ommision of Maria's inner feelings beyond her breakdown.

Second Glance: The Peacock Continues!

To continue with the discussion of the peacock:

I googled "peacock symbolism" and found it, again, to represent resurrection, but I found it also stands for immortality.

I find the opening scene an extremely interesting display. We are shown a peacock walking directly behind Mrs. Shortley up to the hill where they could see the entire countryside. Mrs. Shortley-- before we have any clue to her personality--is described as in "nature terms." She is mountainous in confidence, her strength comes from her "bulges of granite" that are her legs, and her eyes are compared to "icy blue points of light." Mrs. Shortley's character seems powerful and dominate over the landscape. She seems natural, a part of nature. When the two figures reach the top of the hill, however, it is the peacock who has the ability to see "something in the distance no one else could see." He doesn't have the blazing eyes--symbols of truth-- that Mrs. Shortley has, yet he can see what is unseen, a metaphorical instance of his ability to see the truth.

Funny then, that the peacock follows behind Mrs. Shortley, as if he knows she is incomplete, that her human nature, even her connection to the earth, is not natural, but falls short (oh the names...). The peacock symbolizes resurrection and immortality, two features that remain absence in Mrs. Shortly. In his procession behind her, he seems to mock her in the same way a person who knows of a pothole in the road would mock his enemy who he gave the privilege of being the "line leader."

The peacocks in this story, however, may not be as symbolically immortal as we thought. Mrs. Shortley used to have "twenty or thirty of those things on the place but [she] let them die off." Mrs. Shortley controlled their lives and their deaths.

Additionally, the priest, the very person who reveres the peacock for having so many "spots of sun" on its feathers and compares it to Christ, is described as naiive and almost incompetent. Who would be so ignorant as to leave the displaced person--a person, I still believed to have suffered through the Holocaust--in the hands of a xenophobic, discriminatory, unjust woman? The priest-- in the same way he is bewitched by the peacock-- seems bewitched by the idea that every person must have some kind of hospitality/altruistic ideal in him/her.

Maybe then, the peacock in this story symbolizes our naiive desires/ natural instincts to support the preconcieved notions we have already contrived about the world around us. Maybe the peacock really symbolizes our eagerness to conform to patterns set out for us....

The Displaced Person on the Second Read

Hello again! Oh, how I have missed blogging! I am not sure what we will be discussing in class today, so I'll just go on my own little path. As I am reading these stories for a second time, one thing that I am most interested in is the beginning of the stories. I think that a lot of the time, when I am reading a story for the first time, I am mainly reading for plot, so a lot of the symbolism or intricacies of the first page are lost on me as I am trying to figure out the setting, characters, and the basic plot. On the second read though, I already know the plot and the basic characters, so I am able to look at the structure of the story and some of the symbolism.

I think one of the biggest symbols in this story is the peacock. I am very interested in the symbolism of the peacock in Flannery O'Connor's stories, but I can't remember discussing the peacock in class last time (although that may have been the class I missed). The first copy of "A Good Man is Hard To Find" that I owned was yellow with a picture of a peacock and a woman following behind the peacock (a picture from the beginning of this story?). I did a little google search (I need to stop) and found what Cassie blogged previously, that in Christian art, peacocks represent immortality and its feathers represent omnipotence. Then, I found a website that said, "in the early part of the 20th century in the West, it was considered very bad luck to keep them in the home." Hmmmm.... These two interpretations are in contrast to one another, yet I think that they both work in this story. Is it fair to blame bad luck on a peacock, though?

I also thought it would be interesting to relate this to the idea of xenophobia. The peacock is kind of "the other" on a farm, isn't it? It's not a chicken, you can't eat it, that makes it kind of an odd animal to have. I think the peacock could be related to some of the bigger issues of xenophobia in this story. (And there's a sentence I never thought I would say!)

Okay, so I just reread Cassie's post from last time and I really like her connection between the eyes of the peacock and how Guizac is treated. I think this is a great connection between the symbolism and the xenophobia in the story.