Without coming out and saying so, I think this article stumbles upon the differences between the Protestant and the Catholic imaginations:

"Where is the modern Protestant writer worthy to loosen the sandal of James Joyce, who, for all his obscenity, couldn't shake himself free of Athanasius and Aquinas?

"Sacramental theology shapes her [O'Connor] understanding of reality,

"'... now she thought of it [the eucharist] as a symbol and implied that it was a pretty good one. I then said, in a very shaky voice, "Well, if it's a symbol, to hell with it."'

"Symbols separated from reality and reduced, as they are in much Protestant theology, to 'mere signs,' cannot do anything, whether in reality or in fiction. They exist as sheer ornament, or, at best, as pointers to some something in some real realm of reality that can do something. But if this is so, then the moment of grace, whether in fiction or reality, never enters this world, into the realm of what-is.

Without a sacramental theology, and specifically a theology of sacramental action, Protestant writers cannot do justice to this world or show that this world is the theater of God's redeeming action.

"Although, to give Bunyan his due, he was here following a typical (and very Catholic) medieval pattern in literature, while adding the astounding innovation of homely and realistic dialog. Nevertheless, the cardboard charactizations strike us the way they do for a reason."

"Why Evanglicals Can't Write" - Peter Leithart, Credenda, Vol. 18, Is. 2.

The entire issue is more or less on Flannery O'Connor, so if you like her writing, go read other articles.