Josie blogger earlier about how letters hold “rawness.” She mostly wrote about Porter, but I have also noticed it in O’Connor’s letters. The major thing that I have noticed throughout her letters is that it is very clear that O’Connor is responding to other’s letters. Her letters are choppy, and jump into new subjects, at times, rather unexpectedly. I find it fascinating that that is her letter writing style. She says what she wants to on a subject and doesn’t feel the need for a nice clean wrap up of that subject. She goes straight into another one, which most of the time I have to guess is a response to something else someone’s letter is referring to. It is times like these that I wish we had access to the letters she received, because I think it would help me to understand better what she is talking about. With some of her letters, I feel like I am listening to one side of a telephone conversation. I only know half of the story and feel like I am missing important information.
Porter’s letters on the other hand, are not choppy. Every single one is eloquent and flows very well. I have noticed only in a few letters that she addresses several different subjects in response to a letter. Most of her letters are based on one subject. And even the letters that have several subjects still flow together.
Both Porter and O’Connor’s letters are raw and contain realness about them that I don’t get out of their stories. And even though Porter’s letters flow better, and are very eloquent, I still love reading O’Connor’s straight up, tell it like it is letters. (O’Connor is eloquent, just in her own way.)
Tags: bio/geography, letters, Rachel Simmons