Skip to content

Fyodor, Flannery, and GoodFellas Reveal Something Ironic about Our Modern World

Essences become meaningless in both a perfect and marred world.

Photo by karen kayser / Unsplash
Modernity was the age of "extreme essence." The Tao was forgotten; existence, neglected. Modernity was "all essence, all the time." But essences can't exist by themselves. With no base (nothing to latch onto and give them a point of reference) the essences become meaningless words. 

In one of his last works before his masterpiece, The Brothers Karamazov, Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote The Dream of a Ridiculous Man.

The Dream

In this story, the narrator goes to another solar system and lands on a planet where the inhabitants are people just like us, but untainted by the Fall in the Garden of Eden. They live, the narrator tells us:

“In the same paradise as that in which . . . our parents lived before they sinned.”

But the narrator, being a fallen man, corrupts the inhabitants:

“Like the germ of a plague infecting whole kingdoms, I corrupted them all.”

They then begin to act like us on earth. In the words of Russian literature professor Arthur Trace:

“They invent morality because now there was immorality; they make a virtue of shame, whereas before they had no need for shame; they invent the concept of honor because now there is such a thing as dishonor; they invent justice because now there is injustice; and they invent brotherhood and friendship because there is hatred.” Arthur Trace, Furnace of Doubt (1988), 24.

In short, on the unfallen planet, there was no virtue or morality because there was no vice or immorality in contrast. There was no distinction between bad and good.

It was a morally-existentialist world: no essences; just existence.

I fear we’ve reached a similar point in our culture, where the moral essences, like bad and good, no longer carry meaning. But it’s not because we’re the perfect planet of the Ridiculous Man. I fear it’s because we’ve deviated so far from that perfect planet that we’ve come full circle to a similar situation.

This is the point of Flannery O’Connor’s fiction.


Flannery O’Connor is to modern literature what Marilyn Monroe is to the movie industry: A quick, shooting-star streak of brilliance in the 1950s that died out prematurely in the early 1960s, not yet forty years old.

Although O’Connor snagged the public’s attention with her fiction’s intense violence, it was her deep and perplexing characters that caught the attention of the literary establishment.

The Misfit

Her most-celebrated story “A Good Man Is Hard to Find” tells the story about a vacationing family that is murdered by an escaped convict who calls himself “the Misfit.” The story revolves around the family’s Grandmother, a shallow and talkative woman, whose inability to keep quiet gets the family killed.

As the Misfit’s crew takes one family member after another into the woods and shoots them, the Grandmother chatters away at the Misfit in hopes of saving her life, throwing all sorts of Christian clichés at him, which the Misfit (a smart man) bats away with intellectual ease.

The misshapen form of the characters’ souls—the Grandmother’s self-obsession and the Misfit’s nihilistic detachment—are apparent, in their words and actions. The story ends when the Grandmother finally puts aside all her chattering clichés and speaks to the Misfit openly, authentically, and prepares to embrace him as one of her own children.

The Misfit responds by pulling out his revolver and shooting her in the chest.

The Meaning of the Misfit

O’Connor later said the story’s violence is merely a means of showing the hearts of the characters. The violence shakes the Grandmother and breaks open her chattering cover to expose her interior, like an earthquake breaks open a building.

The action, O’Connor explained, is in the Grandmother’s soul, not in the violence:

“Now the lines of motion that interest the writer are usually invisible. They are lines of spiritual motion. And in this story you should be on the lookout for such things as the action of grace in the Grandmother’s soul, and not for the dead bodies.” Flannery O’Connor, Mystery and Manners: Occasional Prose (The Noonday Press, 1999), 113

As I read her fiction at first, I asked myself, “Did she entertain thoughts like those? She must have, or else she couldn’t have come up with all the twisting and turning that goes on in her characters’ dwarfed souls.”

But I don’t think she entertained those thoughts as much as she visited those thoughts by plunging herself into her character’s soul until she could look from the inside at the essences swarming around the existential core. In order to do this, she would have had to put aside her own self and inner thoughts, so she could look deep into her characters’ self and inner thoughts—just like any artist must do.

She touched on this in her essay, “The Nature and Aim of Fiction,” when she wrote:

“Usually the artist has to suffer certain deprivations in order to use his gift with integrity. Art is a virtue of the practical intellect, and the practice of any virtue demands a certain asceticism and a very definite leaving-behind of the niggardly part of the ego.”

O’Connor’s art was a self-emptying, self-forgetting, leaving-behind of the self. Through this self-emptying, she was able to see into the souls of others and produce characters whose psychological twistings are captivating because they’re hollow inside. Their external qualities (like the grandmother’s chattering) cover-up a Tin Man interior.


“I think of it like hauling a big empty box into the street and telling one person that there’s a luxury car in it and another person that it’s full of shit. You’re equally close to the truth either way.”

In my favorite mob movie, GoodFellas, the main character and narrator, Henry Hill, explains the term “goodfella.” He says if you’re one of “them,” you’re a goodfella. A goodfella knows the ropes, understands to keep quiet, is willing to conduct a heist, likes to gamble, and drink.

The term “good” obviously lacks any real meaning in the mob’s usage, but its use of the term isn’t necessarily wrong.

As many philosophers have pointed out, evil is nothing but the absence of reality. By this they mean: If an omnipotent and good God created the Earth, then everything on it must be good. If he is a truly good God, he wouldn’t create evil, and, because he created all things, evil must just be an absence of the goodness and full being bestowed by God.

That’s why the philosophers often refer to evil as “privation of being.”

Now, the Mafia is evil: It exists to carry out crimes; it has no other reason to exist, and therefore, perhaps more than any other group I can think of, is properly labeled “evil.”

In an evil thing like the Mafia, you aren’t dealing with reality. You’re dealing with a privation. As a result, words—the symbols that point to underlying reality—become nearly meaningless when describing it.

I think of it like hauling a big empty box into the street and telling one person that there’s a luxury car in it and another person that it’s full of shit. You’re equally close to the truth either way.

GoodFellas meet the Misfit

The use of the term “good” to describe an evil privation like the Mafia is, in a warped way, alright. It’s basically the same that happens in O’Connor’s fiction. Thomas Merton observed of O’Connor’s fiction:

“The ‘good,’ the ‘right,’ the ‘kind’ do all the harm. ‘Love’ is a force for destruction, and ‘truth’ is the best way to tell a lie.”

Essences normally have meaning, but O’Connor’s characters are individuals whose existential cores have shrunk to minimal proportions and who live on a conglomeration of essences that substitute for, and over-run, any substantive existence.

But existence takes revenge on the essences because, by shrinking to nothing, it gives the essence nothing to work with. As a result, the essences themselves become meaningless because they are multiplied against an existential privation, and the product of anything multiplied by nothing equals nothing.

GoodFellas and the Misfit run into the Ridiculous Man

Ironically, the resulting linguistic situation is similar to the Ridiculous Man’s perfect planet.

In both worlds, distinctions between virtue and vice aren’t meaningful.

The Ridiculous Man visits a perfect world of simple, unfallen existence. The essences are in complete harmony with existence. They’re not even named. In a fallen world whose fall has been exacerbated by more and more sin, there are only essences, but the terms describing them have become meaningless.

In the perfect world, the essences multiply against a unified existence, resulting in a product of one. In the badly marred world, the essences multiply against an existence that is, for all practical purposes, zero, resulting in a product of zero.

All is nothing.