Talk:Flannery O'Connor/Archive 1

Archive 1

Restoring comment on sexuality

I have re-inserted the possibility that O'Connor was a lesbian, along with criticism of that scenario. I have no proof--I don't see why I need any, since I admitted it was only a possibility--but the evidence requested is above. Do a little research, and you'll find that Ms. O'Connor's sexuality has been debated before. I notice some people react to the possibility of O'Connor being a lesbian as if it were a form of slander (Gee, I wonder why?) but that doesn't mean that it's not suitable for the article. 64.12.116.73 06:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You mention in some detail a letter O'Connor wrote to her friend "A" - but as has been asked by two people below, what is the date of this lettter?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.106.200 (talk) 08:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

citation/date

What's the date of O'Connor's letter to her friend?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.106.200 (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to know that... I haven't been able to find the letter.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Abertelsen (talk • contribs) 14:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

In The Habit of Being Flannery remarks about her days at the Yaddo art colony, saying (paraphrase) "If you weren't sleeping around with members of the opposite sex, it's presumed you're sleeping with your own." It's offered in a critical manner, since the Yaddo members apparently had no consideration of a celibate lifestyle. I would be critical of presuming she was lesbian simply because it does not fit her standards of behavior, about which she was very exacting. And that's a real lame leap to say "it's possible" since it's possible to presume anything about anyone. What makes this claim unfortunate isn't the moral aspect of lesbianism. What makes it unfortunate is that it is most likely untrue.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.95.254.227 (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Edit of "Collected Works" (The Library of America edition)

I think that the bibliograhical entries may be expanded slightly. For instance the Library of America edition cited above also includes "Stories and Occasional Prose" as well as a slice of Flannery O'Connor's "Letters" - 21 of which hadn't seen publication before this edition. I own a copy of this edition myself as I wrote a Master's Thesis on her in 1991 about her "narrative strategies" and her work on "The Partridge Festival" and related manuscripts held at the Flannery O'Connor Collection in Milledgeville, GA. (Peter Wind 18 October 2005)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosewind (talk • contribs) 21:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

A Flannery O'Connor page without a quotations section?!!

The title says it all...where's the quotes?!Iamlondon 04:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a good point. I'll try and add some later this month, I'm writing a senior thesis on Flannery right now and don't have much time. 71.103.242.56 17:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to lesbian claim

(Oct 14, 2005) - Unfortunately, this claim has made its rounds in other internet encyclopedias. Do a google search on "flannery o'connor" and "lesbian," and you will find page after page of the exact same claim suggesting that there are "hints" throughout her letters in Habit of Being. Well there aren't. There is just the one letter, nothing else.

The basis of the claim is this letter, dated September 30, 1961, which I will quote below, addressed to "A" - who is Betty Hester:

"We sure will enjoy that candy and you sure shouldn't have sent it to us. We'll also enjoy the rum, and I hope you'll come again before it is gone. Louise came down from upstairs Monday and said "Miss A. ain't slep in the bed." Regina asked her where she thought you had slept if you hadn't slept in the bed. She said she didn't know but you hadn't slep in the bed. She said maybe you slep on the flo. She said them sheets wasn't used. Regina has not convinced her yet that you slept in the bed. You will have to untangle this with her yourself the next time you come..." She then goes on to discuss literature and other things unrelated.

Nowhere in this exchange does Regina (Flannery's mother) scold Louise to "mind her own business." And frankly, one can think up a number of scenes that might have moved Flannery to write this. One is a sexual encounter. Ok. But one would have to put that in the context of Flannery's life, her beliefs, her unbending honesty, and what her friends have to say about her. All of these point against lesbianism. Perhaps she and Hester drank too much of that rum, and passed out in the kitchen. Perhaps Hester slept on the sofa, as she always did at her own apartment (she didn't sleep in a bed). Perhaps Hester made the bed so well that Louise couldn't believe it. Who knows?

In another letter, which I alluded to in the passages below, Flannery writes about her experience at Yaddo, saying:

"There were a good many parties at which everybody contributed something for the liquor. I went to one or two of these but always left before they began to break things. In such a place you have to expect them all to sleep around. This is not sin but Experience, and if you do not sleep with the opposite sex, it is assumed that you sleep with your own. This was in pre-beatnik days but I presume it is all about the same. At the breakfast table they talked about Seconol and barbituates and now maybe it's marujana. You survive in this atmosphere by minding your own business and by having plenty of your own business to mind; and by not being afraid to be different from the rest of them." (Letter to Cecil Dawkins, Dec 23, 1959)

To me, this shows a very self-assured young woman who knows what she is about, and quite plainly, she is not about sneaking around and engaging in "sin." If Flannery is anything, it is scathingly honest. I find the whole lesbian "debate" ridiculous because it makes Flannery O'Connor appear dishonest and hypocritical. Heaven only knows what latent feelings she may have held. But I see absolutely NOTHING in the letters published in Habit of Being, and I know that book inside and out. I am scandalized, not by lesbianism, but by the public "outing" of a person who isn't alive to defend herself against a false claim. NinaB 18:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The scenario could only be interpretted as a lesbian encounter by those who desperately wish to create sensationalist rubbish about an otherwise honest woman.

Caesar 20:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, this is always going to come out of any incident involving any author. Everything can only be noted as speculation until he get hard facts. Which, something tells me, we don't see. Willie Stark 20:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Picture?

Where'd the picture go? There used to be a great image of Flannery O'Connor on this wikipedia page. Mc4932 17:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I re-added the photo; hopefully it will stick this time. RedSpruce 18:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much. Mc4932 21:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Prostitute

The page currently says that she worked as a prostitute between high school and college. I've never heard that before, nor did a preliminary internet search come up with any hits. Any citation on this? Tiger Khan (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That appears to have been a vandalism edit. I've reverted it. Aleta ^Sing 05:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Tiger Khan (talk) 01:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Race, et al.

"O'Connor's fiction became increasingly concerned with race as she neared the end of her life."

This is stated on the basis of -- what exactly? The fact that her final published story was a rewritten version of an earlier one?

In fact, there were three short stories that had yet to be collected in book form when O'Connor died: "Revelation," "Parker's Back," and "Judgment Day." In each, the main character is white. African-American characters figure slightly in the first, not at all in the second, and strongly in the last, but not enough to make so sweeping a comment about the developing trend in O'Connor's thinking as she neared her end. All of the stories reflect the same ideas she'd been exploring throughout her career, and, indeed, "Judgment Day," the single story that provides "proof" of her growing absorption in race, was, as already has been noted, a rewrite of the first story included in "The Complete Stories." How does that constitute a new and growing emphasis?

Moreover, O'Connor was at work on a novel at the time she died, "Why Do the Heathen Rage?" which, on the basis of the first chapter, also included in "The Complete Stories," had nothing to do with race. It's likewise folly to sweepingly compare O'Connor's work to that of William Faulkner, as the current article reads. In fact, their work has little in common stylistically, and, it could be argued, thematically as well. Faulkner was primarily a novelist, working on a vast scale, and overwhelmingly interested in the rise and fall of family dynasties, a subset of his interest in history overall. He was furthermore a modernist, experimenting with techniques borrowed from, among others, James Joyce. O’Connor, while a painstaking craftsperson, had little interest in stylistic innovations. She was first and foremost a short story writer, laboring on a small canvas and focused on individuals, not generations. She and Faulkner both wrote about the South and therefore each drew from a similar pool of characters, but to heap them into the same ill-defined category is like saying Norman Mailer has a great deal in common as a writer with Philip Roth, both being Jewish natives of New York City, when, in fact, there’s very little overlap. I would further venture, putting myself on a limb here, that comparisons between O’Connor and Faulkner reflect a distinct, “Northern” attitude toward the work of Southern writers, as does the article’s insistence on making race in O’Connor a notable theme. It’s as if her legacy is only as “legitimate” or as “relevant” as her willingness to grapple with the South’s history of slavery and hostility to civil rights, etc., however late it became a pressing concern.

I could further quibble with the word “ironic” as it’s used to describe O’Connor’s work in the article more than once. This, again, reflects what I regard as a particular bias, when I’m not convinced that O’Connor saw her endings as ironic at all. On the contrary, as her letters reflect, she expressed bemusement that her work was primarily read and misinterpreted by a secular audience with concerns that bore no relation whatsoever to hers.

As to all the quibbling over O’Connor’s sexuality, this, alas, is par for the course, from what I’ve seen on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.133.86.18 (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You make an excellent case, so be bold and go ahead and fix this stuff! At the least, statements like comparing her to Faulkner, or that she "brands each work with a disturbing and ironic conclusion" should be cited. These should be the referenced opinion of some WP:Reliable source, not of the person writing the WP article. RedSpruce 14:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The argument above is mostly correct, and I have made a few alterations in this vain.

-She is not "in the vein of William Faulkner." She is a Southern writer influenced by the grotesque; that is a sufficient description, so I have removed that extra part. As argued, they are both Southern and have some stylistic similarities; the same could be said of O'Connor and Mark Twain, but it would be absurd to say she was "in the vein of Twain."

-The idea that she "brands each work with a disturbing and ironic conclusion" is first of all, wrong, and secondly, a characterization she hated. Most of her stories, not all, have disturbing elements; many could be considered ironic in a certain way, but not cynically so. As she says in the Habit of Being, page 90, "I am tired of reading reviews that call A Good Man brutal and sarcastic. The stories are hard but they are hard because there is nothing harder or less sentimental than Christian realism... when I see these stories described as horror stories I am always amused because the reviewer always has hold of the wrong horror." Most are disturbed by the grandmother's sudden death in A Good Man; but for Flannery O'Connor, that was the highest point of grace... a poignant and definitely not cynical moment. Thus, I changed that part to reflect this.

-The idea that she was increasingly captivated by racial issues is simply unfounded. She always considered the problem of race relations in the South important, but that was never the center of her stories. And certainly the condition that one story which incidentally happens to be her last is race-centered does not mean she was increasingly captivated by race any more than the condition that her second-to-last story, "Parker's Back," revolves around tattoos reveals an increasing preoccupation with body ink or Byzantine icons. The issue of race didn't "loom" in the background; it was part of the background, because it was part of the Southern landscape of the time. "Looms" implies that this figured centrally in her stories, which it did not. Again, it was important, but not central to her own purposes as a writer. I changed the section to state that a few of her stories directly address issues of race, and that one of these happens to be her final story. Biasedbulldog (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I also changed "unsubtle foreshadowing" to "blunt foreshadowing," as I thought it sounded better ("unsubtle" sounds stilted and awkward) and removes any implied deprecation. Biasedbulldog (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Popularity among Catholics

But she was never very popular with Catholics, and still isn't...has some sort of formal poll been conducted? I don't see how this information can be backed up. It seems very POV-driven to me. Anyone else picking up on this? – Beginning 20:52, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

I would say that she was and still is definitely popular amongst Southerners, which would not include a lot of Catholics. I think that she is more generally regarded as a Southern writer, although current books about her spirituality seem to come from Catholic perspectives and stress this aspect of her religious belief.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ising (talk • contribs) 18:32, 14 February 2005 (UTC)

If someone claimed that most young people nowadays have no interest in the music of Dean Martin, do we really need a poll to back that up? I personally can attest to the fact that most of the Catholics I know rank O'Connor far below G. K. Chesterton or Graham Greene, if they rank her at all. 64.12.116.73 05:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Even if we accept this as generally true (I personally rank her above Chesterton and I am Catholic), is it a very encyclopedic thing to say? I don't see how it advances the article to say that people are of the opinion that she isn't popular among Catholics.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.191.106 (talk) 08:23, 28 April 2005 (UTC)

Most American Catholics I know put her before chesterton and greene. I say take it out. Squanderdalfast 03:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just started with her but she definitely ranks with Chesterton and and Graham Greene. I <3 Flannery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.175.157 (talk) 11:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I've got to say the whole "ranking" thing seems a bit silly, barring some actual data. Should be taken out. She's certainly a Catholic who happens to be a Southerner, rather than vice versa. She wrote as a Southerner because that was her experience -- and as she says, you can only reach mystery through manners. If you try to write in manners you don't understand, you'll fail. Restricting her to the title of Southern pigeon-holes her stories rather unfairly. And, though this is neither here nor there, her fiction surpasses Chesterton's pretty handily (though Chesterton was a weightier thinker), and I think pretty well equals Greene -- or certainly could have if she had died at age 87, like Greene, rather than tragically at 41. Biasedbulldog (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Untitled

Not quite sure how to approach this page. I think she's important enough to warrant a large amount of information, but not more than some other writers in the canon, that haven't been developed quite enough yet. Can anyone point me to a faq/discussion of the viability/usefulness of including critical reviews of an author/author's works on Wikipedia? thanks—Preceding unsigned comment added by Atorpen (talk • contribs) 00:43, 3 December 2002 (UTC)

Flannery O'Connor's fiction, essays and letters was deeply compassionate about the crisis of faith in a religionless age: "Nihilism is the gas we breathe," she once observed. "I think there is no suffering greater than what is caused by the doubts of those who want to believe. I know what torment this is, but I can only see it, in myself anyway, as the process by which faith is deepened. What people don't realize is how much religion cost." O'Connor frequently lectured on university campuses, and often addressing the tension between intellect and religious convictions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.217.19.242 (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2004 (UTC)

What is the basis for the claim that she "almost didn't graduate"? I don't think there is any basis in fact for this claim. Just finished the Gooch biography and there is no mention on anything but normal steady academic progress toward a degree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.52.142 (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for Userbox

I want a userbox that proclaims my love of the work of Flannery O'Connor. Can anyone help? RobertAustin (talk) 05:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Important Works

It is possible to read this entire article without garnering any sense of what O'Connor's most important contributions to literature are generally regarded to be. That doesn't strike me as especially encyclopedic, especially for an author that is allegedly regarded as canonical (see below). I'd like to chase down some critical reviews of O'Connor that mention the relative influence or importance of various works and cite these to give the article's readers this sense of expert opinion. Any discouragements or encouragements, please post in reply to this. Thanks. Regardingsweetness (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Are such sections common features in other author articles? Not sure I've seen one before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.170.113 (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Influences

I didn't know where to put this so I put it here:

Under influences Nathanael West, Nikolai Gogol and possibly T.S. Eliot should be included.

--O'Connor admired West's "Miss Lonelyhearts" and placed it with Faulkner's "As I Lay Dying" as two of her favorite American novels; Harold Bloom states this in his chapter on West in "How to Read and Why". To further the case, "Miss Lonelyhearts" is a grotesque, dark comic story of a male advice columnist wrestling with a spiritual crisis, who eventually embraces God before being shot in a stairwell by an irate cripple. The book then ends somewhat ambiguously-- like many of O' Connor's works. Also one familiar with West will notice allusions to his work-- particularly in the names of characters-- in "Wise Blood".

--O' Connor was said to have urged friends to read Gogol; saying that one must enjoy him, and not just Tolsoi (apparently he, like today, was not as universally known an author). Also, the affinity between her and Gogol's fiction is enough to warrant his inclusion under "influences"; they are both dark comic writers with serious religious themes featuring--prominently-- grotesque characters. Gogol's Akaky Akakievich from "The Overcoat" is more concerned with his new overcoat then his soul, just as Hulga from "Good Country People" cares for her wooden foot "as someone else would care for his soul" (quoted, incorrectly, by memory)."Their intentions as writers were also the same, as O'Connor was quoted saying she hoped her fiction, and its violence, would wake up and then work on her readers, who she saw as being in a poor spiritual state; Gogol too hoped his fiction would show to his contemporaries the horror and vacuity of their pursuits, whom he believed cared more for their soles than their souls.

-- This last one--Eliot-- I would not argue for, but Sally Fitzgerald makes the case that Eliot was also an influence, particularly his work "The Waste Land". In her introduction to "Three by Flannery O' Connor" (Signet Classics) Fitzgerald says there are many allusions to Eliot in O'Connors papers at "Georgia College in Milledgeville" that make up some early drafts and notes to "Wise Blood". Fitzgerald, while stating that O'Connor never direcly mentions Eliot, also says she had 12 of Eliot's books in her personal library. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.31.87 (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

"grotesque"

No doubt there are those who characterize her this way, but she explicitly rejected the claim. If it's included in the article, then we need evidence that it's the critical consensus -- which should be findable; although it's a dimwitted assessment, it's very credible that the dimwits could reach a consensus. But if she pointed out its stupidity, I doubt that it belongs in the lead. 108.70.22.187 (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Why not be open in the article and say that [cited and named significant parties] describe(d) her work in that manner those she herself rejected the term? The issues often comes up with writers/creatives. No, probably not lead material as there are subtleties to be explored. Span (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The quote in the article, where she supposedly rejects the claim, is in this article, if anyone needs an online source: [1] -- Foetusized (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Lesbianism?

"However, The Habit of Being hints at a possible lesbian relationship. O'Connor's suggestion that Catholics have to accept suffering from their Church as well as for it seems to support this allegation." This quote is certainly not enough of a base from which to suggest that Flannery had lesbian relationships. When I read this quote I thought it applied much more to her sense that the church was at times too authoritarian - she mentions the 'index' and the literary sentiments of many catholics expressly to suggest that she did not always feel as if she fit in. 'THOB' highlights Flannery's passion for orthodoxy as well as her earnestness in defence of the Catholic church's moral positions. I think the reference to her lesbianism should be removed unless there is clearer evidence that these relationships took place.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.209.6.41 (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2005 (UTC)

The "accept suffering" remark is not the actual hint being alluded to. The Habit of Being contains a letter from O'Connor to her closest friend, who oddly remained anonymous in the book. In this letter, Flannery gleefully relates that the day after her friend spent the night at the O'Connor household, the maid informed Flannery's mother that the guest bed had not been slept in, and Flannery's mother angrily told the maid to mind her own business. The implication is clear that O'Connor and her friend probably slept together. Whether O'Connor was provably a lesbian or not, the mere possibility, especially when contrasted to her unshakable devotion to a Church that condemns homosexual activity, provides a valuable clue towards understanding her motives and her work. 64.12.116.73 05:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What's the date of this letter? If you can't locate it, should you still be including it as a "hint"?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.106.200 (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I dont think Flannery O'Connor was a lesbian. And I see no reason for you to believe that either. just because she had a friend that was a woman means nothing. and just because she was catholic means nothing either. she loved her work and was in love with that. I can understand that she didnt want a man interfearing in her works.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.102.231.101 (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Having read all of Flannery O'Connor's work, including THOB, I feel completely certain that this whole lesbianism hogwash is just sensationalism. The reason she "gleefully" relates it is obvious if you study her letters at all; she LOVED controversy, and she was never more pleased than when her actions caused a stir among the genteel Southern ladies. Take, for instance, her excitement about the stir caused by her friend Maryat Lee's liberal northern ideas after her visit. The idea that a sleepover makes a woman a lesbian... is beyond silly and not worth mentioning. Further, there is little connection to suggest that pain caused by the Church = homosexual turmoil. It's absurd. Flannery O'Connor notes that "before [Grace] heals, it cuts with the sword Christ says he came to bring" in another letter. O'Connor merely believed that life was not all flowers and roses, that "there is nothing harder or less sentimental than Christian realism." The O'Connor lesbian concept is nothing more than groundless sensationalism and does not belong in any serious NPOV piece. Also note that the anonymity was so at the friend's request; "A" was identified recently as Betty Hester after her own death. Biasedbulldog 23:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Flannery's the man ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.157.136.104 (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox "Influences" & "Influenced"

Of currently four "influences" listed in the infobox, only Kierkegaard is referenced. I would not argue against Faulkner, Aquinas, or Weil, but cites are required.

Much more hazardous is the long list of "influenced", currently eleven names, without a single one being cited. Who knows? Is this all just original research? Or sheer guesswork? Milkunderwood (talk) 06:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

In the meantime, someone has added a bunch more names to the "influences" section, none cited. I've just gone ahead and removed everything except Kierkegaard. All those names are still available in History - add back whatever can be properly sourced. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Why did anyone remove "influences" and "influenced" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.103.132 (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

As above. Influences need cites. Span (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I added some from the "Habit of Being" but I find this process rather difficult. There is no point in those letters in which she will simply say "Author X influenced me" and mean it, partially out of tone (many of the letters written about literature to a friend she did not wish to be intellectually pushy with) and partially out of pure dignity; she was far above the type of self-proclaiming artist whose public statements are simply cartoonish self-criticism. From her own extra-literary work one can usually understand from the rhythms of conversation which authors she keeps coming back to: she seemed to have read Aquinas almost devotionally every day, and seems to have read every William Faulkner novel she could, even though she speaks of him with great opaqueness (though it is rather common, and I find helpful, to surmise she was her chief influence, even negatively).

One could prove it by the number or citations, but risks entering the T.S. Eliot hell of index-picking over actual criticism (His letters mention his mother rather often, and she wrote one poem, or He kept sending replies to somebody who kept unsuccessfully submitting to his magazine; I Found a New Influence!). The answer would probably to pick up citations from secondary material, and only list those influences which greatly help analyzing the work. Namely, ones that have the same techniques she uses, and can help to understand her stories. Somebody did it for Kierkegaard, we need somebody to find one for Faulkner. (I suggest we keep Kafka off the list permanently. She had already developed the "engine" she used to write stories before encountering him, and to suggest that every story that seems odd is influenced by Kafka seems detrimental to study or reading in general.)--Artimaean (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Connecticut Connection

I am curious as to why this page would have a "People from Ridgefield, Connecticut" tag placed on it. She lived in Connecticut for a while with the Fitzgeralds, but apparently not in Ridgefield. A previous version of this page explained this, but now the tag remains. Forgetting the Ridgefield aspect, what would it take for someone to be "from Connecticut"? Bob Cummings (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Penis Removal?

I can't find anything citing Flannery O'Connor had a "penis". The only research I have found is she had a fibroid tumor removed from her abdomen that caused the Lupus flare-up. Verification? Dudelicious (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism.  Skomorokh, barbarian  23:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, verified and included citing New Georgia Encyclopedia. Ernie (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

Would anyone mind if I set up archiving for this talk page? It's not as if there's a lot of volume here, but we have threads going back more than a decade, and I see no need to fossilize on the main talk page Miss O'Connor's fictional penis removal, lesbianism, and prostitution career ("And in what order?" a small voice asks).

Technical details
I plan to use lowercase sigmabot III configured like so: {{User:MiszaBot/config |algo = old(180d) |archive = Talk:Flannery O'Connor/Archives/%(year)d |archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadsleft = 0 }} {{archive box |1 = {{yearly archive list |prefix=Archives/}} |bot = Lowercase sigmabot III |age = 6 |units = months }}

Thanks!  Rebbing  16:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Do it, please! LadyofShalott 20:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you—done! (I decided to go with numbered archives instead of yearly.)  Rebbing  21:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Flannery O'Connor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vqronline.org/between-house-and-chicken-yard
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811173128/http://www.ugapress.org/index.php/series/foc_winners to http://www.ugapress.org/index.php/series/foc_winners

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Done, thanks. Rebbing 16:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

"She managed twelve"

Hi User:Terry Foote, to answer your question: "twelve" refers to "years" as can be seen in the previous part of the original sentence ("Although expected to live only five more years, she managed twelve."). Imo that's still clearer and more concise than subsequent changes, though I won't revert again; maybe someone else can weigh in. But I would like to know what you are referring to as "disrespectful to O'Connor"; that's a reputation I would like to avoid. CheersTimeForLunch (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

"But she managed twelve" - naturally it's just my opinion, but it seems like saying "she eeeked out a few more years." It doesn't seem to capture the fortitude of outliving a diagnosis of a very serious disease by seven years. I only meant to improve the article. If someone else disagrees with my wording, naturally then can go back to the original wording. Terry Foote (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok Terry Foote with that kind concession I'll revert to the original sentence. TimeForLunch (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

****If someone else disagrees.**** That is not a concession. Terry Foote (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flannery O'Connor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811173128/http://www.ugapress.org/index.php/series/foc_winners to http://www.ugapress.org/index.php/series/foc_winners

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Rebbing 18:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Rearrange

I have the material slightly and added a few sentences. The head was previously defficient for not mentioning her distinctive tropes.

I recently read Basselin's book on the centrality of disability to her work, and to limitations in general. He points out that she not only had some simple minded analogies where disabilities etc reflected some bad in someone (or raised them in someone else) but she also believed that good could be as grotesque as bad: in that it was always half-formed (humans being finite and fallible and works in progress), like a half-face eaten away by a tumour (the Mary-Ann book). So I added more references to disability in the themes.

I pulled out the material on birds into its own section and added a duck story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick Jelliffe (talk • contribs) 05:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Stages of Career

I have not provided links to justify those stages. Here is the justification:

Bruners book p42 has the three stages of the professional career, and with the student stage that makes four: I have made this a little less assertive by just referring to four 5 year stages. Basselin's book notes the change in theme for the last five years as a distinctive change, related to her writing the introduction to the Mary Anne Long book [2], and related to her exploration of the theme of disability. Other authors also note that her writing and themes developed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick Jelliffe (talk • contribs) 01:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

the needed citation

The needed reference to the writers and critics she met at Iowa is the current reference 22 (Georgia Encyclopedia entry). I can't figure out how to fix it, so someone else can do that. As of 2018-08-14, the web address of the reference is https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/arts-culture/flannery-oconnor-1925-1964 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6F11:2090:B845:100E:75A6:F1FC (talk) 03:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. Please check to make sure the result is what you asked for, I didn't notice any other citation neededs. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Flannery-O'Connor 1947.jpg (discussion)
• Robie with Flannery 1947.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)