Over the years, many people have analyzed Flannery O'Connor’s story, “A Good Man Is Hard To Find,” in ways which they focus more on the history of O’Connor or the historical background and time period of the story. Such scholars that have done so include Sara Kelley (2008), James Nacua (2008), and even O’Connor herself (1963) one year before her death. These “authors have focused on her grotesque detail” (Kelley) such as violence her use of violence to depict salvation. Even though Sara and James’ analysis of the story is fairly recent, it closely follows O’Connor’s overall analysis of the story from 1963. No one has ever analyzed the story in any other way, but the “whole of idea of grace and salvation” (Nacua) and how it was depicted in throughout the story. How come no one ever does a psychoanalytical analysis of the story, because killing a whole family and then the old grandma last is just wrong. Someone would have to have some serious mental issues to write about something like that or they may have had a rough past. Either way, it in no way justifies writing about killing an entire family for no reason, whether it is about spirituality or not.
The similarities of the scholars’ analysis and other people’s analysis is the whole idea about the story and how O’Connor “uses violence to depict salvation, often through spiritually or physically grotesque characters”(Kelley) which, in turn, causes some very heated arguments about religion and faith. It also brings up the question, was O’Connor a Christian? She appears to be a little maniacal in many of her stories which gave her the reputation of being a “writer of shocking and violent stories”(Kelley) things so violent that one sound in mind could not think up these stories.
Sara Kelley is a critic of O’Connor’s works and one would feel that her analysis is incomplete. Although Kelley did not cover psychological analysis over “A Good Man Is Hard To Find”, she did a good job covering what everyone always analyzes about the story. What she did not analyze and what everyone always seems to overlook is a psychoanalytical analysis of the story. Just reading a story like this makes the reader wonder, what else did O’Connor write about in her other stories? The answer to that question is that “most of her stories contain a story that has grotesque characters”(Scott) and almost always contain violence of some sort. Has no one ever thought that there needs to be a psychological view taken at some point? While reading her works, everyone always sees it through a historical or biographical point of view which is strange because there had to have been something that had happened in O’Connor’s life that has caused her to write such “ruthless”(Kelley) and just “downright gruesome”(Nacua) stories that she has come up with in her lifetime.
While reading several scholars analysis over this story one can only keep noticing that Drew Kalasky is right when he claimed that O’Connor herself “justified the use of...