William Faulkner and Flannery O’Connor were two of the preeminent Southern writers of the twentieth century. O’Connor felt enormous respect for Faulkner, her predecessor. The two writers have much in common but they are also, of course, distinctive as well.
Typical differences between the two writers include the following:
- Faulkner’s writings are often gloomy and tragic; O’Connor’s are often funny and ironic, although often shadowed by darkness.
- Faulkner often writes about the same characters and the same small, imagined geographical location; O’Connor rarely uses the same character twice, although recognizable character types do appear repeatedly in her fiction.
- Faulkner is most famous for his novels; O’Connor is most famous for her short stories.
- O’Connor’s fiction is much more obviously Christian in its assumptions and concerns than Faulkner’s.
- Faulkner’s fiction is often much more experimental and unconventional in style and form than O’Connor’s is.
- Faulkner’s fiction is far more likely to deal with sex than O’Connor’s is.
- Faulkner’s fiction is far more likely to deal with relations between the past and present than O’Connor’s is.
- O’Connor’s fiction is more likely to seem overtly autobiographical than Faulkner’s.
Some similarities between the two writers include the following:
- Both often deal, within the same work, with different classes of people.
- Both tend to focus on Southern locales and Southern characters.
- Both often explore racial tensions within the South.
- Both often deal with evidence of cultural decadence.
- Both often deal with conflicts between members of different generations, as in the famous opening lines of O’Connor’s story “A Good Man Is Hard to Find”:
The grandmother didn’t want to go to Florida. She wanted to visit some of her connections in east Tennessee and she was seizing at every chance to change Bailey’s mind. Bailey was the son she lived with, her only boy.
O’Connor admired Faulkner very much, but she had enough strength as a writer to chart her own course and not be too affected by the so-called “anxiety of influence.”
For a detailed comparison of the two writers, see the article by Michael W. Crocker and Robert C. Evans (linked below).