A few questions that
come to my mind when I reflect on O’Connor’s stories are: why does she write
with these characters, and why have put them in the setting of the rural South
or, at least, have characters come from there? She seems more than capable as a
writer to be able to write using different scenery and characters like some of
her colleagues and, more to the point, away from where she grew up. So why would
she use characters that could have been, and more than likely were, in her
everyday world?
I think the answer to
these questions is reasonable. She grew up and lived in Georgia most of her
life. This was the case with her faith, Catholicism, as well. She did go off to
Iowa and Connecticut but she could not escape where she lived, especially when you
have a thick Georgia accent. The questions I have to ask, in contrast to the
prior questions, are: What does she know well? Would it not make more sense to
write about characters that are a part of her, like her accent? One of the
reasons why she was able to write her stories as well as she did was because
her characters and their scenery are connected to her in more ways than one,
like: they are all from or live in the southern country, they all have some
sort of religious background or agenda, etc. Obviously, she did not have these
extremes like her characters, but the connections are still there.
What I have learned
through this idea is kind of selfish on my part: I am thinking about how I
write and what exactly I write about. From this perspective, I take away the
notion that I need to write what I know. In hindsight, this seems like a very
obvious lesson that everyone already knows. In any case, this is what I figured
out on my own time. I feel like there is nothing wrong with experimenting with
different forms and ideas but it should only be mixed in with what I already
know and/or what I have experienced.
There is a definite sense of place, though often rendered unrecognizable. Digging down rather than out.
ReplyDelete