Friday, March 01, 2013

Pornography

Pornography...is essentially sentimental, for it leaves out the connection of sex with its hard purpose, and so far disconnects it from its meaning in life as to make it an experience for its own sake.

-- The Church and the Fiction Writer, America Magazine, 1957 -- (found here).

5 comments:

Kim Luisi said...

What are the odds that we've chosen the same quote to post on the same day? LOL

http://www.faithfictionandflannery.com/2013/03/flannery-fridays-qotw.html

TS said...

No coincidence seeing how I read it on your blog first! (And credited you via the "found here" link). :-)

Brian Collier said...

Hi, TS. This is Brian from the Comforts of Home website. I got a message from Susan Srigley about an O'Connor conference that GCSU is putting on, and she asked if I knew how to get in touch with you regarding your interest in mentioning the conference on your blog. It doesn't seem like the sort of thing you would put on here, but I don't want to presume on your behalf. If you're interested, head over to my website flanneryoconnor dot com where you can find my e-mail address at the bottom of the page. I'll forward her message to you and you can decide if you want to discuss it with her.

DP said...

Have a quick question about Flannery O'Conner and been looking around for people who have read her widely.

Are O'Connor's works blasphemous? I just finished "A Good Man is Hard to Find."

I believe she's painfully honest, but in my heart I don't want to believe that she's blasphemous.

For what it's worth, the story had me hooked as if I were reading a good spy novel.

And interestingly enough, had this been a Stephen King book I don't think I would asking these questions. But the way O'Connor probes is truly piercing.

From what I recall she was a devout Catholic of all things.

So if anyone can give me some direction on this, it would be greatly appreciated.

Are O'Connor's works blasphemous or am I reading too much into it?

TS said...

Hello DP, yes she was a devout Catholic and no her works weren't blasphemous. She has said that her works were meant to shock in order that we hear:

“I use the grotesque the way I do because people are deaf and dumb and need help to see and hear.

“The novelist with Christian concerns will find in modern life distortions which are repugnant to him, and his problem will be to make these appear as distortions to an audience which is used to seeing them as natural; and he may well be forced to take ever more violent means to get his vision across to this hostile audience. When you can assume that your audience holds the same beliefs you do, you can relax a little and use more normal ways of talking to it; when you have to assume that it does not, then you have to make your vision apparent by shock — to the hard of hearing you shout, and for the almost blind you draw large and startling figures.”