Flowering Judas: A Story of the Betrayal of Ambiguities

Flowering Judas is a story of betrayal. While the reader assumes this betrayal to be one of a physical nature, Porter’s intensions are otherwise. In this story, there is no “faith” that is not betrayed in some way or the other. I use the word faith loosely because the many “faiths” upheld by the characters in this story do not necessarily stem from a religious perspective. Take, for example, Braggioni. He is the leader of a revolution that fights to redistribute wealth to the general populous, yet, he indulges himself in fine luxuries. In contrast to these “faiths” is Laura, who, loving both her Roman Catholic faith and her political faith cannot divorce herself from either, though the revolution she supports has rejected Catholicism.

Not only is the idea of betrayal prevalent throughout Flowering Judas, it is also ambiguous. Unable to make opposing beliefs coincide, the characters find themselves lost and ultimately unable to achieve their different ideas of self-actualization and are, in turn, lost in a sea of ambiguity. Likewise, the flowering Judas tree serves as a symbol for the ambiguity experienced by these characters. We first see the Judas tree when Laura rejects a suitor by throwing a flower from the tree at him. The flower, traditionally a sign of love, is, of course, misconstrued by the admirer as a token of Laura’s affection. In addition, this tree, in it self aesthetically pleasing, stands for ultimate betrayal. In her nightmare, Laura eats the sensuous flower from the tree, similar to the way in which Eve eats the forbidden fruit. The flower is a beautiful disguise of personal intent from both receiver and giver alike. Thus, Laura is blinded by her beautiful faiths and cannot understand why she is unable to achieve the perfection she so desires. Furthermore, the name “Judas” refers to the name of Jesus’ disciple who betrayed Him and led Him to death.

(Deep Breath: THE END!)

Laura's Self Betrayal

(my previous post was blank, sorry.) While reading Porter's "Flowering Judas," I found myself assuming, along with some of the class, that Laura would suffer betrayal in the end. However, I've decided that Laura brings fear of betrayal on herself, without Braggioni's influence. Laura lives her life in fear, letting no on in, but at the same time, surrounding herself with people who give off the impression of betrayal. She feels out of place when she is awake, and when she is sleeping. She walks down the street in fear, and turns down love when it hits her right in the face. The story captures the idea of living life, anticipating the worst, and never letting love or happiness in. Each night, Laura comes home to Braggioni, dreading the aggressiveness that he is portrayed as having, and anticipating him coming towards her, in which case she will timidly say no. She imagines this happening each time she comes home, but it never does. Laura robs herself of happiness, leaving nothing for her to live for, and it is her own fault for blocking out both the threatening people in her life, and the ones reaching out to her, looking for love.

Another thing...what is the symbolism, if any, for kneeling, and "knees" in general? It kept popping out at me, and I think it represents vulnerability...what do you think?

Re: Re: The Tree of Betrayal

Brad makes a great point regarding Laura's stoicism (and her parallel with the protagonist in "Theft"). There is this unexplained resignation within her. But why?

The Mexican revolutionaries follow Braggioni for one of two reasons: a) They don't see the real person, only the image he's projected, or b) Like him or not, following him is the best option for their quality of life and possibly survival.

It can't be b) for Laura, as she has a home elsewhere and as far as we know would be able to return but chooses not to. It's certainly not a) because she knows the true Braggioni and seems to despise him.

You bring up a great point: What led her to this stoicism?

Flowering Judas

While reading “The Flowering of Judas,” I kept waiting for the theme of betrayal which I assumed would be obvious; however, betrayal seemed to be how Laura felt not an obvious act. To me it seemed as if Laura felt that she had betrayed her own beliefs in religion. I think her secretly doing “Hail Marys” shows her struggle with the catholic religion as well as the title of the story. It seems to me that Laura does not know what to do in her specific situation with Braggioni and it consumes her thoughts and isolates her from the world around her.
It also seems as if Laura believes she betrayed Eugenio, due to her dream where she asks for his hand and all he does is gives her the blossoms of the Judas Tree, and when she eats them and he then calls her a “Murderer” and states that it is his “body and his blood”. So Laura not only feels guilty as if she murdered Eugenio the only person she does not isolate herself from but also uses the Christian theme of taking the Eucharist as an expression of betrayal due to Judas’s actions during the last supper and his betrayal to Jesus.

Political Narrative

I think the pervasive Biblical references in "Flowering Judas" suggest the overwhelming importance of narrative in political movements. As was pointed out, Braggioni's wish washes his feet as though he is Jesus. It seems difficult to accept Braggioni as a Christ figure, given what we know about his morals and manners. Yet, in order for any revolution or political movement to have life, there must be a supporting narrative to convince followers (and leaders) that they are justified in their beliefs and actions. (When Laura admits she won't wear lace made by machine, an idea counter to the revolution, it is called her "private heresy," framing political ideals is clearly religious terms) (92).

Braggioni frames himself as a prophet--perhaps a Christ figure--but unlike Christ, Braggioni is a "professional" who "will never die of it"(98). Yet, in the teleological narrative of the revolution, there is an expected apocalyptic endpoint: Braggioni claims that "Some day this world, now so composed and eternal...shall be merely a tangle of gaping trenches, of crashing walls and broken bodies" (100). If he is a prophet or a Christ figure, he must see himself as one of the few surviving "elect spirits destined to procreate a new world" (100).

In the driving political narrative, I had to wonder about Laura's place. She only half-heartedly buys into Braggioni's prophet character. But does she still accept and believe in the teleological pseudo-religious narrative of the revolution? She seems enamoured with her own role: she enjoys playing the spy, the go-between. Certainly, it's glamourous. I think this is the core of her betrayal of Eugenio. As an expat, she doesn't have a vested interest in the revolution in the sense that she doesn't have to put herself in these dangers for the sake of her home country. Yet real patriots like Eugenio are committing suicide in prison. Reading the reference to cannibalism in here, I think Laura can be considered a cannibal in the sense that she is feeding off the narrative of a revolution which is not her own.

On a side note, something to consider for the second part of the course: Did Porter have anxieties about "feeding" off of Mexico? Did she have anxieties about living the glamourous life of an expat and using the stories of the people of a country which was not originally her own?

Flowering Judas

Looking at Porter's plot lines, "Flowering Judas" in particular, I get a real sense of un-resoltions through all the way to the climax, then a slight resolution that instead of staying resolved, ends in an unexpected place. "Flowering Judas" is a prime example of this, the repetition of Laura's beauty, her revolutionary efforts and he suitors all point to a woman who is happy and yet her reactions are so static that we wonder about what is wrong with her. She is seemingly unmotivated by any of the things she encounters, and goes along not trying to change her situation. It almost reminds me if Judas would have lived instead of hanging himself, loosing meaning and love in his life, and yet cannot apply himself towards anything. Laura does so much and yet is uncommitted to any one thing, none of it gives her joy, which, more than anything, dis-empowers a seemingly powerful character. Porter is a master at paradox, especially by introducing biblical themes, and contorting them.

Re: The Tree of Betrayal

My initial reactions after reading this story seem very much like Jessica.  I immediately was drawn to all the Christian symbols and themes.  I agree that betrayal is an important theme here, but I am wondering if it was as simple as Laura betraying Eugenio.  I think that Porter may also be hinting that Laura is betraying herself on a different level.  For whatever reason, Laura has adopted a strong sense of stoicism.  She senses that "violence, mutilation, a shocking death, wait for her with lessening patience" (93).  Even at the end, in her dream, Eugenio is taking her to her death, and she does not protest or fight to live.  It sounds as though she will accept the invitation as long as she can hold his hand (102).  Why has Laura seemingly given up on life?  I think that this is another betrayal:  giving up on herself and her right to live and just continually existing in a detached state of stoicism.

On a side note, I could not help but drawing huge parallels between Laura and the woman in "Theft."  Like the woman in "Theft," Laura is denying herself intimate, personal connections with people, everyone around her "remain strangers to her" (97).  Both women seem to be sabotaging themselves.  I wonder if this view of a woman is what Porter may have had in mind or if the connections just seem so apparent only because "Theft" is so fresh in the mind, only having read it last week.  Did anyone else get a sense of these women being similar in how they view life?

Laura "Hannibal" and loss of faith

I think the line where Eugenio calls Laura a cannibal stuck out for me more than anything. After reading this, I started drawing correlations with the Bible, and this one has really got me stumped! I'm going to go on a controversial limb...

I understand why he calls her a murderer. It is the connection with the Judas blossoms and Judas betraying Jesus, which lead to his death. Since I don't actually know what the connection between Laura and Eugenio is (there was a line about love, but I read it over and over and I cannot seem to grasp it!) I'm not really sure what the value of the murder line is here. I just understood the connection.

Now the cannibal line... I connected this with the loss of her Catholic faith. How I read the story was that she used to be Catholic, but life and especially the revolution has jaded her, and she doesn't really have faith in anything. She is walking this path that she has chosen for herself, but even though she's not fond of it anymore, she doesn't really care to change it. As I understand, during communion, Catholics take and eat and drink the actually blood and body of Christ. This is a literal view of the last supper where Jesus offers these things to his disciples. Can this be where the cannibal comment came from? Or have I just royally offended people by taking such a literal view myself? I guess we can take this more figuratively. The definition of cannibalism is one that eats others of its own kind. I didn't really see Laura as a life sucker of any sort, rather, just a good woman making the steps of the right path yet not really believing in any of it.

I would love to hear comments on this. Possibly from those that have more knowledge on either Catholicism or cannibalism.

The Tree of Betrayal

The use of Christian imagery in “Flowering Judas” was very interesting. Not only is the image of Judas brought about from the title, but the Tree of Knowledge, the infamous last supper and also the image of Mary Magdalene washing Jesus’ feet are all referenced. It is very rare that the name Judas is not associated with Christ’s betrayer. Simply upon reading the title “Flowering Judas”, I knew some sort of betrayal would take place. After Laura eats the blossoms from her Judas tree she is given some kind of knowledge, she is now awake. Before she eats the tree blossoms Eugenio calls her a prisoner and this is why she must eat them. Just as the Tree of Knowledge frees Adam and Eve from their prison like state, this Judas tree will free Laura as well. After she eats the blossoms Eugenio calls her a murderer because she is eating his body and his blood, which bring about images of the Last Supper. She sees that she has betrayed him. I am a little confused of the order in which these events are presented especially when compared to the biblical references. Judas first attends the last supper, where he breaks bread and drinks of the wine and then he goes on to betray Christ. However, in “Flowering Judas” Laura first betrays Eugenio then eats the Judas blossoms, which make her realize her betrayal. Can anyone clarify this for me? Is the order important?

The image of Mary Magdalene washing Jesus’ feet can be seen in the actions of Braggioni’s wife washing her husbands feet once he has returned to her. She sits as his feet with a basin of water just as Mary Magdalene did with Jesus.

Why Mexico?

I sympathize with Vince’s questioning why Laura is in Mexico. I find it strange that Laura has, for no stated reason come to a strange country, and finds herself unable to leave: “Uninvited she has promised herself to this place; she can no longer imagine herself as living in another country, and there is no pleasure in remembering her life before she came here” (93). Laura seems to have disconnected herself from her past, yet she mentions that she learned to ride horses in Arizona even though her gentleman friend does not ask her where she learned to ride. I think Laura likes her anonymity in Mexico. She has the ability to walk wherever she wants because she has no connections, which also allows her to be connected to everyone. I wonder if Porter, who calls herself an expatriate, is relating what it means to have forgotten or decided to leave behind where one comes from and to live wandering from place to place without any real motives or obligations.

Also, I find it interesting that Porter emphasizes, again, the gluttony of her character Braggioni. I think that Porter is once again alluding to Diego Rivera, who is also very politically motivated, and considered an important leader. Other similarities include that Braggioni is insulted by Laura when she is not willing to sleep with him. Also, he indulges in American perfumes, women, and food.

Eugenio

After reading "Flowering Judas" twice, I am still a bit uncertain of the connection between Laura and Eugenio. Accepting that Porter is giving us all the information about their relationship, it's easy to see him as a manifestation of her subconscious both accusing and warning her of her involvement with Braggioni.

It is clear to Laura that Braggioni is using the revolutionaries for his own profit, and she assists Braggioni in playing the Polish and Rumanian agitators against one another. And though she provides some refief to the prisoners she visits, she is well aware that Braggioni is doing nothing to help them get out. Laura is living well off of Braggioni's money and influence, drinking hot chocolate and enjoying a good job, while the prisoners "entertain themselves with counting cockroaches..." (94).

Laura acknowledges her complicity on page 93: "'It may be true I am as corrupt, in another way, as Braggioni,' she thinks in spite of herself, 'as callous, as incomplete,' and if this is so, any kind of death seems preferable."

So when Eugenio, who is assumed to be dead, appears in her dream, leading her to death, and calls her a murderer and a cannibal, this is her subconscious manifesting its guilt over bringing the prisoners drugs in lieu of real help (and in fact possibly making things worse by offering false hope) and the fact that she is living well in cahoots with Braggioni while they are suffering for his profit.

However, I am suspicious of an even deeper connection between the two. Of all the men Laura interacts with, from her suitors to the agitators to the prisoners, only Eugenio is named. Earlier in the story, Laura's virginity is brought up but never fully explored. I doubt that Porter would make mention of this without it bearing some significance on the ending. So I can't help but wonder if there is some deeper connection between Laura and Eugenio. We never know why Laura is there, in a foreign country, with these people, and Braggioni suggests it is either that she loves someone, or someone loves her. And for all the men that Laura visits in prison, why is Eugenio the one that brings her guilt to the surface?

Not sure if there's something to that or if I'm making connections that aren't there, but I'm very curious about the connection between Laura and Eugenio.

The Martyr

Ramon recorded Ruben's last words as "tell them I am a martyr to love. I perish in a cause worthy the sacrifice. I die of a broken heart" but I believe Ruben died not because he loved Isabel, but because he loved food. I read this story as if he died of a heart attack because of his unhealthy lifestyle habits. Ruben convinced himself that he ate because Isabel nicknamed him "Churro" or he wanted to revist the restaurant they often frequented so he would miss her less or stay transfixed with his love for her, but truly, I believe his obsession with Isabel merely covered his obsession with eating and refusal to give up self control. Isabel as a "lover" was merely a distraction and her absence only allowed him to self indulge guiltlessly, blaming his lack of self control on a woman. "Layors of fat piled insidiously upon him" and he killed himself by not listening to the doctor's orders or his friends' pleas. His epitath, would, then, read: I am a martyr to the love of food. I die of a broken, unhealthy heart attack. Perhaps Porter argues that self indulgence only leads to death. Death of the spirit. Death of happiness. In the case of Ruben, physcial death. He would rather die than change his lifestyle and respect/love himself.

Also, after our class discussion about Porter's disdain to the idea of the suffering artist, I realized that another association with artists is the "starving artist," and I couldn't help but chuckle at the idea of Ruben as a starving artist. The humor and irony of the story, then, would reflect not Porter's antipathy toward society's view of the artist as genius only in his suffering, but her mocking sentiment toward people who believe that view. 

Maria Concepcion

I don't remember the last time I read a short story like "Maria Concepcion," a short story that causes me to actually detest every character. This tale reminded me very much of what I am learning about in my physical anthropology class: the roots of human violence, natural selection, primitive instincts, etc. Each character emulates some kind of animalistic nature, the bestial part of human nature. Juan devolves back to the primitive animal state when he refuses to control his sexual longings. Maria Rosa knowingly ruins a functioning marriage. Maria Concepion slits the throat of Maria Rosa then steals her child. Even Givens and Lupe refuse to acknowledge the concept of justice, a civilized and democratic principle, by, respectively, bailing Juan out from prison and announcing out Maria Rosa’s murderer. Irrationality motivates each person, especially Maria Concepcion, who ironically goes to church daily. When she finds out about the affair, her purpose in life becomes “to sit down quietly and wait for death, but not until she had cut the throats of her man and that girl.” Her rationale is that Rosa is a whore with no right to live and eventually builds her anger solely toward the adulteress. Does that truly turn Concepcion’s revenge into a rationalized revenge? I know that revenge, in Christian views, is never rationalized. It all comes down, therefore, to this primitive desire in all of us for survival. Concepcion numbs herself to the surroundings; she can slit the throat of a fowl without flinching and cry no tears for her own dead infant because she knows that the fowl is merely an economic token and asset to prevent starvation and because her child will hinder her new purpose. By the end of the story, Maria Concepcion kills everything her husband loved because he betrayed her. She takes the life of Maria Rosa to increase the likelihood that Concepcion’s family will prosper. I noted too, that the quick resolve to violence is a primitive emotion in humanity as well as in our animal relatives. Chimpanzees, for example, become extremely violent when threatened and studies show they have been observed in enjoying violent actions. Maria Concepcion revealed the inner beast, the barbarism within ever animal threatened with reproductive survival and isolation.

The Human Inability to Reduplicate Christ's Suffering in Perfect Form

In both Maria Concepcion and The Martyr, we see the suffering of individuals. In both cases, these sufferings are induced by others, but are internalized by the afflicted characters in different ways. The afflictions faced by the characters Maria and Rueben parallel Christ’s own suffering. However, both of these characters are human and thus, imperfect, and cannot suffer in the same selfless manner of Christ.

Maria Concepcion’s suffering more closely resembles Christ’s than does Rueben’s. Maria suffers the loss of her newborn child after her husband’s betrayal, but rather than curse him and openly bemoan her pitiful state, she secludes herself and attends church with increasing frequency. However, when Reuben is abandoned by his sitter Isabella, he suffers openly, making his burden the burden of his friends.

Though Maria Concepcion suffers nobly, her downfall is ultimately her desire for vengeance. When Maria Rosa returns with Juan, Maria Concepcion’s husband, Maria Concepcion’s jealously and pride erupts and she murders her husband’s lover. In contrast, Rueben’s downfall is his own self-hatred. Rueben outwardly portrays this hate by eating absurd proportions of food, though he can see how this habit is affecting his health. Ultimately, this gluttonous, self-hatred kills Rueben.

While Maria’s flaw may seem worse than Rueben’s, these characters are judged differently by their peers. After the murder, no one speaks out agaist Maria Concepcion, although they all know she killed Maria Rosa. Furthermore, they do not protest when Maria Concepcion claims Maria Rosa’s baby for her own. In the villagers minds, this action seems just, and Maria Concepcion’s pious life seems to right this immense wrong. In contrast, though Rueben’s suffering harms only himself, no one seems to truly remember him. Rather, one man decides to write a book that will ultimately profit the author, and says that he will truly remember the tamales, Rueben’s favorite dish.

Thus, both Maria and Rueben commit fallacies. While Maria suffers inwardly, Rueben suffers outwardly. Maria’s suffering ends in murder while Rueben’s suffering ends in self-inflicted death. Maria’s peers stand up for her, while Rueben’s merely forget him. Thus, both characters cannot suffer silently for other and are ultimately blinded by their own human desires.

Immaculate Conception of "Maria Concepcion"

I found the word play of “Maria Concepcion” interesting. Before reading this story the title brought to mind the immaculate conception of Mary. As the story progressed I was losing the connection between the title and my original thought considering that Maria Concepcion has a child by her own husband. After the story was over however, I realized that there was somewhat of an ‘immaculate’ conception. Maria Concepcion takes Maria Rosa’s baby as her own after she has killed her. Maria Conception did not conceive this baby, it just happen to come upon her. (I may be stretching a little bit, but I feel as if there is some connection between the title of this short story and biblical references.) She says, “He is mine” and takes the child with her (Porter 20). She raises a child whom she did not conceive, so, to me that appears as if it could be considered an immaculate conception.

There are also times when Maria Concepcion is referred to in such a way as the Virgin Mary would be. When the police are questioning the townspeople, they defend Maria Concepcion saying, “She is a woman of good reputation among us, and Maria Rosa was not” (Porter 19). Maria Concepcion, just like Mary, had a good reputation because she was a virgin and had not sinned, unlike Maria Rosa.

Maria Concepcion is robbed of her husband and her child and therefore she takes Maria Rosa’s life and her child as her own. Does she take Maria Rosa’s child simply because she was deprived of her own? Why does she not kill the child along with his mother, since he was conceived by her husband and another woman?

"The Martyr"

The title of this short story confused me as well at first, being that Ruben didn't sacrifice anything for Isabel, to deserve such a title. I came to the conclusion that Ruben spent a majority of his time convincing his friends that he was worthless, only able to eat and drink his sorrows away. I think Ruben forced the title of "The Martyr" upon himself, desperately reaching out to Isabel, wanting her to know how she broke his heart. He says on page 35, "I have a pain in my heart that will kill me. There is no woman like that one." His friends all viewed his behavior as being stupid, and Ruben went on to prove to them, and everyone else that he did, in fact, have a pain in his heart that would kill him. I think the title of the story comes more from Ruben's perspective than from Porter's. Without the character's view of his broken heart, the title, "The Martyr" feels forced.

O'Connor's Reference: Black lawn jockeys

Class: this image was prevalent in yards throughout the South well into the mid-1960s and often beyond. The black lawn jockey is what The grandfather and son see:
http://www.lawnjock.com/images/blackjockey1.jpg

It probably should have dawned on me that many (all?) of you would never have seen statuary such as this. We have come some disdance after all.

Puzzled over "The Martyr"

"The Martyr" left me with a few questions, and I was wondering if anyone else noticed the same things. On pgs. 35-36, the narrator hints that Ruben's friends know the "true cause of his pain," which does not seem to be Isabel, which he himself does not know. What is this about? Is Porter hinting that he is really not grief-stricken over Isabel, but that something else could be the cause of his pain? In a strictly psychoanalytical reading, could it maybe be his shortcomings as an artist which he uses Isabel as inspiration to conceal?

Also, the end of the story left me wondering about Isabel: what happens to her, her reaction (or lack of one) to Ruben's death, etc. I wonder if Porter is purposefully not giving us closeure on that one to make a point or merely because the main thrust of the story was about Ruben and not her.

"The Martyr" title

I was confused as the title of “The Martyr”. I do not get why Ruben calls himself a martyr to love when he has sacrificed nothing. Usually when I picture a martyr I think of someone who has given up something of great importance, like leaving a family, or even giving up ones life, for a cause that he or she truly believes in. The term also has strong links to religion. I think Ruben is stretching the use of this concept. I think he wallows in his own self-pity and he chooses to indulge in food. Obviously, when he uses the term he is trying to hold his resignation from work and reality with high regard. I think that Porter might be making fun of artists who believe that their work relies heavily on a muse, or something outside of themselves. Or perhaps she is making a comment on the arrogance of many artists in general.

Hungry for Pride: "Maria Concepcion" and "The Martyr"

To me, one of the most intriguing themes with these two stories was the idea of pride.

In "Maria Concepcion," Maria C. is a very prideful woman. We know this because she got married in the church when most other people just got married in the back of the church, "But Maria Concepcion was always as proud as if she owned a hacienda" (4). She is also prideful because even though she is pregnant she is still going in to town to sell fowls. After she finds out that Maria Rosa has run away with Juan, she is very upset and the townspeople reason, "that she was being punished for her pride. They decided that this was the true cause for everything: she was altogether too proud. So they pitied her" (9). Juan also likes how he feels when he has two women, and he boasts about it. Pride also comes into play when Lupe decides not to "ruin" Maria Concepcion by telling on her because, "it was even sweeter to make fools of these gendarmes who went spying on honest people" (19).

On the other hand, there is Ruben in "The Martyr" and his complete lack (in my opinion) of pride. He is lustful after Isabel, and doesn't care who knows it. He also loses his pride in his work and is unable to finish it.

Another thing that I found interesting was how food plays into this idea of pride. In "Maria Concepcion," making food for your man becomes a big issue. She takes so much pride in making food for Juan that when she is pregnant she still goes to his worksite to bring food to him, and she looks down on Givens who does not have a woman to make food for him, "She stood and regarded Givens condescendingly, that diverting white man who had no woman of his own to cook for him, and moreover appeared not to feel any loss of dignity in preparing his own food" (7). Also (I may be stretching here but humor me) Juan stops eating her food (Givens says, "Leave his food. The others will eat it" (7).) and she loses some of her pride because he runs off with the honey girl and the townspeople start to pity her, but then when he returns part of their cover is how she makes him food and magically her pride returns (he doesn't even seem upset that Maria R has died, which is a whole other post). She also seems to take pride in making the goat's milk for the baby at the end.

Food also becomes intertwined with the issue of pride in "The Martyr." Ruben loses his pride so he starts to eat a lot, and it is his love of food that causes his heart attack. He also eats only the best food. I also find it interesting that in her letter Isabel says, "I am going away with someone who will never allow me to cook for him..." (34), and this seems to be a source of pride for her.

What do you all make of this? Am I stretching the food/pride connection, or is there something there?

nature vs. nurture

In O'Connor's "The Artificial Nigger" there is a sense of society or the "worldly" (Mr. Head) and the ideal, innocent (Nelson). In this context the end, to me, was allegorical of Jesus. After the "artificial nigger" is broken and comes to the righteous and the unrighteous men, the unrighteous man (Mr.Head) realizes the error of his actions but also comes to the realization that it doesn't matter what sin's he has committed because he has been redeemed. At the same time Nelson has been so corrupted by the world, that he can no longer see things clearly and only takes fear from the experience. In reading this as an allegory, however, I wonder what O'Connor wants us to take away? Is it that Christ can redeem us all, or is it that there are no experiences that do not involve human weakness? Or maybe it is that faith comes to us not through our own doing, but by some benevolent gift from the almighty.

Perception

Daniel brought up many excellent points in the previous blog, "What is an Artificial Nigger," and he asks about the significance of the statue.

My feeling is that it symbolizes the disconnect between Mr. Head and what's happening in the city. He speaks with "authority" because he's made a few trips to the city, but really he's lived a secluded life in the country. For him, it's easy to use a word like "nigger" because he doesn't have any real experience with black people, as far as we can tell. His line to Nelson on page 213, "A six-month-old child don't know a nigger from anybody else," seems meant to overcompensate for his own lack of knowledge/experience in the city. (In a backward way, it also makes a point in favor of tolerance, that discrimination is nurtured, not innate.)

Mr. Head's understanding of black people comes from an image in his mind, and the statue is itself an image. It doesn't talk back, like the servants on the train. It doesn't give directions. It doesn't get hurt when you run into it. Interacting with black people, especially in their neighborhood, not his, is shattering Mr. Head's image, and he's terrified of this. He's so terrified that he cowardly denies his own son.

As the story progresses, his one desire is to get back to the confines of his own familiar territory. And, we can presume, back to the comfort of his stereotypes that won't be challenged in his rural home.

What is an "Artificial Nigger"

Reading this story, I find myself confused as to what the titular "Artificial Nigger" is and why. The statue is obviously connected with the concepts of mercy and redemption for Mr. Head, but how? This is still unclear to me. Throughout the story (before the introduction of the statue) I wondered if Mr. Head and Nelson are, in some way, "Artificial Niggers" within this city. In this urban setting, the two rural characters find themselves confused, without shelter, food or money, and ostracized. Is this analogous to the treatment of African-Americans in post-Emancipation America? At one point the narrator notes that Nelson and Mr. Head look into the rich (white) stores but do not go in, perhaps drawing a connection between rural/urban divide and racial segregation. Earlier, Mr. Head remembers being mocked out of a (presumably white) department store, perhaps another example of the undeserved ostracism that characterizes the main character's interactions with the city. Although these characters are vehemently, unrepentantly racist, perhaps they fail to realize that in the city, they too are "niggers" - that which is deemed base, deplorable, and insignificant by the dominant social structure. At other points it seems that Nelson may also be an analogue for "nigger," when he is in trouble on the street and Mr. Head denies them. I think this could refer to the failure of reconstruction to support freed-slaves and help them integrate into society as equals; the American government essentially denied their existence as rightful "sons" of this nation much as Mr. Head denies Nelson when he is needed most.
As for how all this rambling ties in with the statue and redemption, I'm at a loss. Any comments or help would be appreciated.

O'Connor's A.N. Post

The most intriguing aspects of O’Connor’s “The Artificial Nigger” were the juxtaposition of Mr. Head’s presumed character and his actual character and the irony of Mr. Head’s definition of mercy. Throughout the story, the narrator casts a saint-like light on Mr. Head. Mr. Head feels blessed he fell “into that calm understanding of life that makes him a suitable guide for the young” (210). He is characterized as a sage who can give back to younger generations his wisdom, his moral ideology, his will for living. At first impression, after we acknowledge the narrator’s comparison of Mr. Head to Vergil and Raphael—one a great Roman poet, one the Italian painter privileged enough to paint the Vatican— we assume Mr. Head to be of “an almost noble air” of “strong character” and of Christian ideals. Mr. Head, in the first page of the story, is humble and moral, strong and wise. Mr. Head’s actions and words, however, contrast so greatly with the narrator’s description that the narrator becomes unreliable, and we must piece together the identity and beliefs of Mr. Head for ourselves. We see the truth of Head’s character for the first time in his competition with his grandson, Nelson, to wake up. The only reason Head desires to wake so early is to unnerve his ten year old grandson. What immature reasoning, what jealousy. Because he lacks confidence in his own Mr. Head also reveals his less than saint-like persona when he admits the reason for taking Nelson to Atlanta is to open his eyes to the awfulness of the city. He does so by provoking Nelson’s fear of African American people. Living in fear and encouraging others to do so reflect a life not rooted in Christian tradition, but life rooted in the absence of God. His lifestyle and philosophies toward his grandson completely contradicts the narrator’s description of him and reach a climax when he completely rejects him. Here, Mr. Head personifies—to an extent—sort of an anti-Christ figure when he rejects the child and ignores his suffering and his sins of breaking an old lady’s ankle. Instead of acting in continuity with his assumed “wise” and “noble” character, he simply abandons a child who needs him most. The irony of the story then emerges: Mr. Head believes that Nelson shows him mercy after they find common ground. The common ground, however, stems from ridiculing the “artificial nigger.” Only through the hatred of others does Mr. Head find God. How ironic and how contradictory to what the Christian God desires! They seem to solidify their own importance when they acknowledge that they are above this plastered sculpture that represents the entire black race. Head cannot show mercy to the reputation of black men and women, and instead, replace feelings of mercy with judgment and contempt, yet he expects God to forgive him and treasures the plastered mercy of his 10-year-old grandson. He claims “no sin was too monstrous for him to claim as his own” but simultaneously believes that not all people are equal under God. Through his actions, the reader understands that Head believes some people deserve to be taunted and mocked—the waiter on the train, the black neighborhoods etc. He therefore views mercy only as a gift for the worthy, not as a lifestyle for all.

Mercy and the Innocence of Children

In Flannery O’ Connor’s The Artificial Nigger, the themes of mercy and innocence are very prominent. The two main characters in this story are a grandfather and his grandson. While the grandson possesses characteristics of an elderly man, the grandfather possesses childlike qualities. When these two characters are uprooted from their rural home and are placed amongst the midst of urban life, these qualities become increasingly apparent.

In terms of appearances, the child looks very similar to his grandfather, “They were grandfather and grandson but they looked enough alike to be brothers and brothers not too far apart in age…” (251). Once the characters are in the city, the grandfather is frightened, but the child acts coolly and with indifference towards the situation. Furthermore, the grandfather looses the bagged lunch and the child chastises him for this loss. Above all, the grandfather pulls a childish prank on his grandson by hiding in an alley way while the child sleeps. As a result, the grandfather leads the grandson to peril.

The themes of mercy and childish innocence are brought to the forefront in the presence of the artificial nigger. However, the way in which the two characters relate to this statue is very different. In the presence of the artificial nigger, the grandfather, “looked like an ancient child” and the grandson, “like a miniature old man” (269). While the grandfather feels the action of mercy take place, the grandson seems to forsake God by stating “I’m glad I’ve went once, but I’ll never go back again!” thus implying that the old can be innocent and the young can deny themselves mercy.

Lessons in the Artificial Nigger

Mr. Head is taking Nelson to the city because he wants Nelson to see everything and escape his ignorance. However, it is not Nelson that learns the lesson in the city but Mr. Head himself. Throughout the story, Mr. Head is trying to be the wise man and teach Nelson about life. However, from the very beginning he has failed to take the lead in anything. Nelson is up before him and already making breakfast when he wakes up. When they get on the train, Nelson is less socially awkward than his grandfather, who talks loudly and wakes everyone up. As the wealthy black man passes them, Nelson is less impressed than Mr. Head. He does not see the black man as anything but a tanned man or a fat old man. When they get off the train, it is Mr. Head that forgets their lunch on the seat. When Nelson points this out he immediately abandons the authority he is trying to exert over Nelson and tells him that he could have easily remembered the lunch. In the city, he gets them lost although he would like to think that Nelson would be much worse off without him. However, Nelson would have been better off without him because he might not have wandered so far and would not have been as uncomfortable in the black neighborhood without his grandfather there to tell him he should be uncomfortable. It is Nelson that asks for directions, exerting power and wisdom over his grandfather.

Determined to teach Nelson a lesson in the city, Mr. Head leaves him while he is sleeping. It is immature and spiteful of Mr. Head to leave Nelson then scare him by banging on the trashcan to get his desired reaction. This leads to Nelson's only weak point in the story when he does express his need for his grandfather when the old woman is threatening to call the police on him. Instead of taking the leadership role that he is trying to hollow out for himself, Mr. Head refuses to take responsibility and leaves Nelson to deal with it on his own, immediately ruining any respect that Nelson may have had for him.

When they finally reach the train again, it is Mr. Head himself coming away with the stronger lesson. For the first time in the story, he sees himself as he truly is, a petty man that's only value comes from his grandson's mercy. Before he thought he was a pretty smart guy that had every right to teach Nelson about the world because he had been to the city three times. Nelson's only lesson is that he can not depend on his grandfather. It is Mr. Head that has the epiphany that the meaning of life is the mercy and forgiveness of others. Before this trip to the city, pride had always been most important to him. The realization that mercy and forgiveness, that of his grandson and God, are the most important things completes his life.

Mercy and The Artificial Nigger

One of the most interesting things that I found was the idea O'Connor brought up in the last couple of paragraphs, that in order to have mercy, you first have to go through pain in some way, "He understood that it [mercy] grew out of agony, which is not denied to any man and which is given in a strange way to children" (230). This is a very interesting idea to me, because mercy usually implies something getting better, but that means in order for things to get better, they had to have been bad at some point. It is also interesting to me that this quote implies that agony is necessary and something everyone goes through, but that mercy is something that is special that is not necessary and that is not bestowed upon everyone. I also wondered what she meant by, "it is given in a strange way to children" (230). How is mercy given to children? In this story, Mr. Head feels mercy at the end, but we do not know how mercy relates to Nelson only that, "They could both feel it disslving their differences like an action of mercy" (230).

This also brings up another interesting topic of how is Nelson left in this story? Both Mr. Head and Nelson have undergone a sense of transformation in this story, but while Mr. Head has improved and felt mercy, Nelson has not and some of his "childhood innocence" is gone.

I am also interested in who has the power to bestow mercy. While they are looking at the statue, they feel mercy, but this mercy seems to come from a mystical power. Does Nelson have the power to bestow mercy on Mr. Head because he is the one that has been wronged? How is mercy transferred from person to person?

Us and Them: Mercy Hate

O'Connor writes that Mr. Head and Nelson gaze at the sculpture "as if they were faced with some great mystery, some monument to another's victory that brought them together in common defeat. They could both feel it dissolving their differences like the action of a mercy."

I thought it was interesting that this sculpture brought them together. After being denied by his grandfather, Nelson wants to stay in the city. It isn't until they see the sculpture in this wealthy neighborhood that they feel their familial bond again and return to the country together. That was the strangest part of this story for me: is the artificiality of the title the contructed otherness that is necessary to hold traditional groups of people together? In that sense, all race relations are based on artificiality: like Nelson says, the black population is not "black," but rather "tan." Similiarly, the special curtain needed to segregate the dining car on the train is a perfect example of artificial ways of labeling and dividing groups of people for the so-called necessary stability of society.


So to whom does the text refer with "another's victory"? Has the African American population triumphed in the segregated part of the city as well as in this white, wealthy neighborhood in the sense that they've been made into art? That sounds pretty sick, but I'm at a loss as to read it.

But my questions concerned the nature of Mr. Head and Nelson themselves. They are, obviously, what Mrs. Turpin would call white trash. They share their private frustrations with complete strangers on the car, and clearly have a "country bumpkin" quality. So when they find themselves in the wealthy neighborhood, is it really the sculpture that "dissolves their differences"? Or is it the presences of the sculpture in an upper-class part of the city where "they ain't got enough real [African Americans]...They got to have an artificial one." In a sense, I think this folk art interpretation of an African American articulates black otherness to the point where it also articulates the otherness of white trash. Mr. Head and Nelson find themselves in "common defeat" in a wealthy, white neighborhood. They realize suddenly that there are actually two Other groups which they do not understand, and to which they do not belong: both the black community, and the wealthy, white community.

Control and Dependency

The relationship between Nelson and his grandpa reminds me of a cat and mouse-type. I found the visual that O'Connor gives us to be both helpful in understanding the two characters, and intriguing as well. Nelson is portrayed to be very independent in the beginning, resembling a rebellious teenager, while the grandpa is stubborn and works too hard to make the boy feel inferior. Throughout the story, the grandpa insists that it is the boy's "first time" going to the city, while Nelson argues that he was born there, so it is his second time. It is not until the grandpa realizes that he got them lost, and he forgot their lunch, that he decides to put the guilt on Nelson, by saying, "...you could have remembered the sack as good as me...this is your second trip. You ought to know how to do" (p. 224). He attempts to make the boy feel just as ignorant and mindless as he feels, so that he can remain in control of Nelson.

The first time we see Nelson become dependent on his grandpa is on the train when he realizes that if he loses his grandpa in the city, he will be lost and alone. He wants to cling to him, but represses this feeling to maintain his own image of being in control of himself, dependent on no one. When the scene happens with Nelson running to find his grandpa and he hurts the woman laying on the ground, the boy holds onto his grandpa for dear life. He finally understood what he would feel like without having his grandpa there to guide him, even if it is in the wrong direction. Despite the fact that the grandpa left Nelson alone on the bench to teach him a lesson, he ended up teaching himself a greater one. As they walked along, the grandpa 20 feet in front of Nelson, he finally felt helpless, as if there was nothing he could do to bring Nelson to forgive him. I think that when they saw "the artificial nigger," they finally were seeing through the same eyes. They both saw exactly the same thing when looking at the "plaster figure." On the train, Nelson saw the negro man as someone who was tan, and resented his grandpa for telling him to expect to see person with black skin. The two were never on the same page until they shared the moment towards the end with the statue, finally embodying the same physical, and emotional attributes.

Mercy in "The Artificial Nigger"

After reading this story, I wanted to approximate a definition for mercy, as O'Connor understands it. Mr. Head's deductions near the end of the story tell us quite a bit - that "it [mercy] grew out of agony, which is not denied to any man and which is given in strange ways to children"; that mercy requires humility, as shown when the action of it "covered [Mr. Head's] pride like a flame and consumed it"; and that mercy is a ticket to heaven, as "no sin was too monstrous for him to claim as his own, and since God loved in proportion as He forgave" (230-31).

On agony: Mr. Head's denial of Nelson to the toppled woman plunges him into guilt. At the sight of the boy's eyes, which are "triumphantly cold," with "no light in them, no feeling, no interest, " Mr. Head despairs, knowing "what man would be like without salvation." (229) Mr. Head is completely disillusioned, with himself and his ability, just as Nelson is with Mr. Head - this is agony, "given in strange ways" to Nelson, and by knowledge of what he's done to the boy, a realization unto itself to Mr. Head.

On humility: Mr. Head all but prostrates himself before the fat man walking the dogs, his desperation like that of "someone shipwrecked on a desert island" (228). This event is a stark contrast to the proud Mr. Head at the beginning of the story, who is in constant (rather humorous) competition with his grandson. Mr. Head feels "entirely confident that he [can] carry out the oral mission of the coming day" (211), the confidence amounting to rather a lot of hubris for such a small task.

Nelson is humbled as well by his trip to the city. It is a point of contention between the grandfather and grandson on just how many times Nelson has been to the city; he insists this is his second trip "because he had been born there." (211) This claim persists throughout the story until, in its closing words, Nelson lays off, muttering, "'I'm glad I've went once, but I'll never go back again!'" (231) This change in Nelson proves a counterpoint to Mr. Head's own journey towards mercy; he is not the transgressor, he is the victim, but is humbled all the same.

On salvation: The trip to the city is the launching pad for Mr. Head and Nelson to better understand the nature of sin. Nelson imagines the city sewers as connected to the entrance of hell (220); Mr. Head describes the city as a "nigger heaven," the term rife with implications as to just who Mr. Head thinks belongs there (222); and, as they disembark from it in their town once again, the train "disappear[s] like a frightened serpent into the woods" (231), the instrument of temptation, though given into once, scared off by the man and the boy who have seen the light. When Mr. Head realizes that "he was forgiven for sins from the beginning of time . . . until the present, when he had denied poor Nelson" (231), he sees that the agony of all those sins, and the humility that they cause in him, are in fact just entry fees to heaven. "[S]ince God loved in proportion as He forgave, he felt ready at the instant to enter Paradise." (231)

So in fact Mr. Head's confidence in completing a moral mission is not unjustified, just unfocused - both he and Nelson escape the city with a better approximation of sin, and what transformation they must undergo to relieve themselves of that burden, to accept God's mercy and join Him in heaven.

Artificial NIgger

While reading O’Conner’s “Artificial Nigger,” I noticed many themes as well. Especially the grandfather’s manipulative way to try to keep Nelson dependent upon him and also submissive to the grandfather and his ways of thinking. It seemed to me the whole trip was about showing the boy what he did not know about being in the city and how different the city was compared to the rural area they were from. Nelson also seems to be unruly when it comes to his grandfather; Nelson is always talking back and putting in his two-sense. This is especially evident when the grandfather, becomes lost and cannot find his way back to the train station. Nelson then takes it upon himself to ask for directions. Nelson seems very independent through out the adventure until he tripped the woman and his grandfather denies him. Then Nelson just seems hurt by Mr. Head’s actions as well as shocked like the rest of the people there that his only blood or “likeness” would deny him. However, Nelson does a good job of making his grandfather feel guilty and Mr. Head does a good job of making Nelson never want to return to the city.
I also noticed within the story that when Nelson and Mr. Head are about to leave for the city, Nelson has a lot of opinions and hatred for “Negros,” however when he actually sees one on the train he does not even recognize that the man is “black” rather he refers to him as “tan”. This was interesting to me because it shows that people do not inherit hate like so many people in this time believed they did such as Mr. Head who was shocked that he could not tell that the man was “black,” but it show that children are ignorant and learn hatred from their family which I admire O’Conner for portraying that idea within this story that, hatred is learned.

Racism in "The Artificial Nigger"

I wanted to talk about the exchange between Nelson and the black woman that appears on pages 222 and 223 of our book.  When Nelson is asking for directions, the two of them appear to have a "moment" or something, or at least Nelson seems to.  I was wondering what everyone thought of this?

Nelson sees the "coffee-colored" people for the first time on the train (pg. 216), and his reaction seems to be exactly the reaction Mr. Head wants him to have.  Later on while in town, "Nelson's skin began to prickle" when they began drifting towards the black part of town (pg. 221).  

It is quite a surprise, therefore, to see his reaction to the black woman on the next couple of pages.  He is very enthralled, paralyzed by looking at her.  The way in which O'Connor describes this scene makes it seem like it would almost be a spiritual experience for the boy.  He wants "to feel her breath on his face" (pg. 223), and "he had never had such a feeling before."  What do we think is going on here?  Is Nelson experiencing "the other" ?  someone that before this time he was taught was so different from himself that he is mesmerized when he finally interacts with this person?  Or could it be that in talking to a black person, Nelson actually sees her humanity, and it is something beautiful, and she is no different from himself?  Yet another idea of mine is that Nelson could possibly be yearning for a mother figure.  We know that he never knew his mother and was raised by the grandfather alone.  Perhaps Nelson is reacting to the woman's femininity, when O'Connor tells us that he wanted her to pick him up and hold him very tight?

I was wondering what ya'll make of this?  What do you think O'Connor is trying to evoke in this powerful and puzzling scene?

"The Artificial Nigger"

I found “Artificial Nigger” an incredibly interesting story because there is not one simple underlying plot; there are many little plots which make up and tell the story. The first thing I noticed was the opening. The way O’Connor leads us into her story is through the personification of objects. She gives these lifelike qualities to things which obviously cannot move. She describes the moon and the chair as if they are awaiting some kind of verbal order from Mr. Head. As if he has the ability to control these inanimate objects, which he does not. And we learn later that he is unable to even control his own actions and feelings.

Another idea which caught my attention is how Mr. Head is described as having a “youthful expression” and Nelson’s appearance is “ancient” (O’Connor 212). This is interesting because it is Mr. Head who acts childish. He is the one wakes after his grandson; he is the one who gets lost in the city; he is the one who disowns his own grandchild. He is also stubborn like a child. Even though Nelson has decided to forgive his grandfather by the end of the story, it is Mr. Head who does not even ask for forgiveness. He simply accepts what he has done to Nelson and that is all. Just as Nelson is stubborn when it comes to the number of times he has been to the city, Mr. Head is stubborn in his own way. However, it is Nelson who changes in the end. Nelson acknowledges that he has only been to the city once. It is as if Nelson and Mr. Head have switched places, just as their physical descriptions portray them.

I found Mr. Head to be a very selfish individual. He takes his grandson into the city, I believe, for the sole purpose of showing him that he does not know as much as he thinks he knows. He is not taking Nelson into the city as a treat, as some kind of family vacation. Instead, he is doing it to prove a point. Then on the train it seems as though Mr. Head has no sense of common courtesy; he speaks loudly even though it is still very early in the morning and many people on the train are still asleep. And again, Mr. Head proves is selfish behavior when he denies Nelson as his family. He says this simply because once he learns that he will be held responsible for the old woman’s injuries he does not want anything to do with the situation. Therefore, without any regard for his grandson’s emotions he simply disowns him.

Ghost References in "The Artificial Nigger"

Did anyone else notice the weird allusions/references to ghosts in this story? I do not know what to make of the strange appearance of ghostly descriptions and faces or the sometimes eerie tone. I was expecting the ghost references to lead somewhere; however, they seem to be isolated in occurrence and never culminate into any meaning that I can decipher.

For example, when Nelson and Mr. Head are waiting for the train O’Conner employs a ghostly simile: “Both the old man and the child stared ahead as if they were awaiting an apparition” (252). Also, when the two get on the train they sit next to a man who is described as having, “a pale ghost-like face” (253). In fact, the words “pale ghost-like face” are repeated two times in this paragraph. Later on during the train ride, Nelson starts to look out the window of the train but he stops because, “the face in the window stared out at him, gray but distinct (258). Nelson is called back to this moment when he is walking through the black neighborhood: “The sneering ghost he had seen in the train window and all the foreboding feelings he had on the way returned to him…” (262). No more similes or references to ghosts are made after this. I do not know what O’Conner is trying to do here other than create an uncanny tone. Maybe I caught on to something that is not supposed to be significant, but I felt as though her continual use of ghost references might lead somewhere.

Oh Mercy... I guess I'll take it

I started reading "The Artificial Nigger" and couldn't wait to do a post on it. I like how the intense racism that brings Mr. Head and Nelson together is only a subplot. Perhaps I watch too many Hitchcock films, but I thought that the reason that Nelson kept saying, "this is where I was born," especially in the black part of the city, was because Nelson's father was black. Obviously I was completely wrong and was completely veering in the wrong direction with the story.

The dynamic between the grandfather and grandson is absolutely beautiful. It is a perfect example of the wise and the ignorant... wait, which one is which? We are given descriptions of the characters as Mr. Head expressing youth in his face and demeanor while Nelson has an ancient look. Nelson tries to rebel against his grandfather constantly, which cause Mr. Head to react by over-compensating wisdom to the point where he blatantly embellishes. Mr. Head also seems to push Nelson into racism as a form of control over him. Not just racism, I guess, but fear altogether. This could just be a form of projection of Mr. Head's own fears, but I think he's taking it one step further and adding control to it.

Back to the mercy theme... The city proves to be overwhelming even for the "experienced" Mr. Head and he is brought down to human form there. The opening paragraph in the story personifies all his things as if he was running some sort of kingdom (as if he was God himself!) and it isn't until he fails in the city that he realizes he really doesn't have control over anything. I think God gave him mercy by letting him get away with abandoning his grandson (and maybe even showed him mercy from trying to act as God) - or at least that is how Mr. Head sees it. Really, it is Nelson that shows him mercy. Nelson has the upper hand in many ways and "forgives" Mr. Head by contributing to their common love of bashing on the "Negroes." It is a very sick thing that ultimately brings them back together, and I don't really know how to feel about it except, well, sick.

I think the readers of the story, and even the background characters (the women that Nelson has a run in with) pity Nelson. He follows, reluctantly at some times, a false hero. Mr. Head believes he is entitled to have Nelson's devotion and hates when he is questioned because every time Nelson questions, it points out all the flaws in Mr. Head's theories. Mr. Head is a hero only in his own mind, and he tries to structure his surroundings accordingly.

Does Mr. Head learn his lesson after he is granted mercy? Maybe. He sees it as a divine mercy, so he really only repents to God, and doesn't even bother to apologize to Nelson. In fact we only see that Nelson has changed in the end, because he makes the statement that he's only been to the city once, and no longer includes his birth. He feels humbled by the experience, and decides to depend on his grandfather for further guidance. This could count as falling under God's mercy of Mr. Head. Everything in the end was restored to its former order, and they get to rid themselves of the experience of the city.

Since I don't think that Mr. Head really changes his ways after he thinks he is granted mercy from God, I'm not sure I buy the fact that mercy was even granted. I think the feeling Mr. Head is having more than anything is intense guilt for what he has done. I'm basing this opinion mainly on the definitions of mercy. "Compassion" is used a lot in the definitions and I'm not sure I see it anywhere, except from maybe the old woman who gets her ankle broken by Nelson, and the "dark" woman who gives them directions to the station. It's a stretch for mercy, but I guess I'll take it!

Benefits of Class Discussion ("Magic")

I left today’s class realizing a few things I had not picked up on when reading the story myself, especially in “Magic”. At first I thought that Ninette leaves blood on her bed simply because of being kicked “in her most secret place” (Porter 40). Then the idea of miscarriage was thrown around class; I went back to the story, reread it and found that to be a very plausible theory. Even though pregnancy or miscarriage is never explicitly stated this does not mean it does not take place, just as the word prostitution is never mentioned even though the whole story focuses around it. There is evidence which would support the idea of miscarriage. After being beaten by the madam, Ninette returns to her bed “and she sat there holding her sides” as if she were in immense pain (Porter 40). Of all the places where the madam beat her, her stomach, her “most secret place” and her face, Ninette chooses to hold onto her sides. These pains which she pays special attention to could be the result of her miscarriage. Leaving blood stains on her sheets could also be another sign of miscarriage. Finally, the madam enters and tells Ninette that she is no longer of any good use to the “fancy house” and therefore sends her on her way. This all seems to support the idea of a miscarriage and I find that very interesting considering I did not pick up on it myself. Even though this may not have been Porter’s intention I am almost convinced that Ninette has had a miscarriage.

Commitment

There are many interesting and valid ways to look at Porter's "Theft," such as through the lens of gender and of ownership. But even after our class discussion I still have some unresolved thoughts on the final line, "I was right not to be afraid of any thief but myself, who will end by leaving me nothing."

My first interpretation was that things can be taken away, but it is only theft if she places personal value on them. Therefore, there can only be one thief--herself. After revisiting the story a few times, I would apply this to every facet of her life, not just things.

The protagonist has commitment issues all the way around, as do those around her. By engaging in casual affairs with unavailable men, she not only avoids "traditional" relationship commitments, but she also protects herself from having her heart broken. This is symbolically addressed via her comment about never locking doors "on some principle of rejection in her that made her uncomfortable in the ownership of things... she had never lost a penny by theft."

The word that stands out for me is rejection. She has never lost a penny not because they haven't been taken from her--they have--but because if she commits to nothing she can lose nothing, most glaringly in her relationships.

Magic again

Here's another post on Magic from me. I had another better thought on it. I want to discuss the violence and prostitution in the story.

At first I wasn't sure if there was prostitution in this story. I caught on near the end of the story when the men are asking for Ninette. I wrote "brothel?" next to the paragraph and continued reading. The second time I read it I can definitely see that the story this serving woman is telling is about a brothel and a fight between one of the prostitutes and the madam. In the beginning where the serving woman, our narrator, says "maybe you don't know what is a fancy house?" she is talking about a brothel. Madam Blanchard is a wealthy woman so she knows wealthy houses but she wouldn't know about a brothel. The madam in the story is also paying Ninette though Ninette does not seem to be a servant. In fact she is a prostitute working in the house. She gets paid for the male visitors she gets. When I first read male visitors, I innocently thought her male friends were just visiting her. Of course, when she is accused of stealing from them it let's the readers know that when the men visit it has something to do with money.

The second thing that jumped out at me is the violence in this story. There is violence in ever part of it. The relationship between the madam and the prostitute is obviously violent since they were known to beat each other up with bottles. However, there is even an undertone of violence between our narrator and Madam Blanchard when she combs her hair too hard. Even the end is violent. Ninette is brought back to the brothel against her will through Magic. Forcing someone into something against their will is innately violent.

Why are the two biggest themes in this story prostitution and violence? Are we to learn that promiscuity is evil through this comparison. Prostitution is the oldest profession and was long accepted as one of the only ways women could be independent. However, prostitution is violent. The prostitutes are owned by the madams and hardly have any rights of their own. Once men pay for a woman there is little he can't do to her. Is Porter telling us that this is a vicious circle that, in the end, can't be solved? There is violence through the whole story but when Ninette runs away she has the chance to escape it. Instead she doesn't escape and is brought back to the violent life through magic. Violence can't end.

Bringing Theft and Magic together

Upon reading both of these short stories, I tried to connect some sort of theme. Both stories managed to completely confuse me, mainly I questioned why I was reading them (why were the stories "important") and also I could never connect with the characters, which also added to confusion on the point of each story.

I decided to connect both of these stories with the concept of race and class. Both stories had a black servant of some sort that started out or ended up being a "plot point" in the story. Meaning, they brought the story forward in some way. In Theft, the janitress calls attention to the character of the woman, and makes us question everything we've learned about her so far. In some ways, she could be the woman's "revelation" because she actually accuses HER of theft, based on the fact that she has more than other people and she's beautiful (and white) so that mean she has an obligation to give to those less fortunate. We don't really concentrate on her character though, and even when she appears we just look more toward the main woman in the story.

In Magic, the servant girl is the teller of the story. It is her alone that we put trust in if the story is actually true or not. There is no outside narrator, so she is the only authority on the story she's telling. The only instance where we get an outside voice is when her Madame asks for more of the story. It is very interesting looking at the story from the point of view of the servant because I don't know her reasoning for telling the story. We know she's telling it to her Madame, but why? Why are we hearing it? Is there a lesson that I'm missing here?

So far, we haven't dealt with race in this class except when it pertains to the main characters. We have, however, encountered class issues (white trash especially). How does race change our perceptions? How does it change our perceptions when they are the moral voice and the upper classes are the fallen ones?

you can't allways get what you want

In both Magic and Theft there is an introverted idea of what is just. In Theft it is the Janitress who accuses "She" of stealing from her niece, even though the purse was her own property, and then we have "She" who then feels like she has been robbed blind in the end, not of property, but robbed of the life she wanted to lead, and the things she could have accomplished, she feels robbed of opportunity in a since, although she is obviously better off than the Janitress. Porter is perhaps exploring what it means to own something, and what we really have the right to call ours and what we do not.
Ownership is also explored in Magic with Madame Blanchard and Ninett's relationship. Ninett is basically enslaved, comes back due to the curse and is "happy to be there" it seems so out of place because Blanchard has not right to own Ninett, and the justification for her staying at the brothel makes no sense to me. So the story leaves me with the question, "what is so magical about being forced to return to a brothel, where you get beaten?"

Theft

This is in response to the last post on Theft and gender. I agree that the woman is not taking advantage of these men, rather, she is being used by them. The men in this story all seem to consciously seek fulfillment of different emotion needs from this woman without giving back; she allows men to drain her and seems unable to present herself as unsympathetic or willful. She acknowledges this at one point, when a male acquaintance and apparent creative partner refuses to pay her money owed, saying "Let it go then...almost in spite of herself," acquiescing to a man's will to her own detriment. Because of this, I cannot view her as an "untethered modern woman;" she is tethered, perhaps not to a monogamous heterosexual relationship but to an image of comforting, selfless, ever-providing womanhood that she allows herself to embody for men. I believe the woman's purse comes to symbolize this emotional subsistence in that it is a relic from a lover, an emblem of male approval and attention, as shown by the janitress' connection of "nice things" with suitors, love, and marriage. The woman chooses to reject this symbol, although the janitress refuses to take it back, and through this has a realization of what she ultimately loses by always subverting her needs and expectations to those of the men around her. Porter ends with the woman recognizing, "I was right not to be afraid of any thief but myself, who will end by leaving me nothing."

Magic Post

The most ironic aspect of Katharine Ann Porter’s short story “Magic” is the suppression of a woman by a woman. Usually, stories of prostitutes, trapped in the paradox of their lives, fall victim to men and remain ensnared under his strength. However, in “Magic,” the antagonist is no masculine pimp, but Madame Blanchard, manager of the “fancy house” in which the narrator previously worked. The relationship to Madame Blanchard and one particular employed prostitute, Ninette, represents the social constraints women placed upon each other at the time of this short story’s publication. Women believed they must succumb to the wishes of men and encouraged each other to do so. Porter argues through this story that women, not men, reinforced the social implication that women were inferior to men and must act in submission to their husbands, or to the male population in society, as the weaker partner. Madame Blanchard symbolizes how women ensnare women in social bondages through such ideology. She serves as a metaphor for the reins that women held on each other, trapping each other at the low tier of patriarchal hierarchy. Madame Blanchard, while female in gender, dominates the girls who work for her with the same violence of a man. If threatened, she yanked a girl “back by the hair and smash a bottle on her forehead”—a typical episode. To prevent escape, Madame Blanchard physically abuses Ninette in the areas that define the nameless girl’s femininity. She kicks “this girl most terribly in the stomach and even in her most secret place,” the womb and the genitals, the two areas that characterize physical womanhood. By abusing her in these areas, Blanchard seeks to strip her of her female independence and remind her that her weakness stems from her gender. Moreover, even the police, th “law” in the country seems to be on Madame Blanchard’s side. They agree that women must remain in bondage and used to the want of the man. Blanchard’s bargain with the police symbolizes society’s unwritten bargain with the men of the 40’s and 50’s. Additionally, Madame Blanchard, prevents Ninette from establishing any economical security as did most husbands during this time period. Blanchard steals the money she earns week to week and steals her escape money, ensuring that Ninette remained dependent on her. The entire idea of the “fancy house” represents the commodification of women in this point in history, the idea that women worth only in correlation to what men view them. In this logic, women must depend on men for their self worth and their survival. When men begin asking for Ninette after she leaves, only then can Madame Blanchard deem her valuable. She then conjures up her “magic” and beckons her back. This idea of “magic” personifies, not only the invisible hold that men have over women, but the affirmation of that holding by other women. Only when Ninette gives away her independence to Madame Blanchard because she gives in to the spell of the social structure does the narrator finally name Ninette—previously she was referred to as “the girl.” Though this magical spell, Ninette becomes submissive to Madame Blanchard the ideology for which she stands, and she receives an identity through the lens of that same ideology.

Magic and Theft

One thing that I found very interesting in both of these stories was voice and the depiction of voice. In Magic, the person telling the story does not get quotations around what they are saying. This strikes me as odd, and it makes it seem like the person telling the story does not have a voice or is not allowed a voice. I wonder if this ties into what Allison was saying about class and status in this story. Since the woman telling the story is African American and a maid or servant of some sort, maybe Porter is trying to point out how these people do not have much of a voice in society. There could be other reasons for why there are not quotations around what she is saying. Since the story is told from the mind of the maid, maybe this is why it does not get quotation marks. Another thing that struck me was how Porter puts the reader in the story in the character of the madam at the beginning of the story. What does this mean as we are reading it?

I found some issues with voice in Theft as well. Since the woman in this story is not named, this makes her into a "lesser" character. I am wondering what sort of comment Porter is trying to make with this. Could it be tied into her femininity somehow? Is the character trying to seek out a confirmation of her femininity from the men she sees, and so she is not yet truly an independent or true woman yet because she lets the men in her life define who she is? Is she trying to make this story relatable to women everywhere? Also, the jaintress does not get a proper name either. I find this very interesting. What is Porter saying about women and their voices in these two stories?

Theft

I was interested to read the previous Theft post, which was sympathetic to the men in the story. The men are all extremely different, but I was intrigued by the understanding that the woman had of each of them. I don't think she was taking advantage of any of them--she was simply allowing them to make use of her feminine aura (ie. mystique). She does seem to have semi-romantic attachments to all of them, but none of them ever come through for her, in the sense that she is taken care of permenantly (or at least in the way the janitress suggests she is cared for). They make use of her as a romanticized female companion--someone to be gallant for, someone to offer a cab to, or someone to moan to over drinks. In the case of the letter writer, someone to use in a sexual capacity (it seems he has been the partner in the one affair that has genuinely emotionally involved her). I'm not suggesting these men are all chauvanists for playing their proscribed gender roles. But in the end, the woman is stuck in financial straights because she never insists on/ demands commitment from any of them. She's so understanding of each of them. Yes, she's willing to stretch traditional gender roles and have relationships with many men--but does this really make her free-thinking and liberated? Or does this instead make her complaisant to the point where she does not actually voice her own needs and desires?
In fact, the woman does not really want Camilo to wear his hat in the rain, or to pay for her, but she senses that it would be pointless to refuse him because his pride would be wounded. Roger, similarly, offers her a cab, and she accepts as a concession to his very different brand of pride: he's the sort of fellow who can afford a new hat, so he's not embarrassed to protect the one he has from the rain. He puts an arm around her familiarly, but then announces his apparently impending engagement. Bill whines about $10 a week alimony, but has just aquired a decorative rug for $95. Similarly, he was paid $700 for his play (even though it didn't run), but refuses to help the woman out with her $50 share for writing. (She apparently has contributed a scene to the script). In none of these cases is the woman assertive: she won't betray Camilo's gallantry and pride, she won't betray Roger's easy, flirtatious friendship, and she won't demand her payment from Bill. When the letter writer announces the end of the affair, we can probably assume that she will not take any action. She has been left again, with little more than a purse to show for it, although she has maintained her untethered, modern, sexual freedom as a woman free to come and go as she chooses. Whether she finds her situation glamourous or not, however, seems grimly ambiguous at the end of the story.

Magic

While the girl telling the story finds comfort in talking to Madame Blanchard, Madame Blanchard finds comfort and relaxation in hearing her while the girl is combing her hair. (In response to the previous post...) I believe the reason the story is told is because the girl hears Madame Blanchard talking about how she thinks her linens are bewitched.  She thinks of the story because of the spell that the cook and the madam put on Ninette.  I can't decide what class Madame Blanchard belongs in because the girl talks of her old work place as "a fancy house - maybe you don't know what is a fancy house?...must have heard sometime or other" (p 39).  The madam in the story that the girl is telling seems to hold extreme power, having the police and men on her side at all times.  My question, though, is if the story weighs so much on class, then why is it that the madam does not lay a finger on the girl telling the story, or her cook.  It seems that when the girl was helping Ninette to bed, the madam would have naturally been outraged.  I thoroughly enjoyed Porter's story, and despite it being short in length, it had a lot of depth and meaning.  I am interested to see what the rest of the class thinks about the theme of class systems since that is something I am still trying to figure out.  

Theft

Who is the thief in Theft? The obvious answer is that the janitress is the thief. She does steal the purse from the woman's room in the first place. However, she had a reason to steal it; for her young niece who would benefit from having the purse more than the woman. After all, she would be able to catch the attention of a good husband with the purse and the woman is past attracting a good husband. Therefore, why does she deserve the purse more than the young girl?

Although the janitress did take the purse first, she implies that she is not the thief but the woman is because she refused to let a young girl have the purse when it would do her good. When looking at it this way, the woman is the thief for keeping the purse for herself when it could help someone else.

So who is the thief? I would say that the thief is the woman. The first half of the story is only there to prove that it is the woman that is the thief. At first I wasn't sure why the first half of the story was included at all. However, it shows the reader that, although the woman is a likeable enough character on the outside, she is the thief of the story. She has these relationships with these men but she is stealing something from each of them. She takes Camilo's dignity because she makes him pay for her when they are both poor and expects him to wear his hat in the rain because it is the classy thing to do even though it will ruin the hat. Roger pays for most of the taxi ride they both take. She asks Bill for $50 even though he has just finished telling her that he is running low on money because of his other expenses and paying for his lifestyle. Each of these men give her money but none of them get anything back. She doesn't seem to have any relationship with them beyond friendship. However she expects them to give her money. She is actually robbing them. Therefore, the woman is the thief of the story.

Magic

After reading "Magic", I came away with more questions than I did realizations. The biggest question was why is this story told. What is Porter trying to say with this story? What is the reader supposed to come away with? The story is dealing with race and class with the contrast of the characters but I don't know what conclusion can be drawn from it.

Another question I had was who is Madame Blanchard? The story is addressed to her and since she has Madame as a title she is obviously of some class. At first I thought she might be elderly and unable to take care of herself because the woman telling the story is combing her hair and talking as if to fill the silence. However, Madame Blanchard is interested in the story because she asks "[t]hen what?" Why would a woman of class be interested in a story from her servant about another madam that is cast in a violent and evil light?

Although I enjoyed the story I wasn't sure why it was told. I was wondering what everyone thought about this. Why is this story told?

Theft

While reading “Theft”, I kept wondering about the narrator she kept describing her financial situation and how nothing seemed to be getting better, since she was not getting paid for her work. However, when the purse was stolen she seemed to go through stages she was excessively angry, then she was hurt, and finally she did not even care that the purse was stolen and did not even want the purse returned. It seemed to me like she had given up completely not just on the purse either but on her life. Also I found it really interesting that the janitress was mad at the narrator and was yelling at her and had many hateful comments, after she had stolen the purse. It seemed really weird to me that by the end neither of them wanted the purse after they each had made such an ordeal about it originally.

Gender in Theft

On finishing this story, there is so much I am curious about that Porter does not give us in words.  I am getting the impression that the story is about entitlement, ownership, and the passing of time.  I wish we knew more of the main character:  who was the letter from?  Is the purse a gift from the author of the letter?

I think this story is all about gender.  The narration ends with the main character realizing the biggest threat of theft to herself is indeed herself.  What is she robbing from herself?  Could it be the "traditional" settling down, the married life complete with children and the white picket fence?  What actions does she see as harmful to herself?  Drinking and going out with multiple men?  And, if that is indeed the case, is Porter supporting this or poking fun at the traditional institutions themselves? (i.e. Bill seems to have had the "traditional" married life before, but now he's a wreck, the wife is gone, and they are fighting over alimony).

What do we make of the men in this story?  There are mentions of Camilo, Eddie, Roger, and Bill, who seem to owe our main character something or another.  Roger lays his arm around her in the cab (pg. 60), so are these all romantic relationships? or are any of them?  If so, does that make our main character a "bad" woman, in terms of "traditional" values?

If we continue in this same vein of pondering gender roles, I think the purse is such an important symbol because it is something feminine.  It's not an umbrella or something unisex that's stolen, but a purse, and I also am thinking it is important that it is stolen by a woman, not a man.  It's sort of like one woman stealing feminine status from another woman who "had [her] chance" (pg. 65).  What could this chance be?  and would the chance have been different if our main character was a man that was robbed?

Comment about Bevel's Mother

We did not discuss anything about Bevel/Harry’s parents in class today and I had a few questions about them. I was extremely interested in his mother because she sometimes has the outward appearance of acting like a respectable mother even though she seems disinterested for the most part. When Mrs. Connin brings the child home, his mother acts as many mothers might act—she asks him what he did during the day, takes off his jacket for him, and questions him about the bible she finds in his jacket. However, when his mother comes into his room to ‘wish him goodnight,” she acts very strangely. It is especially odd that she whispers when asking him what the preacher said about her. She then accuses her son of telling lies about her. This self-centered conversation borders on paranoia.

I was wondering what you guys thought about her talking like this to her son. Also, she does not reply to Bevel/Harry’s remarks about ‘counting’. I find it interesting how she does not reply to his statement, acting to discount what he has said immediately and with finality. I was also interested in O’Conner’s focus on the shapes that his mother creates…she is almost portrayed as fleeting or inhuman. Her body is described as a silhouette that “tiptoed lightly,” (170) her face is described as a “pale oval,” (171) and when she leaves only the outline of her figure is described. Let me know what you guys think. I wonder if O’Conner is commenting on the effects of alcohol on her presence.

the wart hog from hell

Upon reading Revelation, what stuck out to me was the idea of being defined by what you are not. Mrs. Turpin defines herself by what she is not, she has worth because she is not white trash or low class. It is not because of the things she does (because as we can see when she has her interaction with the cotton pickers, she is not very good at being genuine, or empathetic) but rather she is a good person because she, like the old woman in A Good Man is Hard to Find, has clean clothes, and a fulfills her 'duty' as a white Christian woman which is seemingly to act polite abut think poorly of those around you. So when the girl on the office calls her a wart hog from hell, she is shaken because it gives her a set definition and strips her of her identity. When the woman is defined by the ugly fat girl, with the bad disposition, it completely changes her world. This is telling at the end when she has her revelation everyone goes up to heaven, and her group, in fact, is last.

He

This is both in response to Michelle's post, "He," and what I initially thought as I was reading Porter's short story.  As I read, I found myself emphasizing "He," "His," "Him," etc, in my head, and I naturally referred to Him in a religious context.  Mrs. Whipple is constantly worried about what other people think, and at the end of the story, she fears that He is thinking terrible things about her parenting.  When He is crying on the way to the Hospital, I don't think He is holding anything against Mrs. Whipple, even though she jumps to those conclusions.  He is full of love and courage, rather than feeling rage and holding grudges.  Throughout the story there are small biblical references, such as his feet hurting (Jesus on the cross,) and in the beginning He is recognized as someone who is almost invincible.  Despite His disability, He seems to be somewhat of a higher power, in that He does not feel pain in the beginning, and he is constantly giving to others when he is not even asked to do so.  I would have liked to see what happened once they arrived at the Hospital and said goodbye...I am intrigued to see how He reacted and how His parents handled the situation.  

Concept of white trash 9/07/08

My first thought for these readings is definitely on "The River." For the first time, I completely related to the "Bevel" (child) character. Even though I don't consider my upbringings to be "white trash," I remember the first time I saw a Baptism. I remember seeing a the preacher yell out a heated prayer and then dunk the man's head under the water. They closed the curtain, so I never actually saw the man rise from the water. I put it together as Baptisms meaning that you are drowned in order to wash your sins. I never wanted to be Baptized! Anyway, Bevel's drowning in the end reminded me of my childhood memory and made me think about Baptisms in relation to revelations. I think in Bevel's case, his revelation was that only he could make his path. Even the preacher didn't take him seriously and "finish" the Baptism.

Does the message in the story mean it's better off to be dead than to be white trash? In Mrs. Turpin's mind, she'd probably say so. She would rather be black (and respectable!) then be white trash. It isn't even being poor that the characters in this story mind, it's having a "good disposition."

I can't help but wonder what this "good disposition" really means and if today we call it something else. Does it have to do with education? Politics? Religion? Can we draw similarities in the constant bantering of conservatives in primetime talk shows? Why is there such a dislike for the white trash? My entire life I let this term slide off my shoulder because I just assumed it was another stereotype that my mom tried so desperately to get rid of in my mind.

My interpretation of Mrs. Turpin's revelation was that she wasn't all that different from the other classes. Even as she was thinking and labeling the other classes, she notes that eventually they all muddle together. The "ugly" girl that attacked her probably targeted her because she "knew" that Mrs. Turnip would say one thing and think another. That is why Turpin said she felt like the girl knew her and had a specific reason for not liking her. I found Turpin's remarks in the waiting room much more offensive than the white trash lady, mainly because everything she was saying was sugar-coated and insincere. She was always thinking something else, and usually had some critical, judgmental thought about the ugly or white trash women. In fact, all she did was judge and criticize.

I'm not really sure if I understood the end of "Revelation." Was it that Mrs. Turpin was rationalizing her anger and frustration with feeling like she wasn't as good of a person as she thought? Was her "revelation" reversed? It seemed to me that she ended on the conclusion that no matter what happened, she was still right. Any thoughts?

Pigs in "The River"

Given the spotlight pigs enjoy in both "The River" and "Revelation," I thought I would try to explore their role in one story to better understand the other.

In Mrs. Connin's "The Life of Jesus Christ for Readers Under Twelve," Bevel marvels at the pictures, especially "one of the carpenter driving a crowd of pigs out of a man" (160). A little bit of googling ("jesus, pigs") leads me to believe that this is in reference to Matthew 8.28-34. Briefly, Jesus comes across two possessed men; they ask Him if he intends to torture them before their time. Looking to a herd of pigs in the distance, "the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine. And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters." Biblical text from here.

Speaking of pigs: the shoat that Bevel releases from the pen is established to look like Mr. Paradise, the pig "long-legged and hump-backed and part of one of his ears . . . bitten off" (159), and Mr Paradise "a huge old man who sat like a humped stone," his hat turned up "to expose a purple bulge on his left temple" (163), what Mrs. Connin tells us is ear cancer (159). But the pig doesn't just look like Mr. Paradise - to Bevel, Mr. Paradise (in his rush to save Bevel from the river) is "something like a giant pig bounding after him" (171).

To draw a direct parallel between "The River" and the story in Matthew, Mr. Paradise seems to be representative of the pigs driven of the possessed men who scare the swine herd into the sea, causing their deaths, and Bevel himself representative of the herd. I think there's merit to the interpretation; the demons of Matthew are distant from God by virtue of their nature, and Mr. Paradise puts no stock in the words of Reverend Bevel Summers. According to Mrs. Connin, "'He always comes [to the river] to show he ain't been healed" (159).

However, the parallel connection seems a little too prosaic for O'Connor, and under a microscope it doesn't hold up. Who was the Jesus that drove Mr. Paradise to the river? What man was Mr. Paradise cast off from? I don't have a more satisfying interpretation, only a lot more questions, the first of which is, with whom do we sympathize in this story? Bevel's a liar and a thief, though only four or five; his parents shirk him so that they can have a good time; the Reverend is perhaps a hack. Maybe you sympathize with Mrs. Connin, but I like Mr. Paradise. Does that make him the Jesus of Matthew 8.28-34, or is O'Connor asking for a reinterpretation of that story to understand her own? I think that it's probably the second, but I haven't been able to figure out just how to justify that yet.

Mrs. Turpin's Faith

I find it interesting that Mrs. Turpin, Much like Granny Weatherall, expects that, because of her close relationship with the church/God, she deserves to be treated in a specific way. While Granny Weatherall expects some sort of salvation or entrance to heaven, Mrs. Turpin feels as though God should protect her from malicious people. Mrs. Turpin believes that God has sent her a disturbing and injudicious message through the ‘ugly girl’: “The message had been given to Ruby Turpin, a respectable, hard-working, church-going woman” (502). She cannot understand how something bad can happen to someone ‘good’ like herself. Mrs. Turpin believes that she should be protected from harmful and slanderous comments like these. When she hoses down the pigs by herself she states, “‘What do you send me a message like that for?’” (506), making it appear as though she is speaking directly to God. I think that Mrs. Turpin believes that God has control of everything that happens to her—that he has dictated the event. She is deeply hurt because of all the time she has dedicated to helping the less-fortunate and working at her church. This sense of imagined or assumed safety is questioned in both the case of Granny Weatherall and Mrs. Turpin, and perhaps is meant to act as a comment on people’s often expectant tendencies in regard to their faith.

What is white trash

Mrs. Turpin is a woman who is very confident in herself and her social standing. From early on we learn how she defines herself in society and how she classifies those that surround her. In her mind being white trash is worse than being a black person. According to Mrs. Turpin, white trash people are those who come from the lower classes of society, possess little or no land, have poor outlooks of life and lack a good education. Mrs. Turpin calls the woman in the doctor’s waiting room white trash because of how she is dressed; she “had on what appeared to be bedroom slippers” (O’Connor 635). Wearing bedroom slippers out in public was a “white-trashy” thing to do according to Mrs. Turpin (O’Connor 635). This woman in the waiting room also spoke her mind. She always wanted the attention back on her and therefore would interrupt situations in order for people to be focused on her. On page 642 Mrs. Turpin describes exactly what she means by white trash. She basically says that whatever you give a person who is considered white trash, they will break, destroy or somehow make dirty in a short amount of time. To Mrs. Turpin these kinds of people do not respect anything they have; they are very ungrateful.
At one point during the story Mrs. Turpin addresses the woman as white trash; she does not say white-trashy mother, or white trash woman, she says, “Everybody laughed except the girl and the white trash” (O’Connor 643). It is as if Mrs. Turpin does not feel this woman is even good enough to be considered a woman; she is simply just as her label describes, white trash.