answered: The new documentary Flannery is the cinematic equivalent of

  

The new documentary Flannery is the cinematic equivalent of a full-court press on Flannery O’Connor (Links to an external site.)‘s behalf, to protect her place in the pantheon of great American writers from the charge that she was a racist. Unfortunately, evidence gleaned from other sources, such as Paul Elie’s recent article for The New Yorker, demonstrate that she certainly was. —Seph Rodney
After reading the New Yorker article “How Racist Was Flannery O’Connor? (Links to an external site.)” by Paul Elie and watching the documentary Flannery (Links to an external site.), consider the following, also from writer and critic Seph Rodney in the article “A Documentary’s Attempt to Protect Flannery O’Connor at All Costs” (Links to an external site.):
“More than being a Southern writer, a Catholic (this is given much weight), the daughter of a father who died of Lupus (the same disease that would take her at age 39), she was a brilliant chronicler of her time and place. Reading her in my 20s, I found her one of the keenest observers of how personal ideology enchants the real, political, corporeal world into and out of focus, demonstrating how some of us are always living in a carefully cultivated dream. The directors might have made a more convincing portrait if they had led with what writer Mary Gordon says toward the end: ‘She looks at the darkness unflinchingly, and she approaches it with clarity and with precision. And that, I think, is her greatness.’ O’Connor was like this in both her life and her writing: a faithful narrator who told some harsh truths, but also whispered the worst parts of herself and her culture under her breath.”
Now more than any other period, separating the art from the artist is being called into question. Write a short essay of a few paragraphs (500-750 words) positing whether or not artistry can be championed separately/independently from the artist themself.
Things to cover and consider when writing:
How much—if at all— does creating art “out of a specific time and place in history” give a writer/artist a pass on racism (or sexual assault, homophobia, etc.)?
Given the literary legacy O’Connor has laid out for future writers, how should we as readers (audiences, consumers of art, etc.) reckon with the other side of that legacy.
Use examples from O’Connor’s essays and short fiction, as well as outside examples (i.e. Woody Allen, Johnny Depp, Ryan Adams, Bill Cosby, and others) to support your argument.
Suggested source:
Do you agree with what some literary critics think in the following article “What do we do when the art we love was created by a monster?”Links to an external site. by Constance Grady?
Use correct sentence and paragraph structure. It should read like a 3-5 paragraph essay with an introductory paragraph (including a thesis statement), body paragraph(s), and conclusion.
New York Article by Paul Elie : https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/06/22/how-racist-was-flannery-oconnor
Flannery documentary: https://www.flanneryfilm.com/
Seph Rodeny article: https://hyperallergic.com/576504/flanner-oconnor-documentary/