Compare And Contrast A Good Man Is Hard To Find And Everything That Rises Must Converge

Thesis with Plan of Development: Option 2

Flannery O’Connor’s “A Good Man Is Hard to Find” (1953) and “Everything That Rises Must Converge” (1965) both describe specific personality traits through faulty characters and irony to similarly examine what qualities an actual “good person” possesses.

Rhetorical Précis 1:

In her essay “A Cloak of Grace: Contradictions in 'A Good Man Is Hard to Find'” (1990), author Kathleen Ochshorn asserts that “Flannery O'Connor was often shocked to find how people interpreted her stories” based on the responses from her readers (Ochshorn par. 1). Ochshorn supports her assertion by comparing and contrasting readers' interpretations of the story to O'Connor's intentions and reasons for writing it through her letters and lectures she wrote that details the characters and theology of “A Good Man Is Hard to Find”. The author’s purpose is to point out to readers the reasoning for specific characters as explained by Flannery herself, in which Ochshorn points out that O’Connor’s claims “...religious feeling has become, if not atrophied, at least vaporous and sentimental" (Ochshorn par. 4) in order to show that

people are losing sight of their religion and its meaning. Ochshorn’s tone is geared towards scholars who are familiar with Flannery O’Connor’s work, but are not fully aware of Flannery herself and what her beliefs are.
Rhetorical Précis 2:
In his essay “Secular Meaning in 'A Good Man Is Hard to Find'” (1982), author Stanley Renner claims that, “The design of the story itself… suggests that its meaning is wider than that indicated by the author's own interpretation” (Renner par.

1). Renner supports his claim, by examining and describing the trials and newspaper articles of the time that could closely relate to the book and its plot. His purpose is to show that the story had a much greater impact on people than what O’Connor had originally intended in order to show that there is a deeper, non-religious meaning to “A Good Man is Hard to Find” and that the main characters’ redemption can be seen as a way to somewhat save the dysfunction in modern society. Renner’s persuasive tone assumes an educated audience that understands events surrounding the publication of the

story.
Rhetorical Précis 3:
In her essay “Julian and O'Connor's 'Everything That Rises Must Converge'” (1987), author Alice Petry argues that “an impulse towards self-destruction can stem from any number of factors, but… it may be symptomatic of [Julian’s] inability to deal effectively with reality” (Petry par. 4). Petry supports her argument by comparing character Julian from the story to the Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate. Her purpose is to show readers the similarities between the characters and historical figures such as Julian the Apostate in order to reveal hidden “...implications for other works by O'Connor” (Petry par. 11). Petry’s informative tone assumes an educated audience that understands the story, but has a basic knowledge of the history of Ancient Rome.
Rhetorical Précis 4:
In her essay “O'Connor's A Good Man Is Hard To Find” (2006), author Nancy L. Nester argues that, “it is Bailey whose ‘goodness’ accrues throughout the story… whose goodness the grandmother affirms at its climax” (Nester par. 1). Nester supports her argument by explaining Bailey’s intelligence and authority although he is a minor character in the story. Her purpose is to show Bailey’s character traits is what makes him the one with best morals of the stories in order to explain to readers that even though a specific character may only be a minor character, they can be the most significant and important one through her claim that Bailey is the “good but overlooked man” (Nester par. 3) of the story. Nester’s informational tone assumes an educated audience that is familiar with Flannery O’Connor’s works and values as portrayed in her writing.
Rhetorical Précis 5:
In her essay “On Flannery O’Connor’s ‘Everything That Rises Must Converge’” (1971), author Marion Montgomery argues that the problem lies within Julian because “he recognizes that he has destroyed that which he loved through his blindness” (Montgomery par. 17). Montgomery supports her argument by comparing Julian to historical characters St. Julian and Oedipus and how each of them destroyed one of their parents, the closest thing to them. Her purpose is to show readers anger can be overpowering in order to emphasize that although one may be in distraught, humans have “no place for guilt and sorrow” (Montgomery par. 17) due to them bringing this upon themselves. Montgomery’s informative tone assumes an educated audience that is not only familiar with O’Connor’s story, but with Greek mythology as well.
Rhetorical Précis 6:
In her essay “’Convergence’ in Flannery O’Connor’s ‘Everything That Rises Must Converge’” (1970), author Patricia Maida asserts that the irony “...is in the contrast between what man has the potential to become and what he actually achieves” (Maida par. 17). Maida supports her assertion by comparing her story to other stories and books such as Teilhard de Chardin's The Phenomenon of Man. Her purpose is to point out the irony of man through these comparisons in order to show the potential that Julian possesses--such as the degree he has obtained--and that although he starts to let his inner thoughts bring him down, “Julian does experience a kind of convergence: his distorted vision is corrected… he does receive the opportunity to revamp his life… [although] he does not seek it... The means are external to him, gratuitous, though compelling” (Maida par. 18). Maida’s scholarly tone assumes an educated audience that is familiar with O’Connor’s story and other stories of similar content.