Sorry this is soooo sooo late!!

Sorry, this blog is way late! Last week we broke off into groups to discuss what we got from reading Lyotard. We had sections three and four and while that had a lot of concepts we mainly focused on one. He goes on for quite a bit on the point of University and how it has changed so much. He basically says that there was a time when it was a privilege and honor to go when now it is just about expect from everyone if they want to have a career and support themselves. People used to go to college to better themselves intellectually and set themselves apart from everyone else- it seems like now we just go to get that piece of paper. Are colleges too shallow now? We can graduate and get those degrees... And then what? Still be in competition with everyone else. Are we really paying to be set apart?

We Need More Burger Flippers

College the institute of higher education.  Yeah right, that's what it used to be but not so much anymore.  Everyone thinks that they are entitled to go to college.  We need to go back to having a focus on getting the intelligent people into college and less intelligent people need to go straight to work after high school. We need a way to evaluate the intelligence of everyone and only allow those that qualify to get a degree in certain areas.  Wait we do it's called the ACT. Stop letting people in on restrictions and send them into the workforce.  We need people to "Go Build Alabama."  You don't need a college degree to do manual labor or flip burgers.   If that was to happen then people in college would be able to get an actual education and not a piece of paper that says they completed x number of classes.  People would actually get to learn and get into jobs that fit their education instead of fighting for and losing jobs because there is a moron with the same degree as them.

P.S. I commented on Susan's blog

Can knowledge be known?

One of the passages in Lyotard that stood out to me was when he said "For it is impossible to know what the state of knowledge is." More than anything, this statement reminded me of a lot of the discussions we had in class throughout this semester. At one time or another, we discussed at length the real substance of knowledge and whether or not we can truly know something. I can safely say that before honors, this type of question would seem absolutely ridiculous to me, but now as I write paper after paper and blog after blog, this kind of question begins to hold a new kind of interest in my mind. This class has brought a whole new legitimacy to doubt in my mind. Like Heidegger would say, the thesis is only such in light of its own antithesis. In the case of Lyotard, this statement has huge implications for those of us who, being in college, are seeking knowledge every day. We cannot learn new things and then treat them as absolute, indisputable knowledge. Doing so would go against everything we have learned in honors. We must go on in our search of knowledge knowing that that very search is relative by nature and cannot be absolutely defined.

P.S. i commented on Lane's

Lyotard is a Ryotard... hehehe. JK. He's actually pretty cool

  In reading his work, it is fun to pick out which modern/ post modern authors influenced Lyotard's writings.  He speaks of how "no self is an island."  Each person's existence is a "fabric of relations."  This is much like Heidegger's idea that each man is a mit-dasein, that is a being-with in the world.  That means that each man's being is a being of existence that cannot be separated from his world and the other beings around him.  Moreover, Percy speaks of how man is a triadic being, he is a being which must be able to relate to others though language or he cannot actualize his being. 

Lyotard also speaks of how although language is necessary for the existence of the Self, language as it is today is quite limited.  It is not until institutions such as schools, government offices, the work place, etc. remove the boundaries currently placed on language that it can be used to its full potential and the true pursuit of knowledge be undertaken.  We have talked a lot this semester about how many theorists have placed boxes around things, and made theories which, while they many aid our understanding of something in the present- they ultimately inhibit free and creative thought on a particular subject.  Heidegger speaks on this in great detail. 

I commented on Anna Rhodes' ... you know, the one with the really long title that has a lot of exclamation points

A Lack of Wisdom

In our reading it is mentioned that schools today are not the way they used to be.  Going to college used to be a large step that only a few people took to higher their education.  However, today it is just looked at as  the next step in a person's life.  It is almost as if people think "well, I'm finished with high school, so the next step must be to go to college."  Some people will go and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on education when they don't even know what they want to do with their life.  This low standard for college has resulted in lower standards in the classroom.  Instead of being a place of wisdom, where people study amongst one another to come to lofty conclusions about important topics, the freshman year of college for some people is like the 13th grade.  I even feel this way in some of my classes here (but definitely not honors!!!) haha.  I find it really funny now that there are actually commercials on the TV trying to convince people NOT to go to college.  Mike Rowe tries to convince people to take on physical labor jobs and "go build Alabama."  It great that everyone wants to get a better education, but the education they are getting is not as good as it used to be.  Soon a college degree will mean nothing but just another piece of paper.

I commented on Kaylie's blog

-Susan Berner

Revelation

Yes, yes, I know this is not on Lyotard's work. No, I'm writing on O'Connor's Revelation.

    The first things I want to say is that O'Connor knows the stigmatism of the South, how many 'good christian' people have the hierarchy of classes. Mrs. Turpin reminds me of several southern ladies I have met and grown up around during my life.  I love that she at the end of Revelation, finally gets her revelation. That in the end all Christians are a like, no matter how their life played out. If we were saved by Christ all our 'good' works are worth nothing, there is no competition, no one is better than anyone else.
      Mary Grace is another one of my favorite characters in this story because she sees Mrs. Turpin for what she truly is, a hypocrite, who judges by outward appearances. Mary Grace seems to know almost what Mrs. Turpin is thinking, maybe this is because her own mother seems so much like Mrs. Turpin. Mary Grace is infuriated with Mrs. Turpin, because as 'smart' and 'good' and 'whole' Mrs. Turpin believes she is, she is no better than the dirty white trash woman across the room from her.
     Also, I believe that Mary Grace represents the extension of grace itself. When she attacks Mrs. Turpin, I think its suppose to symbolize how grace knocks you off your feet. Costly Grace is a sacrifice, and recognizing the call means changing your entire view on reality. Mary Grace calls Mrs. Turpin a ugly old warthog, Mary Grace told Mrs. Turpin what her soul looked like.  Once you've been touched by grace, you can't seem to shake what grace has revealed to you, what you are on the inside.... a monster. This view can lead you to seeking out Christ, which is what Mrs. Turpin did. She went searching for something she realized was missing in her 'perfect' country life.
     Going off this point is Grace the starting point to the search? I do not know, but that is a question I had.

Anyhow that's something I found interesting about Revelation by Flannery O'Connor!

And here we are at the end of the year

Lay down
Your sweet and weary head
Night is falling
You have come to journey's end
Sleep now
And dream of the ones who came before
They are calling
From across the distant shore

Why do you weep?
What are these tears upon your face?
Soon you will see
All of your fears will pass away
Safe in my arms
You're only sleeping

What can you see
On the horizon?
Why do the white gulls call?
Across the sea
A pale moon rises
The ships have come to carry you home

And all will turn
To silver glass
A light on the water
All souls pass

I don't know why I posted that, I just thought that it was fitting for a blog post from the geek class. We've come so far, I can't believe my freshman year is almost over. 

Anyways, I should probably get to my point. When we split up into groups on Tuesday, Meghan Johnston and I were tasked with noting Lyotard's points on scientific experimentation and didactics. One point that struck me was that the teacher should instruct the student in a way that the student, could, after a while, become a peer of the teacher concerning the subject being taught. It seems to me that the general mentality of many people today is "I've known about it longer, therefore I know more than you." While I myself am guilty of the same thing more often than not, I thought it must have been a problem in Lyotard's time (which was 1979, let me add, the same year as the release of Rock Lobster, My Sharona, and Charlie Daniel's famous piece, The Devil Went Down to Georgia)

That's about as far as my argument gets is that I've known/done this longer, therefore I'm smarter/better than you. I appreciate the leaving of this mentality in the honors group, and I hope to do the same with the next batch of honors freshmen next year.


~Cody Martin
PS. Commented here

Knowledge! Knowledge! Come and Get It! Step Right Up! NEW! Try our Knowledge with Whipped Cream on top!

This is what I think of when I read Lyotard’s scary predictions.

Lyotard’s remarks about knowledge frighten me a little. It’s interesting to notice that he wrote the book in the 1970’s. If you read it closely you will begin to recognize that he somewhat predicts the future with his logic. Lyotard noticed that knowledge would have to keep up with technology. He said this would create problems in two ways: in research and in the transfer of knowledge (aka. Professor to student, or article to reader, etc.) He later goes on to say that knowledge would become a commodity, “ Knowledge is and will be produced in order to be sold, it is and will be consumed in order to be valorized in a new production…knowledge ceases to be an end in itself” (4).  Now, hold on. This is where it begins to get scary to me. Once something becomes a commodity it is not as free and pure (in my mind) as it was before. The purity of Knowledge is essentially what I have always loved about it. Granted not all knowledge is “pure.” In fact pure is not even the right word. It has always seemed to me that knowledge is something that is beyond the reach of corrupting physical powers. That is what I have loved about Honors. To me it seemed to be a group of students pursuing a more pure and deeper knowledge than the mundane skills of the malaise. However, in a way what he says makes sense. Knowledge has become a commodity. After all, you have to have money to go to college. Education requires expensive tools also. Knowledge is sold. Admissions counselors sell a university to you and professors make money off of knowledge.

Lyotard goes on to say that since knowledge will be a commodity it will be the new frontier in the world (5).  There is no more land to be conquered. Now states will compete to get the newest technology first. In his time I believe there were already signs of this like sending men on the moon and the cold war’s atomic bombs. The states are now beginning to compete for knowledge and technology.

All of this is strange to me. Perhaps I’m a nostalgic person, but upon reading Lyotard I feel like I’m living in a sci-fi movie. This age is too much for me.

By the way, this is my last Honors blog ever! That’s crazy! It’s been good and I will miss it! You will never encounter another class like Honors. Embrace it!  I can’t wait to hear from you guys in the fall as you discover the classics! Keep Struggling!

Tantum e tenebris receptum constabit

I commented on "What's the Point of College" by Amanda Gaster

Information Overload.

Before I start on my actual blog, I would just like to say that the movie was awesome, and also that i'm loving how we keep breaking down our literature for this semester. Initially, I read Bonhoeffer for the class assignment. Then, I read it again with the perspective lens of finding the meaning of life through Bonhoeffers pages, so I could use that info in my larger paper. Now I'm reading through one more time with the perspective of finding grace for my final essay. It's like picking meat off of a chicken bone. Except it takes years to get to the bone under all the meat.

Now for my actual blog. As I was reading through the first couple pages of Lyotard, I was reminded of what Dr. Talmage said at the beginning of class on Tuesday. He said that this piece of literature has the potential for the most practical application in our daily lives. Then I read the first couple of pages, and I was reminded of this  commerical from a couple of years ago.

http://youtu.be/NHmzzLt8WFA

That commercial plus this passage from Lyotard has inspired me for my blog:                

And it is fair to say that for the last forty years the "Leading" sciences and technologies have to do with language: Phonology and theories of linguistics, ...These technological transformations can be expected to have a considerable impact on knowledge. Its two principle functions- research and the transmission of acquired learning- are already feeling the effect, or will in the future. With respect to the first function (of knowledge), genetics provides an example that is accessible to the layman: it owes its theoretical paradigm to cybernetics. ... As for the second function, it is common knowledge that the miniaturization and commercialization of machines is already changing the way in which learning is acquired, classified, made available, and exploited.It is reasonable to suppose that the proliferation of information-processing machines is having, and will continue to have, as much of an effect on the circulation of learning as did advancements  in human circulation (transportation systems) and later in the sounds and visual images (the media)."

Long passage, but it got me thinking. It's saying that the advancement of communication has quickly expanded the transmission of learning. He referenced to quickened transportation, such as the improved usage of automobiles and also referenced media such as television or movies. I wonder how after a couple of decades of this novel how Lyotard saw the changes in technology advancing our communication. At the time of his death in 1998, he had seen the emerging of the internet, cellphones, and other advancements in communication.

I wonder how he would react to the technology of today. We take most of it for granted, but look at the expansion of communication and knowledge we have today. Decades ago, students would have to go the library. Now... You go on Google and find anything you need to know about any subject. You have online resources and libraries to guide you on your quest for truth. You have it all on a computer far surpassing the technology of what Lyotard had. We have computers that fit in our laps! Not even mentioning the hand-held computers we call cell-phones, which allow us to find information at absolutely any time. At the touch of a button, one can connect with anyone in the world and talk, and see their face! The communication that we experience today is remarkable and allows us to find knowledge and wisdom much easier than only a short time ago.

Commented on Nick Hampton's "Education".

a blog post

I didn’t get as far in the reading where he talks about education really but from what I’ve read from the blogs I think I get the gist of it. I know it’s a little off base but it brings me back to my education class I’m taking and let me just stand on my soapbox for a second. The education system does not give teachers enough room to truly teach so basically we’re learning how to take tests and memorize facts… there is very little application involved. My sister observed a teacher who taught his students how to solve problems based on the options off their multiple choice test… they had no idea how to actually solve the problem on its own but they could plug in the numbers to get the answer. I’m not saying that’s terrible and they should know how to test but it’s not truly educating them. If that’s all they’re being taught in high school then how can they be expected to do anything else when they go to college? Really it’s almost at a point where I’m like why go to school at all if there’s not even enough leeway for teachers to teach. I don’t even know how applicable that is to Lyotard but I’ve been real upset about it the last couple days. The group I was in on Tuesday discussed a lot about the language games with a little help from some former honors students. Lyotard gives three different observations about these rules and I thought the third one was the most interesting one. He says “to speak is to fight” and then goes on to say that in language games one doesn’t necessarily play to win, but it’s for the sheer joy of the game itself. I thought it was entertaining…

Famous Last Words

"In the end, it's not the years in your life that counts, it's the life in your years"

"I do the very best I know how - the very best I can; and I mean to keep on doing so until the end."

-Abraham Lincoln, 16th president of the United States of America

The final reading that I was assigned to read for Honors Literature 212 was Lyotard's The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge; more specifically, I have studied Ch.8 The Narrative Function and the Legitimation of Knowledge. In this section Lyotard describes that in his search for knowledge he desires that science and facts be separated from narratives. In other words, when discoveries are made and truth is derived from these facts, they are almost instantly added to a grand narrative of what they represent and how they fit into previously devised theories and philosophies of what the world is and should be. Though society has largely moved away from these, we are still prone to wander back to meta-narratives which, according to Lyotard, create unrealistic societal expectations and subvert the legitimation of knowledge. He notes that to even describe this process requires some sort of narrative style explanation. In fact, he finds it hard to escape narratives at all when it seems that he really just wants to get at straight, unadulterated knowledge. Just the facts, no emotional ties to confuse them and no deep desires to subvert them. As a matter of fact, he cites Plato and Aristotle as primary influences for what he calls "modern thinking." Lyotard is a man of statistics and factual evidence, not grand epics of thought and movement, and for that I only have one thing to say...

Sucks to be you.

Lyotard's way of thinking is twisted because he is assuming that story can be separated from statistics and narrative separated from truth, when in fact they are all inseparable. Narrative is not something that can just be deconstructed and removed from human thought because we are wired to think in narratives. Machines can look at Lyotard's kinds of facts easily without considering the grand picture, but what makes man great is his ability to imagine and perceive greater things beyond just the raw data that we find through science, because narratives are a science in themselves. Yes, there have been some terrible metanarratives, such as Marxism and Nazism, but w/out narratives there would be no stories or philosophy at all, which would put Lyotard out of a job. Besides, as a professor, is he not supposed to formulate his teaching plan into some sort of narrative that he can express to his students rather than just give them straight data, because he knows full well that the former is the only way they will learn. Also, the idea that narratives hinder the legitimation of knowledge is ridiculous. I venture to say that I have learned some of my greatest life lessons from Lord of the Rings and Star Wars and those will define my search for knowledge far more than this book ever will. This is possible because narratives speak to the human heart and mind more than anything else - they are not just a part of life but are as integral to it as music and breath.

If there's one thing I've learned throughout Honors, it's that there is actually a huge narrative that has begun since the Fall of Man. The same problems that we deal with now (truth vs false, reason vs passion, stale vs energy, love vs hate, etc.) have been debated all throughout history in a wide variety of ways and it's not going to stop any time soon. Life often moves in cycles, and there will always be new facts and new questions that arise to challenge the common perceptions. Lyotard has brought his challenges to the challenges he sees, and myself and many others have come to challenge him. So while things do not necessarily change in this world, there is always new beauty and new possibilities to be found, and in the death of Christ we find truth and and life that we cannot find anywhere else, and that's something I wonder if Lyotard realizes. We cannot have a soul without narratives! Never forget that God spoke this world into existence and made us individually; we were designed to have our own stories within His own. That's what those quotes above are about - the all-encompassing search that defines our lives and the story that creates, interwoven with many different others whether we realize it or not. That's why Socrates will always be my favorite philosopher, because he recognized the grander designs of our existence and never stopped searching for those truths, even unto his death. So to conclude this blog I quote the great searcher himself: "The end of life is to be like God, and the soul following God will be like Him."

Thank you for reading, please comment as you please. I commented on Nick Hampton's Education???

Education???

Out of all the things that we read and discussed in my group, I only really understood one of them. My understood portion came from Chapter 12: Education and Its Legitimation through Performativity. 

Lyotard writes about postmodern education. He writes that school, or more specifically, a school of higher learning, is no longer a place where a few “elite” go to learn ideas that set them apart from the rest of the people in a world without knowledge. We discussed that now, going to college is the expected norm which everyone is supposed to do. No longer do people go to school to become intelligent, now they go to school to be trained for one job and to receive a piece of paper which allows them to be accepted into the world of adulthood.

As we discussed this, I thought back to a quote from one of my favorite teachers of my high school career, Mr. Gary Hall. As a senior, about once a week he would tell me, “All you have to do is play the game they want you to play for the rest of the year, then you’re good to go.” I believe Mr. Hall’s wise words fit perfectly with the idea that Lyotard presents here.

I commented on Amanda Gaster's post...

What's the point of college?

This quote from Lyotard stood out the most to my group: “The transmission of knowledge is no longer designed to train an elite capable of guiding the nation toward its emancipation, but to supply the system with players capable of acceptably fulfilling their roles at the pragmatic posts required by its institutions” (48). Basically this means that now college is viewed as the “next step” or “what’s expected”; whereas, college used to be beyond the norm—it was where the thinkers went to learn and grow and emerge to make a difference in the world. Now it has become a sort of trade school- you go, get a degree to do a job instead of going to learn. Yes, you do have to learn to get a degree, but it’s a specialized program—linear thinking instead of deep thinking. Instead of reaching up for ideas and hazy dreams that just might change the world, the focus is more on reaching out and grasping physical skills that have already been proven over time to get the job done. I think that’s why I enjoy Honors so much… it’s not part of my degree. I could take regular English and meet the requirement, but the challenge of Honors allows me to reach up, to dream, and to discover things that I never would’ve seen if I only focused on nursing and learning those skills to do a job. I’m learning that college is about so much more than getting a degree to do a job… it is about life and the pursuit of truth. Thank you to my Honors family and my professors for this wonderful year… I have learned so much and grown as a person. I cannot wait to continue this search for truth with you all next year, thank you for electing me to serve as part of your Council. Keep searching for truth, my friends!
Tantum e tenebris receptum constabit
P.S. Commented on Rachel’s “Nursing Major Nerdiness”

Knowledge

We are supposed to be reading Lyotard, and from the little bit of reading I did do, I found from what I do understand of it that we are talking about knowledge and the different "kinds" of knowledge there are. There is the knowledge that is still learning. For example, a scientist may find a hypothesis and searches out to find the answer. He may or may not find it. Yet, the scientist continues to search for the answer.
        I do wonder though, in this idea of knowledge, what exactly is it? Knowledge is the " the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique." (As the dictionary would say it.) So it is knowing of something. In order to truly know something you learn about it. Is there ever a place where there is no more way to Know more? Is there a highest transcendent to where we have reached all that can ever be known? I would think not. In a visual example, I will use Christianity and knowing God. As a Christian we seek to learn more and more about God, our creator. Will we ever reach the ultimate place of knowledge and knowing God completely? Absolutely not! We couldn't possibly know God completely by the time we are down to our very last breath on earth. 
   So I believe that defining the "kinds" of knowledge is relevant and essential when understanding it.
This is just some thoughts I had when the idea of knowledge was brought up by Lyotard. 

Honors final; Elliot and I.

I'm in the waste land again. I use this blog during paper writing to help me sort through how I really feel. Sometimes it just doesn't come out in a formal paper until it has come out right here.

I've always loved Elliot, always found it to be some of the most beautiful and comforting writing i could read. If you know me then you've heard me give this speech before. Elliot speaks to me in a number of ways. The first was the way in which he freed up my perception of poetry. Before I read him I read a great deal of Tennyson and was more used to the idea of a poem having structure and almost a sing-song rhyme. Elliot's poetry slapped me in the face because i FELT the words exactly as he said them. The would dip and dive and stop just at the right moments, paying no attention whatsoever to what i thought a poem should do.
The second thing is the feeling of absolutely loneliness and separation Elliot's poems have. Particularly Prufrock and the Waste Land. I think this loneliness and separation from the world is always there. We have a difficult time acknowledging it sometimes, but there's great freedom in it. For me it is like the last lines in the musical Les Miserables (yes, i know it's a book but these lines are from the Musical)
do you hear the people sing?
lost in the valley of the night
it is the music of a people
who are climbing to the light
for the wretched of the earth
there is a flame that never dies
even the darkest night will end
and the sun will rise.
 they will live again in freedom
in the garden of the LORD
they will walk behind the ploughshare
they will put away the sword
the chain will be broken and all men will have their reward.

It is a blessed thing to have the freedom of seeing that we are all Les Miserables. That on this earth, peace may not come, the right may not ever prevail and despite our best efforts the innocent will die. But for the "wretched of the earth" this suffering is not the end, there is no meaning in it, other than the meaning that this world cannot possibly be what life is really about. that we are pilgrims in this waste land, we do not belong to it.

Nursing Major Nerdiness

My group cheated. First we asked Kala Holt to help us, then Amy Wright, and then Sara Dye.
We really learned a lot from our wise honors ancestors though (:
In section 3 "Language Games"he explains that there are rules and social cues which govern our conversations with one another.
"What he means by this term is that each of the various categories of utterance can be defined in terms of rules specifying their properties and the uses to which they can be put -in exactly the same way as the game of chess is defined by a set of rules determining properties of each of the pieces"
I once heard a young man speak at a TEDx conference about autism and language. The kid is BRILLIANT. He is a philosophy nerd and he taught himself how to overcome his "disability". He has literally turned Autism into his superpower. He taught himself to observe social cues and interpersonal relationships in high school and began to recognize and record each unspoken law. He then used these rules to apply to his own relationships. He said having autism is like there is a big set of rules that everyone else knows about, and you are left out of- it often creates huge walls in communication between people with Autism and without. The problem is actually from a under developed Wernicke's area in the cerebral cortex of the brain, and generally another portion of the brain is over developed. Often kids with autism have amazing math and science skills, memorization, or even a great capacity for philosophical literature, but lack the social skills to have a "normal" conversation with another person. The skills which most of us learned in kindergarten stand before the autistic child as a canyon of loneliness.
Thus my first link to "Language Games" was back to the information I learned about Autism both in classes and from this candid young man at TEDx. Lyotard addresses these games and rules which he observes and applies it to knowledge and those implications. Our interactions being affected by a social construct of rules made by society made for communication within that society. But how interesting to study one who cannot understand the social rules and therefore the construct which they find themselves...
"The observable social bond is composed of language 'moves' "

#PostmodernClinicalApplication
*Amanda I capitalized within my hashtag so as to be more professional*

My Nightmares

First and foremost, I think Lyotard swayed my ever-present indecision on whether or not I think I am committed enough to even think about writing a thesis.  You may now count me in on the thesis crowd.  Frankly, I don’t know if Lyotard even makes sense to me or if I just have it in my head that I have a good grip on this.  When I first started coming across his bolder statements, I thought he might be Voltairing it up.  Then I realized that someone as fixated on the function and use of language as I am would not dare to abuse it so satirically.  I realized that he was completely and terrifyingly serious, and I can’t say that I want him to be.  I will admit that I have not read the entire book yet, nor can I say that I will complete it this week amidst the million other things that I have to do—and maybe that is making excuses, but I like to be honest about what I am doing.  Since I am being frank instead of Sam, the very likelihood of me being in class is slim to none, and I hate that I will miss a discussion on language.  Now I am reading Lyotard after reading Dorothy Sayers’ “The Lost Tools of Learning” and honestly, I think they look at language very similarly.  Education, on the other hand…they are certainly polar opposite.  Sayers believes in a very medieval structure of education and the learning, and Lyotard is the furthest thing from medieval (Google trivium and quadrivium).  I don’t think he thinks that is even possible, at least not with society the way it is.  And I think it may only be a Western problem, this whole language/education issue—and as I told Schuler in my reading journal I am very willing to be wrong about that.  But I wish I knew more about Eastern thought, especially since I have every intention of living in the East one day. 

Back to the whole point, if you have heard me talk about Orwell at all then you know how much I like him.  Language has power over people, over thought, over a culture.  If someone controls the language, they control the way you articulate what you are thinking, or if you are even able to do so.  In 1984, Orwell uses the Party’s language Newspeak to address this issue of language as a social construction.  The purpose of Newspeak was to condense the English language down to the bare minimal, removing Latin roots etc. so that the people could not express emotions effectively or think for themselves.  With such a confined language, thought cannot go any further.  And Newspeak is the reason I hate abbreviating words and text speak.  I text speak frequently for the humor of it, but it is dangerous.  I want to say language is not a social construction, and I do my best to speak my mind in a way that it is not.  But I fail, and miserably so.

“Narratives, as we have seen, determine criteria of competence and/or illustrate how they are to be applied.  They thus define what has the right to be said and done in the culture in question, and since they are themselves a part of that culture, they are legitimated by the simple fact that they do what they do.” p.23

I could probably go on for hours about my struggles with language, and that is more than likely the reason I will more than likely study linguistics and/or anthropology in grad school.

COMMENTED ON AMANDA'S

She Had It Coming

Am I the only one that thinks that the Grandmother in A Good Man is Hard to Find had it coming? The entirety of the story she was completely obnoxious. She was one of the those "it's my way or the highway" kind of people.  She caused more distress and chaos than everyone in the family combined. She is the sole reason for why the family was even on the road when the Misfit came by. Then once he was holding them captive she kept calling herself a lady and brown nosing him hoping to keep him from killing her. She had no real regard for her family. It was all about her.  Eventually the Misfit got fed up with her and shot her. As far as we know, she's the only woman that we have proof that the Misfit committed. When it comes down to it though, I think I would  have shot her too. I agree with the statement that he made at the end of the story. The Misfit said that the grandmother would have been good if someone had shot her every second that she was alive.

P.S. I commented on Susan's Blog

Irony.

I'm a little surprised this wasn't discussed much in class--but I love Flannery O'Connor's sense of irony. There's always a good strand of it running through her stories. The reader gets wrapped up in the character's expectations of what will transpire, and consequently are able to be surprised by the endings. Unlike the characters, we as readers are ultimately able to appreciate the ironic events. Why is it that O'Connor promotes and creates irony so proficiently, though? Well, I think it has something to do with bringing the reader to a point of humility, and ultimately to divine grace. We must realize how ridiculously overconfident we are about our beliefs, or our situations, and have everything taken away from us in order to see where exactly we are. Only then can we see the need for grace and accept it. 


--Commented on Samuel's

Giant Rabbit Caves

Well, I was not in class on Tuesday to hear the discussion on O’Conner, and I hate a cold response to a work right after reading it.  I am sure Schuler is well aware of this after the reading journals he has to endure from me every MWF.  Instead of responding to the works, I would like to take this opportunity to tell all of you how much honors has meant to me—how much all of you have meant to me. 

It has not been an easy journey, nor has it been the most consistently joyful journey.  There are days I leave class wanting nothing more than to stay and chew the fat with you until we go mad, and then there are days I want to climb a tree and hide from the ideas and all of you and especially the professors.  But I say this: despite the fountain of emotions that spring forth within me when I think about honors, if I move all of my emotions aside to look at honors as clearly as possible, I see that the journey has been difficult but worthwhile.  I have heard the following phrase from three teachers over the course of my education (once in middle school, once in high school, and once in college):  “We are dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants.”  Now, I cannot tell you who said that but I can tell you that explains honors very well in my mind.  I have not done anything revolutionary, new, or innovative with the thoughts that I have encountered, written about, talked about, dreamed about, or blogged about.  But together we have climbed into realms of thought I never believed possible.  I have been challenged and shattered and restored, only to repeat the process time and time again.  My opinions change with each rabbit we chase, and I have never felt so consistently inconsistent.  But I would not trade it in or change it. 

As my time in the honors seminar comes to a close, I think back to the Cave that Mashburn awakened me to, Mitchell coaxed me through, and Schuler pulled me out of…I think of this place I stand now, in the light by the reflecting pool with Abernathy, until Talmage under the shade of the tree reminds me I cannot stay here and reflect forever.  And so, I must return to the Cave to awaken others the way I have been awakened, to take what these giants have shown me—shown us—and chase rabbits with a new crowd.  Note that I did not say a better crowd, but simply a new and different crowd.  As you make your way through the Cave, keep in mind that you must return to the Cave again one day to tell others what you have learned.  So learn, and learn well by not studying and instead encountering.

It has been fun chasing rabbits with you all, and I hope that we shall do so again one day even after this semester is over.  Do not fear the giants.

Tantum e tenebris receptum constabit.

Conversations With Crazy People

In A Good Man is Hard to Find, the misfit shows some very interesting insight when he talking to the grandma. "If He did what He said, then it's nothing for you to do but throw away everything and follow Him, and if He didn't, then it's nothing for you to do but enjoy the few minutes you got left the best way you can." This statement holds true for us as Christians in a sense, but at the same time is also one of the most common arguments not necessarily for atheists, but simply for those wishing to live their lives as they prefer. "If He did what He said," then the misfit is exactly right. Why in the world would we do anything else if we knew that Jesus was who he said he was? On the contrary, "if He didn't," then we Christians have a serious problem.

This is where things get interesting. Science claims its victory over religion in the issue brought up by The Misfit. It does so by saying that empirically, we cannot prove that God exists or that Jesus is who the bible says He was. This thought is why we so often hear the question of "how do you know God is real?" Here is the dilemma, unless I am completely ignorant of some new evidence for God, in which case I apologize, then the simple fact is, I cannot prove the existence of God to someone else, but I know beyond any doubt that He does. Although others may never believe me, God has proved himself to me time and again. The change I have experienced in my own life is proof enough. In the same way, our very lives should be proof of who we serve. So, like The Misfit said, "If He did what He said," or in our case, if we believe that He did what He said, then we have nothing else to do but follow Him.

A Good Man Is Hard To Find? More Like Impossible...

Let's face it.  There is not one man, living or dead, who has ever lived without sinning at least once.  I doubt that the misfit can ever be seen as good again.  He murdered an entire family.  But even the family is not truly good.  They have all sinned.  I also do not see the grace at the end of the story.  He still murdered the family and he will most likely murder again.  The only grace that came to mind was how Jesus died for our sins and saved us from eternity in Hell.  God is the only one who can offer us grace.  Even though the grandmother seemed to have given him grace, God is still watching the misfit murder a family.  The only one who has ever been truly good is our Lord.  When we die, we face His judgement.  Only can He forgive us and grant us entrance into Heaven.  We should still strive to be more like God everyday and live for Him.

P.S. I commented on Jamie's post, "No one is good."

In Defense of Machiavelli

Before I begin, let me just say that the colloquium last night was incredible. Hats off to Ms Amy Wright and to Ms Kala Holt. I couldn't help but think the whole time of a quote by John F. Kennedy: "There has never been such an extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever gathered at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."


Now that that's over and out of the way, I wanted to elaborate on something that Dr. Talmage said in class on Tuesday. We were discussing the borderline between exegesis and eisegesis. Let me define this first. Exegesis is the critical interpretation of a text.  Eisegesis is the gross misrepresentation of a text, essentially "drawing something out of a text that wasn't there at all." 


Let's look at an example. During the abolitionist age that predated the American Civil War, many Abolitionists used the Bible to point out that Slavery was wrong. These abolitionists said that the verses to "love one another" were a direct command against slavery. After all, who could enslave a brother or sister in Christ. However, on the pro slavery sides, numerous passages in the Bible were mentioned that referenced slavery and the treatment of slaves. 


What is true about each of these sources is that while, yes, the Bible tells us to love one another it does, in fact mention slavery as well as how CHRISTIAN masters should treat their slaves. However, to look at the real meanings behind this, we need to look at outside sources. The slavery as seen in the Bible was often referred to as 'Debt Slavery' in which one person took out a loan with the promise to repay it under certain circumstances. If those circumstances were not met, then that person was the legal property of the one to whom he owed money. The first instances of this are mentioned in the Code of Hammurabi. So, it would seem that the Bible condones the Southern slaveholders.

The form of slavery in southern America seen in the 1800s is much different than that seen in the Bible. The slaves in what would become the Confederate States of America were not debt slaves. They were often descendants of African prisoners of war, or even taken captive by slave hunters in the mid 1600s on up to the early 1800s. They were by no means placed into slavery by taking out loans and failing to meet circumstances. Therefore we can conclude that the slavery of the southern states was wrong.

Now, on to my main point. A text that often falls under criticism is Nicolo Machiavelli's The Prince. We often take Machiavelli at his word that "It is better that a prince should be feared rather than loved." However, we often forget the life of the man who wrote such a work. I won't go into the details, but I will give the basics in bullet points for your convenience.

• Machiavelli was a Representative in the Florentine Congress (which stood for political freedom) during the political usurpation of the Medici family.
• When the Medici regained power, Machiavelli was put in prison for his political stances in favor of Freedom as opposed to totalitarian rule.
• After the torture ended, Machiavelli was put on house arrest until the end of his life, it was during this period that he wrote The Prince.

Now there is a movement among many nowadays that says works like The Prince and other of Machiavelli's writings were satirical. While I endorse neither side, I will say that this modern movement makes much more sense than taking Machiavelli at his word.

I will end with a quote by the French Philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau:

"Machiavelli was a proper man and a good citizen; but, being attached to the court of the Medici, he could not help veiling his love of liberty in the midst of his country's oppression. The choice of his detestable hero, Caesar Borgia, clearly enough shows his hidden aim; and the contradiction between the teaching of the Prince and that of the Discourses on Livy and the History of Florence shows that this profound political thinker has so far been studied only by superficial or corrupt readers. The Court of Rome sternly prohibited his book. I can well believe it; for it is that Court it most clearly portrays."

~Cody Martin

PS- I commented here

This weeks reading selections were great, I loved Flannery O'Connor. At first, I wrote her off as weird because of the dark humor. I realized though that there was so much more to her writings though, A Good Man is Hard to Find was so good. The grandmother believes that she has it all right, she is a good person and there is real lack of people like her in the world. Juxtaposed is The Misfit, who understands his own depravity but has no idea about redemption or whether or not Christ did what He said He did. I loved this stories ending because it gave grace or the shadow of it to The Misfit. Something changes when the grandmother touches him, there is a noticeable shift from his desire for "meanness" and the subsequent shift to his belief that this no longer brings him pleasure.

P.S. commented on Thorn in my Side

Are You My Mother?

Listen lady," he said in a high voice, "if I had been there I would've known and I wouldn't be like I am now." ... She murmured, "Why you're one of my babies. You're one of my own children!" The Misfit admits that he has no faith, but that he might have faith if he could back it up with reason. The grandmother has faith with no reason, her "faith" is solely based on her upbringing and the values of her southern culture instead of a relationship with Christ. She refers to him as her  child figuratively because he is the child of legalistic religion. The Misfit is the result of dogma that takes Scripture, removes Christ's love and sacrifice, and replaces it with judgment and wrath.  When he was sent to jail for a crime he couldn't even remember, O'Connor was demonstrating judgment of the lost souls who can't even name their own sin. If they don't have faith and knowledge of the Scripture, how can they know that they are in the wrong? But the "papers" that the police had in him with his signature proved that he deserved punishment, not that he repented after this punishment. How could he if he didn't know why he was condemned? This is why he sought revenge on society. Condemnation does not save lost souls, redemption and an encounter with God does, even if they don't deserve it.  But wait ... Isn't that grace? ;)

Misfit vs Grandmother

Some of this may have been discussed in class. Fill me in on anything I'm missing.

O'Connor seems to be illustrating both the problems and benefits of modernist thought. She provides two contrasting characters as the illustration.

The grandmother, a religious woman, claims a relationship with Christ. Her nature is like the pre-moderns: faithful and unquestioning. Unfortunately, as the occasion arises where her faith should be most helpful, she fails. Her faith and moral standard collapse. This is a common belief about the religious. They are often considered hypocritical.

The Misfit is modern. Although he challenges religion and the beliefs, he is unchanging. Unlike the grandmother, his actions are consistent. To him, they hold more value. Because he admits that all actions are subjective, he is able to live as he truly is, unlike the religious grandmother who attempts to live as someone she is not.

His behavior results in murder, but a modern would say that this is actually more acceptable than a false self that the grandmother has.

Ad augusta per angusta,
Will

P.S. I commented on Mallory's "hermeneutics."

Grace Where?

In class we were discussing that at the end of A Good Man is Hard to Find there is grace.  First I just want to ask, without the notes from the author, would we have seen that?  If we weren't told that there was any grace, would we really go fishing to find where it is?  I think that if we never knew what Flannery O'Connor said about this short story, we would never even talk about the Grace.  However, since we did, I find it really hard to see the Grace at the end of this story.  I mean, the whole family is dead and the Misfit is still a murderer who will continue to kill, steal, and commit other felonies.  Yes, the Misfit may realize that doing injustices to other people doesn't bring him happiness, but does that mean he will stop? Is he going to turn himself in to the police and confess for all of his crimes? I doubt it.  It seems like we are just trying to find something good at the end of a story which is so bad.

I commented on Autumn Jackson's blog

Sincerely,
Susan Berner

It's a Slow Fade When Black and White Have Turned To Gray (First Long Post Ever) #excitement

 Let me begin by saying that I absolutely love O'Connor. Her stories always have a great message and irony in them. One of the things that I loved the most about all of her stories is that there are no absolutes. I don't think that O'Connor intended for there to be good guys and bad guys in her stories. It seems like all of her characters are flawed. These stories are not told in black and white, but instead it explodes with color since the characters are written with depth instead of being merely morally just or morally unjust.

Primarily let's look at "A Good Man Is Hard to Find." Since the grandmother and her family are introduced first, they are seen as the good people. However, they are not absolutely good. It seemed like the grandmother and the father of the children were constantly in conflict. First, they conflicted about the destination of the vacation, then they fought about whether they should go to the house with "the secret-panel". I think it's safe to say that if it weren't for the grandmother's idea to go to that house, or her verbal recognition of the Misfit, the family would still be alive. I think the two morally questionable people in this story are the grandmother and the Misfit. You can't say that the Misfit is all good because although he doesn't know why he was in the penitentiary, he was punished for some crime, and he had a direct role in the murder of the family in the story, and murdered the grandmother. However, he was not all bad either because he showed a moment of weakness in killing the grandmother. He was at the point of almost crying before the grandmother was killed by him. He said that if he knew Jesus had raised from the dead, maybe he wouldn't have to resort to the criminal lifestyle. The grandmother also isn't all good or all bad. She isn't all bad, because she truly had not done anything wrong, except attempt to hug a criminal! But however, she was not all good either. She kept trying to reason with the criminal. Trying to say that he came from nice people and such. She was trying to weasel herself out of a situation she created. She took it a step too far when she tried to compare the Misfit to her family, and her slyness is what led to her destruction.

The same can be said in Good Country People. You cannot assume that Hulga is a morally just person just because she was introduced before the bible salesman. I honestly could not stand Hulga. I thought she was a genuinely evil person with her Atheistic beliefs. Then, I was introduced to the bible salesman. I said to myself as I read for the first time, "Finally! A voice of reason!". My mindset of the salesman changed when I found out his true intentions. As he seduced Hulga, and stole her leg (still funny), my thoughts of them reversed. Suddenly, Hulga was a character I pitied. She was so helpless and defenseless stuck up in that barn, and the bible salesman was pure evil. He did not believe in what he was selling and only was interested in Hulga for her legs (so to speak). O'Connor did a great job of making us believe one way of the two characters, then completely changing our opinions of them.

You will see similiar things in The Artificial Nigger. It appalled me when the grandson ran into a woman, and a swarm of people comes around her wanting to know who is responsible for him. Then, the grandfather denied knowing the boy. He was obviously with the child, because he and the grandfather were the only non-African-Americans in the neighborhood. He did not fool any of the people, and the woman in which he ran into was more resentful of the old man for denying knowing his grandson than of the boy for running into her. You would think that a grandfather was tender-hearted, a loving figure, and would cherish his grandchildren, but this man broke those barriers. However, the boy seems a little naive in my opinion. He      feels betrayed and resents the grandfather at the time of the betrayal, but instead of keeping that betrayal, he had forgiven the man. I know that Dr. Abernathy spoke of grace in "A Good Man Is Hard To Find", but it is a bit more obvious in this story.  The grandfather did not deserve forgiveness. He denied knowing the child and that should not be forgiven. However, the child did. I might be wrong, but I think this is a loose-allusion to Peter's denial of Christ. Peter denied Christ, and Peter did not deserve to be forgiven, but he was anyway. They were shown mercy by not being punished, but they were shown grace, because they were given what they did not deserve: forgiveness.

This moral gray area that I'm rambling on about is also present in Revelation. Mrs. Turpin is a terrible lady. She enters the doctor's office and immediately labels everyone in the room. She is the type of person who will judge you before you've said a word to them. Then you read of the magnificent Mary Grace.  Honestly, because of the acne, I instantly disliked Mary Grace, yet she let that mean old Mrs. Turpin know what she really was: an old wart hog that deserved to go to Hell. I had some respect for the pimple-faced girl after that. However, the point I would like to make through this story is through the actual revelation that Turpin has. She sees countless souls ascending to Heaven. First, the freaks, the lunatics, the white trash, and the Negros. Then, the "good country people" like herself bringing up the rear. It reminded me of the  "First shall be last, and last shall be first" verse in Scripture. The lowly and worst of the citizens were the first that were ascending into heaven. Those that are looked upon as the socially shunned and bad people (i.e. the negroes and white-trash) are equal in Heaven.

In conclusion to my post, I would like to bring together my point: there is a moral gray area. There is no one that is all good nor all bad. The only person that was all good died on the cross. However, the rest of us are flawed. Although, this is nothing to fret about. The reason that I love O'Connors works is that her characters have depth. You see her characters flaws, and we can relate to them. If you see a morally perfect person, you cannot relate to that because you are a morally imperfect person. The person that I believe most of us relate to is the Misfit. We are constantly fighting this battle for good and evil. He seemed to be losing his battle, but we are fighting this battle so that our good side triumphs over bad. And with that I bid ado.

Commented on Hunter's "Grandma Got Run Over By The Misfit"

Thorn in my side

     Something that has come up a lot lately has been the issue of pride. The main thing that stood out to me was the part at the end where the misfit shoots her and says "She would have been a good woman had he had someone there to shoot her every day." We talked in class about her head being cleared right before he shot her - she came to some sort of realization. She realized that she was the same as him. She had been living her life in this sort of bubble where her and her family were "good people." This experience humbled her. It took someone putting a gun to her to make her get to that point. The misfit's statement about needing someone to shoot her every day reminds me of Paul saying he had a "thorn in his side." It is the analogy of having something there to remind you, in Paul's case, of your need of a Savior. She needed this thorn in her side. Too bad it had to come at the end of her life in the form of a gun.

I commented on "Invisible Grace?"

No one is good

I first read A Good Man is Hard to Find in high school, and although I thought it to be quite strange and disturbing, I loved it. Not necessacerily because it was particularly entertaining, (although it was) but because I saw something. I wasn't quite sure what that something was at first, but it was there nonetheless. This was a rare occurrence for me prehonors. I always loved to read, but usually I was content with the face value of the story and maybe the obvious meanings. Partially because of this story, literature in general began to really make sense to me. I cant explain it, and I can't put it into words, but it's clicked. The conclusions I came to then about this story have not changed, and most of them were discussed yesterday in class. One thing that I dont believe was mentioned in class and actually just hit me is the central idea of a good man being hard to find. In Mark 10:18, Jesus says that no one is good except God alone. Every character in the story, unless I'm mistaken, (except maybe the baby) has some type of noticeable flaw. A good man is hard to find, because there are no good men. This, to me makes the dialog between the grandmother and the misfit regarding Jesus stand out a lot more. And whether or not o'connor actually intended to say this, I think that a good man is so hard to find because there is so little effort put forth in seeking the only one who is good. Ps. Commented on Autumn's "Hell is... Not other people"

Hell is…. not Other People?

Listening to the thesis presentations last night really started drawing lines and connecting some of the stuff we’ve read this semester. One thing that really stood out to me was something Kala said about one of the characters in… Decent Into Hell, I believe it was, who withdraws from everyone. The further he withdraws, the deeper he goes into hell. That hit me like, “Whoa! So hell is NOT other people??” And then I thought about Hulga (ugh! That name!) from O’Connor’s Good Country People. She basically withdrew from the world to live out the remainder of her life in her mother’s house: caring for nothing, believing in nothing, and being quite nasty to those around her. She seems to be in a self induced hell. She says she wants to be out at a university discussing the things she knows with people who care and know what she‘s talking about, yet she removes herself from the possibility of that situation by isolating herself at her mother’s house, then shunning her mother as well. She is left utterly alone in the world. I think Sartre had it wrong-- well not wrong, but maybe there’s more to it. This is going to sound a little weird, but is it possible for hell to be both other people and no people? Perhaps it’s hell only when the other person proves to be our doppelganger, but otherwise it’s hell without other people. I don’t know. Maybe I’m just talking in trapezoids. Blah…


P.S. I commented on "Invisible Grace" by His Beloved

hermeneutics.

After reading A Good Man is Hard to Find, I honestly thought it was grotesque. I had to read it in high school and I remember thinking it was sort of, well, gross. Class on tuesday helped me see that is redemption in it, which is comforting in light of the fact that I don't really... like it. But when Talmage said he didn't see the grace, I really thought that was okay too. I started thinking about the beauty of literature as an art form- how the interpretations are really just interpretations. They aren't the art itself. If someone walks away with grace, that's what we hope for, but if someone doesn't- that's okay too.

For me, the hardest part about this semester in Honors has been that we always interpret the text. I know that sounds silly, but when you have grown up just reading books, and not having to think much past your own personal opinion, to be forced into constant dialogue about it is... exhilarating, exhausting, awesome, and exhausting. I was reminded in class that in the end, it really is okay if we all see this art differently. We all love to read, that's why we're here. We all love to learn, and sometimes we can pull apart the text like a math problem when what we need to do is let it work on us. It's good that there are people who see different things in this work. That is what makes it art rather than algebra.

Misguided Misfit

During class we were talking about where and if grace is evident in A Good Man is Hard to Find. It's hard to tell, especially since I haven't read a lot of Flannery O' Connor's works, but I think in the end directly after the grandmother touches the Misfit and he recoils, that is where grace is seen. Before, the Misfit talks about how one should "enjoy the few minutes you got left the best way you can-- by killing somebody or burning down his house or doing some other meanness to him. No pleasure but meanness," but after the grandmother touches him and he shoots her he said (about killing her), "It's no real pleasure in life." He admits that now he finds no pleasure in what he previously said would bring him pleasure. This transition happens because the grandmother touches him, but also because of the conversation they have directly prior. They are talking about Jesus raising the dead and the Misfit wishes he had been there- he doesn't know whether or not Jesus raised the dead because he wasn't there. Maybe that's why the grandmother was able to call him her child- they were united by their doubt, but they handled it in different ways. When the Misfit recognized his doubt he recognized his reason for his outlook on life. He says maybe if he had been there (when Jesus raised the dead) he wouldn't be like he is now. The Misfit found pleasure in meanness because he didn't see the value of good and the value of grace. Receiving grace requires faith -which is the unknown. When the Misfit realized that despite his meanness he still did not have pleasure, I think that's when the evidence of grace is seen- he knows he has to have something more in life than the fame and fear inspired by being a serial killer. Death is part of his constant reality- maybe it finally hit him that he didn't know if Jesus raises the dead- then or now. Since he doesn't know, he has no hope unless he turns to a higher Being. However, I don't think at this point he is willing to do that. Grace is offered... but refused... leaving a bitter and broken misguided Misfit.
P.S. commented on

Grandma Got Run Over By The Misfit

"Grandma got run over by the Misfit

Driving down to our house last summer.

You may say there's no such thing as good men,

But as for me and Ruby, we believe."

-Hunter Joplin, Grandma Got Run Over By The Misfit, Integrity Music, Inc.

Now that I've blown your minds with my incredible song parody skills (just eat it, Yankovic!), I shall now blog on the differences between The Grandmother in A Good Man is Hard to Find and Ruby Turpin in Revelation. Flannery O'Connor famously stated that all of her characters receive grace but are not well-equipped to support and nourish it. It has also been said that grace is supposedly "irresistible" but I wonder how well that theory holds out in O'Connor's writings, for these women both find grace but in different ways. 

For those among us taking Schuler's Medieval Lit/Lyric Poetry class, both the Grandmother and Ruby represent the archetypical "proud lady peacock", a word which here means they walk along strutting their brightest feathers for the world to see, i.e. they are prideful. Upon hearing that her family will be traveling to Florida despite the threat of The Misfit, she dons her most beautiful clothes and does her hair up nice so that if and when she dies, she'll look like a lady. For Ruby, she is constantly comparing herself to the rest of society and looking as mankind as though they were all in one big layer cake, praising God for giving her her position in life (in public, I might add) and debating whether it would be better to be a nice black woman or what she calls white trash. They both claim to be Christians but it is fairly obvious that they are just a might twisted in their doctrine. Oh, sure, they're nice enough people-Grandma's pretty annoying but she's not a demented heathen and Ruby wouldn't hurt a fly-but everything about their characters, from their descriptions to the way you read them, is very off-putting, mainly because they're supposed righteousness and joy is only self-importance.

They both meet a character that brings them to terms with their true nature (The Misfit, Mary Grace), and here's where the results are slightly different. Grandma contends that she is righteous and pure until her very last moments of life, when she stops making those ridiculous requests for the Misfit to start praying and actually extends forgiveness to him, accepting him as her own child and as a damaged, broken human being just like herself. Ruby, on the other hand, suddenly becomes much more misanthropic and hateful, as though Mary's rage had passed on to her, and the sham of Ruby's entire life appears before her. It is through this existential discontent, and a dramatic confrontation with God, that she understands that she is really no better than anyone else and yet just as beautiful in God's eyes as the dirtiest black woman in the world, and this is the grace that changes her life. Both are different from each other, and yet they're the same; likewise, I am different from these two women, yet I suffer from the exact same thing. We all have the same face with the same fatal flaw, and in need of the same grace.

Thank you for reading, please feel free to comment as you please, I commented on Joy Vigneulle's post.

Invisible Grace?

Reading "A Good Man is hard to Find" we brought up the point of there being grace shown at the end of the story. Ideas were being thrown around while discussing this and I feel like we came down to the idea that the grandmother gave grace at the end right before her death. I could not see that at first. She kept saying "Pray, pray, pray" as if she was begging the misfit to pray to save himself. We even brought up how the grandmother called the misfit one of her own son's. I can somewhat see it there, but still wonder. As Dr. Talmage said, he could see no grace in the end of the story. The misfit kills the grandmother, so no grace from saving her life. He does let her sit and talk to him before like her "last words." I can't help but wonder why he allowed her to say so much at the end compared to the others he killed. I feel like the misfit wanted to hear what the grandmother was saying, so that he could explain his reason for the lifestyle he is living out in killing. "to pay back" for the punishment he claims he unfairly served.
 Ps I commented on Joy's "O'conner"