These blog posts intimidate me.
I have an aversion (that I haven’t quite figured out yet) to theorizing. It may be my undeveloped understanding of theory, but far too often in my readings, theory feels like far-fetched speculation substantially removed from the core of the story (or poem). As I said, I haven’t really figured out where this comes from, but it is a comfort to run across accomplished writers and teachers that I catch similar vibes from.
I was reading from the O’Connor extras in our book and on the bottom of 853, the text reads, “I’m frequently appalled at the questions students ask me about my stories and at the very learned and literary interpretations they come up with. I was recently at a college where a student asked me, in a voice loaded with cunning: ‘Miss O’Connor, what is the significance of the Misfit’s hat?’ Of course, I had no idea the Misfit’s hat was significant, but finally I managed to say, ‘Its significance is to cover his head.’ Those students went away thinking that here was a real innocence, a writer who didn’t know what she was doing!”
I think Flannery O’Connor knew what she was doing. I believe she was aware that she put a hat on the Misfit’s head, and as she said here, it was to cover his head. We already discussed this idea of letting theory run away with a piece with our first “treat” of the semester. It gets out of hand sometimes, and I am afraid I tend to err on the safe side of extrapolation. That said, I will continue with a legitimate post.
In Parker’s Back, I fixated on the attraction the characters had (and did not have) for one another. My favorite comedic moment in the story is on page 663. Just after Parker made his move on Sarah Ruth in his truck (and she puts an abrupt stop to them—score one for the women), Parker “made up his mind then and there to have nothing further to do with her.” Then we have a graph break. The next sentence is: “They were married in the County Ordinary’s office because Sarah Ruth thought churches were idolatrous.” That is simply perfect. I laughed out loud when I was reading, and I don’t laugh out loud when reading. That exchange is a microcosm of their relationship in general. It’s a moment that I tick off on the summary list of The Nature of the Main Characters’ Relationship.
Through the story, Parker is compelled (intuitively?) to follow through with things in his head that he wants out of. The story starts out with and explanation of how Parker couldn’t understand why he hadn’t left his wife yet, then moves to how they got together in the first place, which still doesn’t make sense.
Sarah Ruth’s attraction to Parker is as compelling as Parker’s to Sarah Ruth. Parker is compelled to be with Sarah Ruth despite what his head says. That is evident due to our focalization through Parker’s head. (We are set up for that from the first two words: “Parker’s wife…”. We are set up for seeing things as they relate to Parker.) But Sarah Ruth’s place in the marriage is, for me, rooted in being married off and taken care of. She comes from a large, hungry family, after all. We also learn that she is intrigued by Parker’s tattoos, no? She lets her guard down when he first asks which one is her favorite, and she says that, “…the chicken is not as bad as the rest.” So there is something in those tattoos for her, even if it is further providing that Parker is flawed and she can save him, in multiple senses of the word.
That is a start, but what else is keeping these two together? In the “after the story ends” world, do they stay together? I like to think so, but I don’t think I can articulate why quite yet. Any thoughts?
Tags: Chelsea Lane, Intuition, O'Connor, Parker's Back, reflective, Theory
In this case, you might say that Parker's role is to go about his life, trying to please Sarah Ruth as best as he can figure to, and that Sarah Ruth's role is to be displeased. My feeling immediately after finishing the story, and my feeling now, is that Parker and Sarah Ruth will stay unhappily wed, if not forever, then at least for many years to come.
Actually, when I think about it, Sarah Ruth's reaction to the Christ tattoo on Parker's back fits quite well into the family systems thing. It's not in Parker's role description to be religious or God-fearing, so when he puts Jesus on his skin, Sarah Ruth uses some pretty convincing negative feedback to put him back in his place. Hmm ... I may have stumbled on an idea for my final presentation that seems fascinating to me.