ENGL 4310

If ever there was a figure who was more compared to Christ in Flannery O’Connor than Sheppard, I haven’t read the story yet. To start off with his name is Sheppard. As in, “Simon Peter, feed my sheep”. There are churches named “Christ the Good Shepard.” On top of that, he wants his son to, “be good and unselfish and neither seemed likely” (595). That’s the value that he pushes over and over and over again. He wants his son to be charitable. His son also ends up dying, in a sense his son is sacrificed. I am not sure how to fit that one in, but it feels important.

And so with all of that, and with all of the talk on religion in this book, and with the established idea that Sheppard is set up to be the Christ figure… what do we make of the fact that he doesn’t “go for” religion. What do we make of the fact that he, at base, killed his son in a way that doesn’t make us think of perseverance and that doesn’t make us say, “oh, how hard for him!” It made me so sympathetic for Norton, but I felt that the whole way though. It made me want to say, “of course he did! It was there all along!”

So if Sheppard is a Christ figure (albeit failed) what do we make of the fact that his charity case (Johnson) is the one that turned Norton to God? There is irony all over that. And while I am on the topic, for the record, I am in the camp that credits Johnson with completely believing in the Bible, and believing in it from the first time we see him.

What I really don’t understand though is the three-line accusation of sexual “suggestions”. Well, I read it to be sexual suggestions. I don’t think Sheppard made any sexual advances on Johnson; what I wonder about is why O’Conner felt it was important that Johnson make that accusation.