Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Flannery O’Connor. Afficher tous les articles
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Flannery O’Connor. Afficher tous les articles

2/18/2021

Flannery O’Connor’s Mayonnaise and Her Mother

 

Flannery O’Connor’s Two Deepest Loves Were Mayonnaise and Her Mother

A Southern Gothic Writer, a Very White Condiment

In her short lifetime, Flannery O’Connor wrote more than 600 letters to her mother. To read them, you must travel to the 10th floor of Emory University’s Woodruff Library, where they’re filed in a manuscript collection measuring almost 19 feet. If you make this journey, as I have, you will discover, among details of a more literary nature, the vigor of the author’s appetite.

In her first year as a graduate student at the University of Iowa, she wrote of sampling Triscuits at the local A&P and dining on ham—baked and boiled—at the school’s cafeteria. She reported eating a couple of eggs each day and declared her preference for Vienna sausages, vanilla pudding, and prunes costing a mere 27 cents. By spring of 1946, six months into her Iowa career, her purple dress no longer fit.

Of all the edibles that appear in the author’s correspondence with her mother, one inspires her most enthusiastic commentary: mayonnaise. She loves the thick, eggy spread, although she cannot spell its name. “Mayonaise” is as close as she gets. More often, she opts for “mernaise.” She considered the condiment a staple and lamented its scarcity in Iowa City at the time. The canned pineapple she chilled on her windowsill seemed lackluster without the familiar white dollop. Her tomatoes were all but naked. Where her sausages were concerned, mustard was a poor companion. She requested that her mother send her the homemade mayonnaise of her childhood, but instead, she received a store-bought jar, which arrived at her dorm on a Wednesday evening just in time for dinner.

My own fondness for mayonnaise matches O’Connor’s. She used it the way I do, which is the way my mother does and the way my grandmother did: as an all-purpose ingredient. Atop the dining tables of my youth, it served as both a spread and a garnish. It was a hero of family picnics, the critical binding agent for deviled eggs, pimento cheese, tomato pie, and potato salad. My mother, a Duke’s loyalist, creates recipes that call for the brand by the cupful; and when I stand at the kitchen counter, dip crackers into a jar and declare it lunch, I remind myself of her.

Perhaps this is why I did not immediately associate O’Connor’s love of mayonnaise with other banal particulars of her letters—travel itineraries and plumbing mishaps, ripped stockings and roommates with loud radios. I was not surprised to discover our shared affection. Though two generations apart, we both originated in the American South, a region with liberal ideas about the functions of mayonnaise. And I enjoyed learning that the master of grotesque Southern fiction dreamed of meals made perfect by the most polarizing of condiments. (In the US, the chasm between haters and devotees reaches beyond preference to ideology.) But despite my personal interest in the pages the author devoted to mayonnaise, I doubted their greater significance.

I believed, instead, that I was searching for juicier content. As a graduate student studying O’Connor’s work and life, my reason for reviewing her private papers was mostly scholarly. I wanted to better understand the intense matriarchy that shaped her early years and informed her fiction, and I hoped to uncover secrets that would reveal deep truths about the bond between mother and daughter.

There is much to be said of this close pair. Young Flannery began calling her mother Regina at age six, reportedly of her own volition. They shared an address for 34 of the author’s 39 years of life because of her struggle with lupus. While she was pursuing her literary career far from home—in Iowa City, New York and Connecticut—O’Connor exchanged letters with her mother almost every day. (This practice seems to have evolved as much from Flannery’s devotion as from Regina’s insistence on high-frequency communication.)

O’Connor’s fiction captures shades of her mother’s overbearing nature and preoccupation with propriety. Her published letters reinforce such impressions, painting the elder O’Connor as supportive yet comical in her rigidity and hopeless in her understanding of her daughter’s literary pursuits. So, in the sunlit reading room of Emory’s archives, I sought new insight into their rapport. I had read through nearly every letter in the collection before I found my way back to mayonnaise.

 

Ten times or more O’Connor writes about her appreciation of the sauce. In most of these musings she indicates that she learned its utility from her mother, just as I learned it from mine. As I examined this correspondence, I considered the breadth of local and familial interpretations for which mayonnaise allows. It is an ingredient that offers equal opportunities to delight and confound, depending, it seems, as much on your upbringing as your taste buds. The idea of pairing it with peanut butter may disgust the diner who spoons it into his omelets. Someone who blends it with crushed pineapple may recoil at its presence in a grilled-cheese sandwich. Like its appeal, its applications are personal and often regional.

I could read O’Connor’s requests for mayonnaise as evidence of homesickness, the kind of nostalgia favorite foods are intended to cure. And yet, the author never communicated any such longing. Rather, she wrote to her mother of thriving in Iowa and her intentions to develop her literary career outside of Georgia. (Had she not fallen ill at 25, she might have remained permanently beyond the borders of her home state.) Amid these declarations of her ambitions, O’Connor’s penned testimonials to mayonnaise are, to me, small attempts at connection. A thousand miles from her mother’s kitchen, the absence of the ingredient could become a shared curiosity and an acknowledgment of maternal influence. I imagine her wishing to affirm her love of home and family, even as she anticipated leaving both behind. The mayonnaise, she wrote to her mother, was a great help.

 

 

Caroline McCoy
Caroline McCoy
Caroline McCoy is a writer and editor based in Boston. Her work appears in Blackbird, Electric Literature, The Washington Post, Paste, The Bitter Southerner and others.

 

2/07/2021

How Flannery O’Connor Fought Racism

 




In a recent New Yorker essay, Paul Elie asks, “How Racist Was Flannery O’Connor?” His headline aims to be incendiary, to rile people up, to give us a scapegoat for our rage against racism. Racism is obviously a serious sin. But Elie’s portrait of the author is incomplete. Because he misreads much of O’Connor’s writing, he concludes that she was unrepentantly racist. But O’Connor did not embrace bigotry. Like all of us, she was a sinner who struggled to purge herself of prejudices she knew were immoral. And she boldly fought racism—in both others and in herself—the best way she knew how: by writing stories.

Elie notes that in private correspondence, O’Connor used inexcusable racial slurs, and confessed to friends that she struggled between the Christian in her, who believed that all are God’s children, and the Southern white lady in her, who was trained to see black people as inferior. Elie declares O’Connor a racist because of these letters, and suggests that O’Connor scholars are unwilling to see or speak of them. Never mind that scholars have wrestled for years with the letters Elie quotes. (Elie draws his provocative quotations from Angela Alaimo O’Donnell’s Radical Ambivalence, which I review in the forthcoming August/September issue of First Things.) Elie does not show us the other side of O'Connor: the O’Connor who was an integrationist, if a gradualist one; who had black friends in Iowa and New York; who was close with activists such as Father McCown and Tom and Louise Gossett, and twice invited John Howard Griffin to visit her home; who kept a portrait of Louise Hill, her mother’s African American housemaid, in her room; who reviewed a biography of the African American minister Richard Allen and declared it would transform readers. Elie omits all these details.  

Most important, Elie does not sufficiently examine O’Connor's fiction, much of which condemns racism. To fully understand O’Connor, we must study her novels and short stories. That is where we find her ultimate commitments, both religious and moral. Through her fiction, O’Connor exorcised the demons that possessed her.

Rather than preach to the choir, O’Connor tried to change those who thought differently; in her fiction, she often moved racist characters from sin to redemption. For the past five years, I have been editing O’Connor's third novel, which she was working on when she died. It is called Why Do the Heathen Rage? The plot centers on a white man who writes letters to a white woman, a civil rights activist in New York. In his correspondence with her, this man pretends to be black. He is testing whether she loves people as much as she claims she does. O’Connor planned for the novel to end with his conversion, his comeuppance. The story takes a close look at Koinonia, the integrationist farm in Americus, Georgia, established by the Baptist radical Clarence Jordan. Why Do the Heathen Rage? shows that O’Connor did not shy away from difficult conversations, but used her fiction to call for Southerners to repent of racist attitudes.

African American writers have often lauded O’Connor’s work as contending with racism. Hilton Als notes that O’Connor started writing “less than a hundred years after Harriet Beecher Stowe published Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and just a decade after Margaret Mitchell’s Gone with the Wind.” Unlike those writers, he says, O’Connor did not treat her black characters with “patronizing sentimentality.” She wrote with courage as she pointed a finger at racial bigots—and at the bigotry she saw in herself.

Elie’s most egregious error is his misreading of “Revelation.” O’Connor wrote this story from her hospital bed as she struggled against lupus in the winter of 1963, months before she died. It concerns a racist Southern woman, Ruby Turpin, who is humiliated in a doctor’s office by a sophisticated Wellesley student named Mary Grace. Mrs. Turpin has been expressing her disdain for the “white trash” she considers as worthless as black people, much to the silent disdain of sour-faced Mary Grace. Inwardly, Mrs. Turpin thanks Jesus for not making her black, white trash, or ugly. She suddenly shouts aloud, “Thank you, Jesus, for making everything the way it is!” Mary Grace responds by hurling a book at Turpin, striking her in the eye, knocking her down, and attempting to strangle her. With eyes of accusation burning, Mary Grace whispers, “Go back to hell where you came from, you old wart hog!”

The moment scandalizes Mrs. Turpin, and at the end of the story, she stands atop a fence by her pig pen and yells at God for allowing her to be thus disgraced. Although the insult came from a stranger’s lips, it is as though God has called her out. She shouts at the Lord, “How am I a hog and me both? How am I saved and from hell too?” O’Connor could just as well be aiming the question at herself: How can I be a sinner and a believer at the same time? How can I be racist and write stories against racism? When Mrs. Turpin rages and roars one final time, “Who do you think you are?,” the question echoes back to her from the tree line, as though God were speaking the words. O’Connor suggests that the proud woman must be knocked down to her rightful place, humbled before the Lord.

As the sun sets, Mrs. Turpin receives a vision at her pig pen. She beholds a bridge extending from the earth “through a field of living fire.” She sees a congregation of souls dancing and leaping in a great heavenward procession—both “white trash” and black people in white robes. Mrs. Turpin observes that those like herself and her husband Claud trail at the end of the line. Elie interprets this as a vision of segregation—people separated by race and class even while processing to heaven. But O’Connor is actually alluding to the biblical teaching that the first will be made last and the last first. The vision puts Ruby Turpin in her place, so to speak, as she watches small-minded “virtues”—her “dignity” and “common sense and respectable behavior”—being “burned away” in the purgatorial fires. After this revelation, Mrs. Turpin literally steps “down” from where she stands and descends the “slow way” back home.

In the final summer of her life, when she was about to receive treatment for lupus, O’Connor jokingly wrote to her friendly antagonist Maryat Lee that she would sign her name as “Mrs. Turpin” when she was checked into the hospital. Elie interprets this as yet another sign of racism: O’Connor, he says, is identifying with her racist character. But this is another misreading. “Revelation” does not lift up Mrs. Turpin as a model, but calls for her and those like her to repent. By referring to herself as “Mrs. Turpin,” then, O’Connor was repenting of her own serious faults. No wonder that O’Connor writes in her essays that it is the Christian novelist’s duty to unmask the devils that possess us. “Revelation” holds a mirror up to the author herself. In this reflection, O’Connor sees herself possessed by racist prejudices and in need of purgation.

If we cast out all writers who ever struggled with sin, we will be left without a single one. If we start scapegoating O’Connor, we will end by rejecting many eminent writers who fought racism in their work—Mark Twain, William Faulkner, Fyodor Dostoevsky. It is unfair to lambast O’Connor without recognizing how her work has helped us combat racist attitudes. As we make strides to uproot bigotry from our nation and seek justice on behalf of those who have suffered unjustly, we should see Flannery O’Connor not as a hindrance but as someone who helped us come a long way. 

Jessica Hooten Wilson is the Louise Cowan Scholar in Residence at the University of Dallas.

Photo by Will via Creative Commons. Image cropped. 

FIRST THINGS