(Note: The explanation for this post can be found in it's first installment, entitled "The Lame-o in Porter's Stories.)
O'Connor
The Artificial Nigger: This one seems pretty clear. Mr. Head's entire objective in going to the city with Nelson is to teach him a lesson and to prove his superiority in all sorts of ways, including his knowledge of colored people, his sense of direction, etc. Mr. Head proves himself to be lame-o when he doesn't claim Nelson as his grandson for fear of being arrested or scoffed at.
The Displaced Person: Mrs. Shortley and Mrs. McIntyre. Uppity, self-important, morally superior women. Lame-o.
Everything That Rises Must Converge: This is actually the story I thought of initially when forming this little hypothesis that all (or many) of the intellectual or morally superior people in these stories prove themselves to be jerks. Julian obviously prides himself on being sophisticated, advanced, and educated, but our glimpses into his way of thinking about his mother, her neighborhood, and the colored people in his community let us know that he is lame-o.
Good Country People: This is an interesting one, because we have our intellectual - Joy/Hulga - and a number of the morally superior folks - Mrs. Freeman, Mrs. Hopewell, and Manley. Of course, Mrs. Freeman and Mrs. Hopewell sort of drop out of the picture by the end of things, and our focus is on Manley and Hulga. Hulga's intelligence is superceded by Manley's deception, and I think it's safe to say that at least one of them qualifies for lame-o, if not both of them.
A Good Man Is Hard To Find: The Grandmother fits the bill of a morally superior person. Her morality seems to manifest itself in manners, which she has in abundance and which her grandchildren and Bailey lack (she dresses well for a trip, she has respect for her home state, etc.). Whether or not she reveals herself to be lame-o in the end is not really fair to say, because, as we discussed in class, the reactions that a person would have in a situation like this one - having been overtaken by The Misfit, family shot in the woods - are not fair indicators of that person's identity or character. You could make a case for her being lame-o and against it, but I don't think it entirely fits the criteria, so we'll rule this one a failure.
The Lame Shall Enter First: Yet another handy example. Sheppard is the morally superior person who doesn't believe in God or religion, the intellectual. His lame-o-ness has been expounded on previously and does not need repeating.
The Life You Save May Be Your Own: Tom Shiftlet's brand of moral superiority comes from knowing interesting things (the human heart, how to do things around the farm) and saying things well. Also, his sole male presence in a female environment sets him up to be honored and lusted after by the mother Lucynell on behalf of her daughter. Basically, he's in a position of respect. He takes that power and abuses it, abandoning Lucynell at the diner, and drives off in a cloud of lame-o.
Parker's Back: Sarah Ruth is OE's moral authority in this story, and by continually rejecting his body and soul, she is cast as lame-o.
Revelation: Similar to "Good Country People," we have the intellectual (the girl in the doctor's office who attacks Mrs. Turpin) and the morally superior person (Mrs. Turpin herself). The lame-o award in this instance goes to Mrs. Turpin; though the girl does something wrong and somewhat crazy by lunging at Mrs. Turpin, we as readers are not close enough to her to identify her actions as lame-o or otherwise. Mrs. Turpin, however, is someone whose thoughts we get to know intimately, and we see the holes in her high opinion of herself.
Question: does the "predictability" of characters and roles in these stories, particularly O'Connor's, hurt her stature as a writer in any way? My response is "no," but I'm not sure why. Does anyone have an opinion as to why this predictability actually enriches the reading instead of hurting it? Does anyone have a different opinion altogether? I'd be interested to know.