51 pages • 1 hour read
Flannery O'ConnorA modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more. For select classroom titles, we also provide Teaching Guides with discussion and quiz questions to prompt student engagement.
Throughout the story, O’Connor uses point of view to carefully direct the reader’s attention to the hypocrisy of the characters and the disconnect between their self-concept and how others perceive them. The limited omniscience alternates between Mrs. Hopewell, whose perspective is dominant in the story’s first half, and Hulga, who the narrator follows closely in the second half. There are notable shifts in the narrative that key the reader in on the characters’ opinions of one another: Hulga is exclusively referred to as her birth name Joy, for example, when the reader sees things from Mrs. Hopewell’s point of view. The point of view also employs the technique of free indirect discourse, which allows O’Connor’s narrator to embody both the inner thoughts and words of the character while commenting upon them as the narrator; a passage like “Mrs. Hopewell had no bad qualities of her own but she was able to use other people’s in such a constructive way that she had kept them four years” (Page 264) demonstrates how useful this technique is in storytelling, as it blends what Mrs. Hopewell thinks of herself with the narrator’s subtle judgment of her character.
Using limited omniscience (instead of a fully omniscient third-person narrator) also allows the narrative to further its themes about how a person’s worldview shapes their opinion of others. It also keeps the reader on the outside of Manley Pointer’s true intentions in the story—the reader is led to believe that the primary ideological conflict will take place between Mrs. Hopewell and Hulga because they are the two perspectives the reader is offered, which heightens the tension and surprise of Manley embodying an outside, fully nihilistic philosophy.
Flannery O’Connor’s narrators frequently employ ironic language to editorialize or judge the characters in the story, and “Good Country People” is no exception. Most of the description of characters and their behavior is presented in a sardonic tone that undercuts how they feel about themselves, particularly in the opening passages of the story. The gossip that Mrs. Hopewell and Mrs. Freeman get up to every day is “their most important business” (Page 264). The narrator lays out a complex rationale for Mrs. Hopewell’s hiring of the Freemans before casually revealing that there were no other applicants. Mrs. Hopewell is described as a “woman of great patience” (Page 265) despite her clear disdain for others she finds boring. Over and again, the narrator understates, subverts, or juxtaposes perceived virtue with actual failing in the characters. In this way, the narrator invites the reader to observe the action of the story through the lens that the narrator is providing rather than through a more objective presentation, heightening the moral fable quality of her work: The characters do not have a real sense of who they are, but the reader has a clear perspective on their failings through the narrator’s use of language.
One of the ways that the story subverts reader expectations is through the use of archetypes (stock character types that have common, widely-understood qualities). Mrs. Hopewell and Mrs. Freeman both fall into the role of Southern women who value common sense, moral goodness, and propriety, and Hulga Hopewell is a tortured academic alienated from her uneducated mother. The conflict between the two types is clearly and easily understood, and they fit into their roles as foils to each other. Manley Pointer is also a stock type—the traveling salesman with a pathetic background—but in his case, the difference is that he is playing that role purposefully, using it as a tool to ingratiate himself to Mrs. Hopewell and Hulga when in reality he is a common grifter. In every case, though, the story sets up the archetype and then deepens or subverts it, illustrating how the reader’s ready understanding of a type of character is similar to how the characters in this story misapprehend and underestimate each other. As such, the story ultimately rejects the archetypes it uses: there are no “good country people” in this story, and the story argues that archetypical understandings of the people around us make us into fools and ready marks for con men.
By Flannery O'Connor