Showing posts with label The Fiction Writer and His Country. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Fiction Writer and His Country. Show all posts
Monday, October 20, 2008
The Fiction Writer and His Country
I'd like to look at O'Connor's Fiction Writer and His Country because O'Connor deals with how her work is viewed, how she wants it to be viewed, and the role of the religious writer with a primarily secular (or assumed secular) audience.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
The Fiction Writer and His Country
I know this essay has come up in class already, but "The Fiction Writer and His Country" hits home on a topic very dear to me and I would love to discuss this essay in class.
I'm not sure what year this essay was published, but it's definitely something that rings true today. Artists of all media are often criticized by outsiders for being negative, that they should project what's right with the world or this country.
In particular, I'm thinking of documentary filmmakers and journalists who don't toe the government line and are criticized as anti-American. Though not the main argument of this essay, one thing O'Connor touches on is the notion that it the role of the artist to look at that which most would not look. Another way to put it is giving voice to the voiceless.
If the media only speak for those who are successful and have a voice, who speaks for the voiceless? If a country aspires to an ideal, how can it achieve that ideal than if someone is pointing out where its shortcomings so that they can be corrected?
It's not a denial of the happy things, but, as O'Connor says, discussing happy things is the business of advertising agencies. If people want to see happiness they can watch sit-coms.
I particularly love her one line, which seeks to justify the use of violence and the grotesque in art: "...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."
I'm not sure what year this essay was published, but it's definitely something that rings true today. Artists of all media are often criticized by outsiders for being negative, that they should project what's right with the world or this country.
In particular, I'm thinking of documentary filmmakers and journalists who don't toe the government line and are criticized as anti-American. Though not the main argument of this essay, one thing O'Connor touches on is the notion that it the role of the artist to look at that which most would not look. Another way to put it is giving voice to the voiceless.
If the media only speak for those who are successful and have a voice, who speaks for the voiceless? If a country aspires to an ideal, how can it achieve that ideal than if someone is pointing out where its shortcomings so that they can be corrected?
It's not a denial of the happy things, but, as O'Connor says, discussing happy things is the business of advertising agencies. If people want to see happiness they can watch sit-coms.
I particularly love her one line, which seeks to justify the use of violence and the grotesque in art: "...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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)