/lit/ - Literature

>>19790700
>is a woman
cringe
>hates niggers
based

Literally no more advanced vocabulary is required.

>>19790730
post body

>>19790700
>They all give me a pain and the more of them I see, the less and less I like them.

Everyone in New York secretly holds this sentiment, including the writers for the New Yorker, WHO ARE ALL FUCKING JEWISH.

>Critical race reading

Phew can't imagine going into any reading with this analysis in mind, must be exausting

>>19790700
This isn't leddit. Go back.
>>“You know, I’m an integrationist by principle & a segregationist by taste anyway. I don’t like negroes. They all give me a pain and the more of them I see, the less and less I like them. Particularly the new kind.”
Based. I usually don't read female authors but I might make an exception for her.

>>19790793
Oops, you spelt exhausting wrong >.<

>>19790806
This isn't /pol/. Go back.

>>19790793
It's worth if if you're A FUCKING PARASITE KIKE who wants to destroy your host culture peice by peice.

>>19790700
>never married
Based Catholic femcel. Reading Wise Blood right now, already read all the stories in a Good Man is Hard to find. Besides the eponymous short story, I recommend the River, Good Country People and a Circle in the Fire. Still need to read her other novel and short story collection, guess I'm halfway through the bibliography besides the letters. With a bit of knowledge in theology or reading the Bible a few times, the messages in O'Connor's stories become very clear. I really like how she twists Biblical lessons to come not just from the mouths of fools but the villains, such as Circle in the Fire where the three boys are likened to Shadrach, Meshrach, and Abednego, escaping from the "fiery furnace" to consume the protagonist who then realizes that all she took pride in wasn't hers to begin with and that God could at any moment take it, implying her possessions are a false god like Nebudchadnezzar's statue.

Honestly, anyone that likes O'Connor should read Eudora Welty too. Welty had a different style but it's from an older perspective (born 1909 compared to O'Connor's 1925) and she wad particularly fond of Chekhov iirc. I'd say it's less grotesque but can still be really dark and dramatic, and she was far less pedantic. The Petrified Man, Flowers for Marjorie, Lily Daw and the Three Ladies and the Wide Net are some good ones. Some of the women she portrays are just downright manipulative and terrible especially in Asphodel, but in a Piece of News and Clytie have some extremely timid, suffering women. Essays are pretty good too.

>>19790875
Does her being racist not bother you?

>>19790700
>and casts into doubt her broader scope of empathy
"Empathy" as a concept is a vague and politically motivated. Making it the basis of your criticism means your criticism will be lousy.

>>19790910
Empathy is the opposite of political.

And anyway, it's not the basis of my criticism; the basis of my criticism is that Flannery O'Connor is racist, and therefore a sympathetic reading of her African American characters is not possible. When you read Everything That Rises Must Converge, knowing how O'Connor really felt about black people, you can't infer that she as writing to promote equality, but rather she was just using them as a plot device.

>>19790895
No, in the same way that her being Catholic doesn't bother me, she's not gonna make a Catholic out of me. Her dark voice captures the dirty South in a great way. It makes everything look absurd and proud and by the end the protagonists get humiliated.
Speaking of racism there was a scene I was reading in Wise Blood where Haze wants to buy a used car, and one of the sales tactics the salesman uses is saying how newer cars are "built by niggers" in Detroit. Haze ignores the point because he can't afford new cars anyways, but her including that is important to understand how the South was before the civil rights movement. There was a degree of dependence but the animosity that came from the culture clash is no small matter. She uses that bigotry to make more transcendent points about humanity such is in the Artificial Nigger, where Atlanta represents this earth, the train represents the way to heaven, and the plaster figure represents the suffering, misplaced everyman that needs mercy.

>>19790929
>the basis of my criticism is that Flannery O'Connor is racist
that is not a criticism of literary quality
>and therefore a sympathetic reading of her African American characters is not possible
this is not a prerequisite for literary quality

The fact that she is racist may bother you personally but it is not a criticism of her work.

>>19790929
>Empathy is the opposite of political.
Not at all. I've never seen it used to mean "feeling with an agenda." When anyone claims to be "empathetic" even the slightest bit of scrutiny will reveal just how political those feelings are. Leftists tend to think that their politics (or at the very least the foundations of them) are not political when they very much are, and it's why they like to use that term so much.
I'm still wondering how this takes away from her works? Why do black characters have to be more than plot devices for a work to be good, worthwhile, or deep? Are possible sympathetic readings of them necessary to do that? Could you still develop sympathetic attitudes from what you bring to the text as a reader despite her personal attitudes? Does it need to promote equality in able to do so? To me it seems that you harbor a rather essentialist view about art that is politically motivated by your politics, it's for this exact reason that you invoke the concept of "empathy" in your criticism, and it's precisely why your criticism is shallow and lousy. You bring nothing interesting to the table and should stop engaging with literature.

>>19790700
>how can she write about the human condition if she has such a detached view of it?

Racism is literally a part of the human condition you woke retardo.

>>19790957
This is exactly what I'm saying though. When you read her work without knowing her as a person you would assume that the comment about the car being 'built by niggers' is a criticism of the hypocritical dichotomy of the Southern disdain and reliance on black people for industry. After reading the quote in the OP, you should realise that this reading would be incorrect, and in reality it is probably just be an offhand joke, or simply a comment displaying the racial sentiments in the South, with no critical lens applied at all.

So following advice in The Death of the Author, a reader would be misinterpreting the words of O'Connor and giving her much more credit than is due. She can't be seen an empathetic writer, or anything close to a civil rights activist.

>>19790961
You are getting confused between criticism and literary criticism. Critical race theory is its own discipline within academia.

>>19790986
>Why do black characters have to be more than plot devices for a work to be good, worthwhile, or deep?
If your characters have no basis at all in reality then you are reducing your work to genre fiction. You have a duty as an author to enter the minds of the characters you write and to understand the motivations and emotions behind them. Tell me how a writer who says things like

>“I don’t feel capable of entering the mind of a Negro,”

and also the quote in the OP is capable of empathising and writing black characters. Upon having a fundamental misunderstanding of black characters, how can interactions between them and white people be at all sincere? Again, if the work is not based in reality then the allegory, and didacticism is lost and the work rendered completely fictional and useless.

>>19791047
I wasn't trying to imply that O'Connor was being critical about racism, I was saying she mocks her own attitudes about things to put the gospel above herself. I don't think she ever asks anyone to not be racist, but rather to be ashamed to the point of religious repentance.
There are some parts of her writing that at time seem blasphemous and I think the style is inspired by, among others, the 1st chapter of 1st Corinthians where it's written that God chose the foolish things of the world, not the wise, mighty or noble. So even the religious and all the people and attitudes she finds kinship with are relentlessly mocked. Again it's not because she's progressive, it's because she thinks humility is key to accepting the gospel. And it's appropriate biblically speaking because some characters like King David and Moses both are dragged though the mud horribly despite them being heroes in others eyes.

>>19791154
Well she was racist, and she was actively promoting racist attitudes. I don't think it's brave or noble to hide behind scripture for inspiration and theme either, and I think it's very telling of her as a writer that she is so off the mark when she deviates from scripture. It's almost as if she couldn't think for herself.

Racism is rational.

>>19790700
That has nothing to do with death of the author.

>>19792111
Yes it does. Without knowing O'Connor and her view on black people, you could easily improvise an essay about social justice in her work and praise her for being so ahead of her time, which of course, would be grossly incorrect and misguided. The racism in her stories is from the perspective of an actual racist, and not someone advocating against it, therefore, it is important to know the attitudes of the author behind the work so no misinterpretation gives O'Connor more credit than is due.

>>19792209
Why (and how) would a dead woman care what credit she was posthumously given in the first case? And why, for that matter, do you?

>>19792233
Because he's a midwit

>>19792233
Flannery O'Connor is a rat and I don't like her.

>>19792209
That example does not use the tools of Death of the Author or literary criticism.

>>19792313
Yes it does.

Eh, yeah I kinda agree with you OP. Not sure I want to be moralized by a hypocritical Catholic who can't even treat all humans the same.

>>19792318
No, it really doesn't, that is not analyzing the work, just an aspect. Within the limits of criticism and Death of the Author that would be laughed at, her work is not directly about racism (none that I can remember at least) and a theme of racism/wokeism can not be supported by any of her works unless you ignore most of the story. A critic could write an essay about racial themes in her work or racism in her work and draw that conclusion but that is standard comparative criticism, considerably older than Death of the Author and it would do great damage to their reputation if they just ignored her well known views on race. You seem to be confusing the academic and the entertainment, Barthes was writing about and for the former, not the latter.

>>19790774
everyone from literate homes feels that way. even leftists are just lying to themselves ultimately. if they managed to free themselves of their indoctrination and shame they would admit that they despise twerking and hood culture.

>>19792404
Anon, where do you think you are? I thought I uploaded this post to 4chan, not JSTOR. I made a short comment that Flannery O'Connor is a racist. I did not expect to shake the literary world with this post. I am letting people who didn't know how horrible and racist this small woman is, because believe it or not, it is not a well known fact. The letter the original quote came from was from was released in 2014, before that, people would not have known the extent of her prejudices, and I'm sure many people here are not aware either.

I personally went into reading her work assuming she was a sane and moral person, so whenever the issue of race was brought up in her work (which it quite often is actually), I generously thought it was an attempt to be sympathetic and progressive. Obviously it wasn't. Hence knowing the personality and intentions of the author is important.

And I am well aware of academic writing. I am not confusing anything. If I were writing a proper essay for university (which I have done many times btw) on racism in the work of Flannery O'Connor, of course I would research properly before I started, and asserted as soon as I could how awful she was as a human being so as not to confuse anything. I don't know why you think you've caught me out by saying it's obvious that she wasn't an SJW.

I've tried to be polite, but honestly, I just think you are desperately trying to poke holes in anything I say, and it's embarrassing. Please stop.

>>19792512
You should not bring literary criticism into it if you do not want to be held to the standards of criticism.

>>19792521
Shut up.

You aren't an academic.

You aren't allowed to gatekeep when people are and aren't allowed to reference criticism.

And I will talk about whatever book and whatever essay I want, thank you very much.

>>19792551
>its McCullers schizo
It is ironic that you insist upon using proper context for O'Connor but not for Barthes.

>>19792561
Where's the irony? I didn't misuse the essay and I'm pretty sure I nailed O'Connor's personality perfectly well.

>>19792577
You ignored the standards set by literary criticism which Death of the Author builds upon and you used it to push your own agenda. You are attempting algebra before even learning to add.

>>19790700
>how can she write about the human condition if she has such a detached view of it?

What is this even supposed to mean?

>>19792619
Anon, you can't pull this shit with me. I studied English at university, I know exactly what literary criticism is. You are just talking out your ass.

>>19792629
>“I don’t feel capable of entering the mind of a Negro,”

She doesn't see black people as equal, so how could she adequately empathise with them in order to write about them? She is detached from common human experience.

>>19792667
Since when donees to see someone as an equal to write empathetically or sympathetically about them? I don't think my dog is equal to me, but I can nevertheless write about her with great empathy.

>>19791867
I doubt she started writing just for that, and there's no denying she was a bigot, the thrust of her writing is clearly religious. The accusation that she's hiding behind scripture is as old as the bible itself and even early Christians and Jews nitpicked on cultural things which are ultimately vain in comparison to eternity where these attitudes cannot exist. She stated she was by principle because Gods comments in the bible about not despising foreigners because of the sojourner-like nature of life, and also the universal love the Christ had for all nations, even for Samaritans.

>It's almost as if she couldn't think for herself.
I say this as a Christian, I think that is one of the more refreshing things about her. She doesn't try to reinvent the wheel and she has nothing new to say. The messages are simply the different aspects of the gospel over and over again and in that way she's not original. It's nice because it's different perspective. From the non-believers I've talked to that enjoy her writing, the grim picture of faith and the world -- such as the boy being swept away by the River after he puts his faith in it -- is haunting. That's not to say I don't enjoy some of the modernists and post-modernists that had more novel ideas and literary techniques, but for what it's worth O'Connor told some good stories.

>>19792667
>I studied English at university
non-stem western academia is just a contest in who can be the most leftist. clearly your rabid rants are a product of that system.
>She doesn't see black people as equal, so how could she adequately empathise with them in order to write about them?
that doesn't follow at all.

>>19792721
Not the reincarnated spirit of an envious Carson McCullers that you're replying to, but just wanted to say that I've enjoyed your thoughtful posts, anon. Thank you for making them.

>>19792721
That's fair enough. I'm not religious, nor have I read the Bible, so much of her work, particularly Wise Blood, was intolerable to me. I liked her short stories, but I didn't see much depth outside religion, and it confuses me as to why she is so liked. There are much better writers in her genre in my opinion.

>>19792728
>non-stem western academia is just a contest in who can be the most leftist. clearly your rabid rants are a product of that system.
Sounds like a cope to me. Did you not get the grades, or are your family poor?

>>19792733
Shut up.

>>19792667
>Anon, you can't pull this shit with me. I studied English at university, I know exactly what literary criticism is. You are just talking out your ass.
But you can not actually address what I said? At best just talking around it but generally just attacking?

>>19792745
ooof awfully classist of you. educate yourself on intersectionalism. you're harming BIPOC bodies.

>>19792745

Thanks for the (you), schizo.

>>19792768
What are you even saying? I'm am taking a general stance and disagreement of the essay, saying that authorial intention absolutely matters, and especially so in the case of O'Connor, because one could easily infer progressive themes throughout her work when the opposite would be true. I have not misinterpreted the essay, and my writing also counts as literary criticism, as brief and as it is.

>>19792777
kys nigger ;)

>>19790730
>Literally no more advanced vocabulary is required.
Why use words when you can just upvote and downvote instead?

>>19792793
why would we listen to your opinions about who is a sane person, about who has empathy and so on when you don't have empathy yourself?

>>19792733
Ironically I already ordered this a few days ago. Never read her before.

>>19792820
I think of myself as a very emotional and empathetic person actually.

And btw made an effort to not be rude or condescending in this post and the only slur I said was a joke and people were still rude to me.

>>19792826
Thank you!! I'm sure you'll love it :))

>>19792793
>and my writing also counts as literary criticism, as brief and as it is.
Very poor criticism. Part of criticism is supporting and defending your view, which you have failed to do; you literally complained about my supposedly poking holes in your view when all I did was point out the holes which were already there. If you want to bring in intent then O'Connor herself said that a good writer puts aside their beliefs to portray the subject accurately, which would suggest she at least saw that her beliefs regarding race where flawed in some way; or if you want to view her as a terrible writer, that she was incapable of not empathizing despite her racist views, which also suggests she saw a flaw in her racism.

Why do you think she represented black people as she did? The times she lived and wrote in would have allowed her to be blatantly racist in her writing, but she wasn't. For me, this has always been the most interesting thing about her.

>I think of myself as a very emotional and empathetic person actually.
Empathetic people generally do not attack others and are more interested in understanding other people and their views, not being right. No one would deny that you are very emotional.

>>19792777
The the intersecting circle of domination a pretty fringe idea or is that mainstream sociology

>>19792111
this lol

>>19792932
Hmm, I have multiple quotes of her being horribly racist. I'll copy and paste them for you again.

>“You know, I’m an integrationist by principle & a segregationist by taste anyway. I don’t like negroes. They all give me a pain and the more of them I see, the less and less I like them. Particularly the new kind.”

>“I don’t feel capable of entering the mind of a Negro,”

They are from the article linked in the OP, and I'm pretty sure there are more in there. And again, I never claimed any groundbreaking analysis of her work. This was a shitpost.

>The times she lived and wrote in would have allowed her to be blatantly racist in her writing, but she wasn't.

Have you not been reading my posts? Did you not read the article? She supposedly wrote letters to a friend complaining about sharing a class with a black person, and wrote another campaigning against the civil rights act. She was an outspoken racist, which was why it did not feature so heavily in her fiction. And the fact she was from Georgia is no excuse either; Carson McCullers, from the exact same state, was actively against racial discrimination, and was able to write minority characters with incredible empathy. To me O'Connor seemed very proud of her skin colour, and even though this isn't refelcted in ther writing, it needs to be taken into account when you read her, otherwise you could get the wrong idea of her political standings.

And also in the past you people have caught me at awkward times where I was upset about something in my life and I have exploded on here. I'm sorry if I was mean to you, but I was not in a good place. I am working a new job that I like and I have quit all all my medication now and have stopped drinking completely as well. I am trying to be nicer, and I would appreciate it if everyone could start again because I don't want every thread about McCullers to degenerate into tranny name calling.

>>19792745
ESL

>>19793048
>Have you not been reading my posts?
Yes, you have not read mine, I never disputed her racism and I outright said she was racist.

You know if you want to start over you can, this is an anonymous forum, stop avatar posting and before you hit post wait a few moments, reread what you said and make sure you are not being a spaz. You are the only person who his keeping you from being able to start over here.

>>19792667
>She doesn't see black people as equal, so how could she adequately empathise with them in order to write about them?

Why would seeing someone as equal be a necessary condition to "empathise" with them?

>>19793192
You don't know what avatarposting is, and I didn't even post an image for most the thread actually, and I still ran into trouble. People on here are just impossible to get on with. I also have not said anything controversial either, even if you think I'm wrong, you still called me a spaz just then which has annoyed me. This always happens where people provoke me and then cry that I started it. I don't remember a single time when I called someone a faggot and they didn't deserve it.

Also, I didn't say you were denying her racism, so I'm at a loss. Maybe you could reread my posts and come back because I'm getting tired of this thread.

>>19793217
Because any view of one race being elevated above another is subjective and wrong.

>>19793249
>Because any view of one race being elevated above another is subjective and wrong.

Well, I have some points to make:

1) Seeing them as equal is subjective too and delusional since they are not equal. Recognizing differences is simply recognizing reality and is therefore a better stance than denying them.

2)This is irrelevant. I can consider someone or something inferior to me and have great empathy for that being. As a matter of fact perceiving their inferiority might greatly enhance the empathy I feel for them(eg: an harmless disabled old man)

>>19793249
>Because any view of one race being elevated above another is subjective and wrong.

Well, I have some points to make:

1) Seeing them as equal is subjective too and delusional since they are not equal. Recognizing differences is simply recognizing reality and is therefore a better stance than denying them.

2)This is irrelevant. To get back to the topic: I can consider someone or something inferior to me and have great empathy for that being. As a matter of fact perceiving their inferiority might greatly enhance the empathy I feel for them(eg: an harmless disabled old man)

>>19793280
Don't care. Didn't read.

>>19793249
What you do is functionally equivalent to avatar posting, you absolutely use it to identify yourself. I suppose I should have expected you to miss that nuance but as said, you studied English at university so I figured you would not be such a literalist. But then again you missed the point of my question and can not see the conflict between her writing and her racism, you just explain it away simply and forget about it.

Perhaps the problem is you, you never actually engage in discussion with anyone, you just talk around them. If you can not debate and discuss there is nothing for anyone to gain, you do not further your own ideas or anyone elses, constantly tell people they are wrong but the only reason you give is that because you are right. Anyways, can't see this going anywhere or getting anything from it, but some other anon will probably bite.

>>19790736
She had lupus and had to take 50s era steroids--probably not someone you want to see in a bathing suit.

>>19790700
>"Flannery O'Connor btfo's The Death of the Author"
>is dead
you idiot anon

>>19790957
He could afford a new car but he wanted the shitty beat-up one and was oblivious to the fact he was getting ripped off.

>>19790700
Isn't she dead tho?

>>19793335
Lol you started by telling me I misunderstood the essay. You have seemingly dropped that once you realised I did understand it. You then switched you angle, and started telling me O'Connor was writing a sincere portrayal of herself and Southern culture by including racism in her work. I then told you she was an outspoken racist, and sincerity is not an excuse and gave you an example of another writer that depicted Southern culture sincerely without being racist herself.

You are just wrong. I know full well what you are saying. You don't like me and you are trying to poke holes in anything I am saying for the sake of it, which inevitably leads to shaky arguments that are unclear and all over the place. And maybe I am also using images to indicate that I am OP, so it's easier to follow the chain of discussion, but of course that's avatarfagging isn't it anon.

And of course because everyone else hates me, I'm sure all your friends will come in here and call me tranny in your defence.

>>19792512
>I personally went into reading her work assuming she was a sane and moral person, so whenever the issue of race was brought up in her work (which it quite often is actually), I generously thought it was an attempt to be sympathetic and progressive. Obviously it wasn't.
She literally stated in the OP quote that she is an integrationist on principle DESPITE her prejudices against black people. Because she was AWARE that her own racist sentiments were morally wrong. I think you're just plain retarded

>>19793438
She literally stated in the OP quote that she is a segregationist based on taste DESPITE her principles as a Catholic. Because she was AWARE that she had an irrational hatred of black people. I think you're just plain retarded

>>19793458

>>19793375
>You have seemingly dropped that once you realised I did understand it
Troll confirmed. You have no desire or intention to leave you past behavior behind, you are the one who dropped Death of the Author and criticism. Feel free to scroll up and respond to the points I made instead of talking around them, I will have an actual discussion with you if you actually engage.

>Fuck/Marry/Kill
Feed/Seed/Sneed: Southern Gothic edition. My choice fits the pattern of the pictures.

>>19790700
>small minded person
Why? Because she doesn't like negroes? kek

>>19792512
You keep saying 'racist' like it's a bad thing. An invalidating, art-terminating insult of some kind. No one but fags gives a shit.

>>19793643
I dropped your own argument? Okkk

>>19794062
Yes, by ignoring the points made to talk about yourself. Overall the general point of your being an idiot was maintained, I just adapted the method to suit your non-responses.

>>19794101
Sure, whatever you say bro...

>>19793770
fuck kill marry

>>19793770
Who is that on the right?

>>19795906
Harper Lee

>>19790700
>>“You know, I’m an integrationist by principle & a segregationist by taste anyway. I don’t like negroes. They all give me a pain and the more of them I see, the less and less I like them. Particularly the new kind.”
Sounds based af, Hannah Arendt expressed the same exact view.

>>19796148
Funny, Hannah Arendt plagiarised all her work lol, kind of like how O'Connor shamelessly ripped off other authors in her genre.

Catholics really are the Jews of Christianity lol.

>>19790700
I love this catholic woman

>>19791047
>She can't be seen an empathetic writer, or anything close to a civil rights activist
So?

>>19796225
So you don't think empathy is important when writing fiction?

>>19796249
>empathy is important when writing fiction
what the hell

>>19796476
Nice bait.

>>19796249
The concept of empathy isn't meaningful to begin with.

>>19796558
Then what are you doing commenting in the thread of a fiction writer?

>>19796249
wow there are women on /lit/?
pls be in london

>ctrl + f 'racist'
>22 results
Reddit thread? Reddit thread

>>19796586
I'm not a woman, but I live in north London if you want to be friends

>>19796578
Pointing out that the basis for your criticism is faulty. The essentialist attitudes you hold towards literature acti9vely prevent you from really understanding it or engaging with it meaningfully.

>>19796686
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Empathy is absolutely important when writing fiction- how else do you create characters with realistic emotions and dialogue if you are unable to view the world outside your own perception? You can't even read fiction if you can't empathise properly.

>>19790700
>NOOOO raCiSm

fuck off.

>>19792667
good. cope harder

https://ostarapublications.com/product-category/racial-science/

https://www.stevenbooks.co.uk/product-category/race/

https://cosmotheistchurch.org/product-category/books/biology-race/

http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/

https://galton.org/

https://www.brookings.edu/research/all-recent-us-population-growth-comes-from-people-of-color-new-census-estimates-show/

https://cosmotheistchurch.org/product/cosmotheism-religion-of-the-future-by-william-pierce/

https://cosmotheistchurch.org/product/the-turner-diaries-third-edition/

https://cosmotheistchurch.org/product/hunter-second-edition-by-andrew-macdonald/

https://ostarapublications.com/product/the-immigration-invasion-how-third-world-immigration-is-destroying-the-first-world-and-what-must-be-done-to-stop-it/

https://ostarapublications.com/product/the-war-against-whites-the-racial-psychology-behind-the-anti-white-hatred-sweeping-the-west-today/

>>19796815
Dickens hated the Irish and the Indians. So he just didn't write on them. Flannery should have written on whites only herself.

>>19790700
>>>19792667
Go cry about it, faggot.

>>19797190
kek

>>19797166
>Flannery should have written on whites only herself.

If didn't acknowledge black people then her depiction of Southern culture and society would have been inaccurate and dishonest - without the consideration of the gross racial inequality, from an accurate and empathetic perspective, whatever moral idea or commentary O'Connor would be attempting on southern society would be tainted and ruined.

>>19797190
Lol I hope you took it out and cleaned it off at least. She looks very pretty on that cover.

>>19796815
>literature must meet my specific standards of realism
>empathy is a single, uniform mental process that is a political, non-ideological, effected by a number of different factors or expressed in different ways
You're too much of an essentialist to really engage with something like art which to some extent is the expression of a subjective worldview. I don't want to limit art to that or say it's the only way to engage with art, but it is something important to understand when grappling with it, and you just don't get it.

>>19797858
You're putting words into my mouth lol, you even seem to be agreeing with me. I'd like to remind you to original post I replied to said

>The concept of empathy isn't meaningful to begin with.

And I strongly disagreed. Art is primarily an emotional experience, and empathy is essential to create and understand. I'm not saying a character and their emotions have to fit into my own world view, just that they have to be sincere and consistent with how the author has written them.

For example, if Iago suddenly became apologetic toward the end of Othello, then there would be an unrealistic turn of emotion, and therefore the plot would be spoiled and cycle of tragedy would be ruined. Someone who is unable to empathise would not see a problem with this. Without empathy, there is no emotion, and without emotion you might as well read non-fiction.

>>19797969
>Art is primarily an emotional experience
This just isn't true. It often is one. But to say that it is primarily that is just plain wrong, and using the as a premise makes the conclusions you draw about art in general and specific pieces of art just plain dumb.

>>19790700
How can you say O'Connor lacks empathy when you're the one refusing to see things from her point of view?

How can you accuse her of being detached when she says that her views were formed by experience?

The sad fact is that worshipping blacks became the dominant religion in America. Any critical sentiments about them and their behavior is now heretical. No matter how rational, no matter how informed by personal experience. This pitiful article is nothing but a sheep bleating for the rest of the flock.

holy shit the part in The Violent Bear It Away where Tarwater baptizes the idiot child by drowning him is like something straight out of the Bible, it's just theme and allegory and plot and emotion all wrapped up into one single part of a story and it's just unlike anything else I've ever read other than Jesus dying on the cross

>>19792512
>I thought I uploaded this post to 4chan, not JSTOR
>If I were writing a proper essay for university (which I have done many times btw
jesus christ you fucking insufferable faggot get off this board. go back to sitting alone in your freshman dorm and fuck off

I hate you so fucking much.

>>19799005
What do you think is the the primary experience of art?

>>19799051
You might be confusing race and culture then anon.

>>19799509
But I already graduated!

>>19799676
Grow up lol

>>19790700
Is this some kind of effort baiting?

>>19792777
I like how it doesn't have the only one that actually matters, money

>>19799716
Kill yourself you low iq cunt

>>19792209
A racist can still write literature that is sympathic to other races or points out racial hypocrisy. Racism is not a single thing and often comes in many strange complicated understandings of race. O'Connor merely said she doesn't enjoy the company of black people. This harlfy disqualifies her from writing narratives that are sympathic to black people in the south or whatever. If you just understand rascism as this monolithic thing that divorces the rascist from humanity you'll end up a stupid confused wreck like you are.

>>19799815
>working class, poor

>>19799994
>A racist can still write literature that is sympathic to other races or points out racial hypocrisy.

I agree, but it wouldn't be sympathetic, as O'Connor can only write about racism from her own perspective as a racist. Like you said, racism is a complex and multi faceted issue, and a writer who fails to see and account for all sides of it is not doing it justice; having said those things in her letters, she obviously did not understand the pain of being a minority in a Southern state, and even went as far as to actively support it. Being genuinely racist, O'Connor discredits any depth or understanding that could be found in a basic analysis of her black characters - any empathy directed at them would be a serendipitous projection from the reader, and not authorial design.

Given how integral racism is within Southern culture, failing to write about it in with depth and accuracy, and from the perspective of an active racist, limits her and invalidates a reading of her work that would include a sincere depiction of the thoughts and feelings of the negro.

And btw, I still like her stories, but in terms of racism she really lets herself down as a writer.

>>19799716
>What do you think is the the primary experience of art?
I don't think there is one, and trying to determine one removes so many of art's possibilities that that it defeats the point of engaging with art to begin with. Sometimes art can be made to appeal to emotion, sometimes it's made to appeal to reason, sometimes to show mastery of technical skill, sometimes times illustrate methods of new technique, and sometimes to any other number of things. What makes art remarkable is its versatility and for the ability of the person engaging with a work to view it as something entirely different than what its creator intended. Essentialist attitudes like the one OP seems to have towards art aren't really productive and produce simple, moralistic, and thoughtless engagements with it. Someone like him would be better suited watching professional sports.

>>19801911
You’re moving the goal posts anon. I was referring to fiction writing, and you saying ‘art’ being versatile is disingenuous when the original discussion was pertaining to the short stories and novels of Flannery O’Connor. Emotion in art, as in music, painting and sculpting etc, is an another conversation entirely.

All good literature is a commentary of some kind; a reader should walk away from a text having learned something, gained insight and extracted meaning from whatever subject was written about. The difference between non-fiction and fiction in this regard is emotion; where non-fiction sets out in a clear a way possible facts and interpretations of life, fiction appeals to emotion to demonstrate its point. Why else would you create intricate plots and deep characters with complex emotions and relationships if not to appeal to empathy? If you intend to write a novel without appealing to emotion then you might as well write an essay instead. And I’m not suggesting that reason and technique are not present in fiction, and I really don’t know where you got the idea I’m an ‘essentialist’, but I am just saying that by virtue of the mode, fiction naturally appeals to emotion before anything else.

If you could, please give an example of a work of fiction where emotion isn’t the primary mode of expression.

And you are also getting distracted. Again the original post I replied to said:

>The concept of empathy isn't meaningful to begin with.

Please also remind me how empathy isn’t a meaningful part of fiction.