Parker's Back

After a handful of relatively short hospital stays, including a surgical procedure in March, Flannery O’Connor checked in to Piedmont Hospital in Atlanta indefinitely in May 1964. Just before leaving for Piedmont, she signed the contract to eventually publish her second collection of short stories, Everything That Rises Must Converge. O’Connor’s new residence at Piedmont did not deter her writing, and so she began working on a new story, “Parker’s Back.” She gleaned inspiration from a book she purchased several years earlier entitled Memoirs of a Tattooist, by George Burchett, which spawned the story’s tattoo-covered central character, O. E. Parker. After more than a month in the hospital, with dozens of tests and multiple blood transfusions, O’Connor’s doctors concluded that staying in the hospital further would do nothing to help her severely failing kidneys. As a result, O’Connor returned home at the end of June, very weak. When she could muster the strength, she continued working on “Parker’s Back,” and she finished the story in the middle of July, around the same time that she received the news that “Revelation” had won the first place 1965 O’Henry Award. O’Connor’s editor, Robert Giroux, added “Parker’s Back” as the eighth story in her posthumous second collection, Everything That Rises Must Converge.

Numerous scholars acknowledge the profusion of Christian imagery in “Parker’s Back” as well as the depth and complexity of O’Connor’s references, arguing that “Parker’s Back” may be O’Connor’s most religiously saturated story. Scholarship predominantly surrounds what critics Davis J. Leigh and Carol Shloss respectively define as the “transformation of the title character” (374), Parker, “a man who has had a spiritual encounter with Christ rather than merely a physical alteration” (76). Parker experiences a full conversion to the Christian faith, discovering the religion that surrounds him first in his mother’s and later his wife’s hyper-Christian focus. As a result, the plethora of Biblical interpretations mostly characterize Parker’s redemption and conversion. Critic Jordan Cofer summarizes that this scholarship gives a “cursory acknowledgement to the burning tree in ‘Parker’s Back’ as the burning bush from Exodus” (30), further illuminating the “predominant Moses allusion” and the “extent of the Exodus parallel” (35). Scholarship more so “focus[es] on Obadiah, Job, or Jonah allusions” (Cofer 30), while Cofer adds that “Parker’s transformation indirectly mirrors Saul’s conversion on the road to Damascus” (35). Critic Cameron Lee Winters points out that “scholars well-note the religious significance of Parker’s back tattoo” (2), which Ralph C. Wood characterizes as “the outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace” (44). As a result, Parker’s tattoo, which physically represents his spiritual transformation, indicates that he “has undergone a reformation and is now a prophet bearing the message of Jesus” (Cofer 37).

Scholars additionally accentuate the Christian emphasis created by Sarah Ruth and Obadiah Elihue’s names, each bearing a religiously-charged double-name steeped in Christian imagery. Scholar Margaret Earley Whitt explains that “‘Obadiah’ is a common Old Testament name, occurring at least a dozen times, and which means ‘servant of the Lord,’” while “his middle name is ‘Elihue,’ another common Old Testament name with six references, which means ‘God is He’” (152). Cofer concludes that, due to the regularity of the name Obadiah during Biblical times, “the very use of the name Obadiah suggests both prophet [...] and the extremely commonplace” (31). Similarly, Cofer records that “most critics view the reference [to Parker’s name Elihue] as merely a pointer to the Book of Job, as a reference to O.E. Parker’s trials as analogous to those of Job” (31). Cofer extends her summary of the abundance of scholarship on Sarah Ruth and Obadiah Elihue’s names by chronicling that Sarah Ruth’s names “suggest the paradigm of the virtuous Old Testament women,” evoking Abraham’s wife from Genesis and Ruth from the Book of Ruth, thereby proposing the “Old Testament archetypes of virtue and loyalty” (31).

However, while O’Connor’s prolific Christian references arguably elevate the Bible and characterize Christianity as eminent or distinguished, O’Connor also potentially uses Sarah Ruth to critique Christianity. Leigh points out that, despite Parker’s conversion, he continues to suffer instead of feel redeemed: “By taking on the face of Christ as his other self, he brings about greater suffering from his friends’ ridicule and from his wife’s accusation of idolatry in getting a tattoo of Christ” (375). In this way, Parker’s continued suffering even after his seemingly triumphant redemption points toward Sarah Ruth as the main source of his suffering. O’Connor wrote plainly to a friend that “Sarah Ruth was the heretic” (The Habit of Being, 594) in her story, revealing that, despite Sarah Ruth’s pious façade, she may actually undermine the Christian ideals she claims to uphold. As a result, by examining Sarah Ruth as a destructive character who destabilizes the doctrines of the Christian faith, O’Connor reveals the detriments of Christians who ostracize non-believers, which hinders Christianity as a whole.

O’Connor first demonstrates her critique of Christians through juxtaposing Sarah Ruth as dedicatedly devout, and her husband, Parker, as a skeptical non-believer. Sarah Ruth first demonstrates her Christian affiliation after hearing Parker’s name for the first time, when “her face slowly brightened as if the name came to her as a sign” (“Back,” 517), showing her enthusiasm toward Parker having a Biblical name. While Parker courts her, Sarah Ruth exhibits her piety when she deems that “pictures on the skin were vanity of vanities,” when she scorns “hearing him curse,” and when “she had asked him if he was saved” (518). To build upon the scholarly conversation of Biblical names, Sarah Ruth’s names evoke two virtuous Biblical women, Abraham’s wife, Sarah, and Ruth from the Book of Ruth. The pregnant Sarah Ruth parallels Sarah from Genesis “who, surprisingly late in life, gave birth to Isaac” (Whitt 152). Christians revere Sarah as virtuous by considering her to be the mother of nations in Genesis. However, Whitt claims that Sarah Ruth “is an ironic inversion of the biblical Ruth” (153), who clearly demonstrates true devotion to her mother-in-law Naomi when Ruth says that “wherever you go, I will go; wherever you live, I will live. Your people will be my people, and your God will be my God” (Ruth 1.16 NLT). While Sarah and Ruth are both respected Biblical women, Sarah, as a pioneer, influences others to follow her example, whereas Ruth’s devotion defines her as a strong follower. In this way, Sarah Ruth’s employment of both names characterizes her as theologically conflicted, thereby foreshadowing her embodiment of the downfalls of Christians that ostracize others, including her husband. While Sarah Ruth poses as pious, her true nature reveals that she undermines Christian doctrine and thus Christianity as a whole.

Contrary to Sarah Ruth, O’Connor presents Parker as resolutely nonreligious. Parker first reveals his resistance toward the church by recounting that when his mother “dragged him off to a revival with her,” he “jerked out of her grasp and ran. The next day he lied about his age and joined the navy” (“Back,” 513). Later, when Sarah Ruth asks him if he is “saved,” Parker replies “that he didn’t see it was anything in particular to save him from” (518). Similarly, the tattoo artist “said presently as he worked over Parker’s back, ‘why do you want this on you? Have you gone and got religion?’ [...] ‘Naw,’ [Parker] said, ‘I ain’t got no use for none of that. [...] I married this woman that’s saved” (524-525). Therefore, O’Connor continually characterizes Parker as adamantly nonreligious, which strikingly counters his hyper-religious wife. Critic Helen R. Andretta explains that Parker “is trying to escape from the strictures of religion communicated to him by his mother” (54) that his wife now perpetuates. As a result, O’Connor strategically juxtaposes the spiritual Sarah Ruth and the impious Parker to reveal Sarah Ruth as a destructive Christian who ostracizes Parker as he grapples with his own relationship to Christianity.

Sarah Ruth and Parker’s unhealthy marriage contradicts Biblical principles and further separates them in their spirituality, ultimately revealing Sarah Ruth’s Christian shortcomings. For instance, in discussing Parker’s female boss, Parker decides that “if he had been certain [Sarah Ruth] was jealous of the woman he worked for he would have been pleased but more likely she was concerned with the sin that would result if he and the woman took a liking to each other” (“Back,” 510-511), which reveals Parker’s unhealthy desire to make his wife jealous and his conclusion that Sarah Ruth’s religious views prevent her from understanding him. Parker also recounts that Sarah Ruth condemns his tattoos by saying that they are “no better than what a fool Indian would do. It’s a heap of vanity” (515), which shows that Sarah Ruth’s hyper-religious mentality inhibits her from supporting her husband. As a result, Parker concludes that “sometimes he supposed that she had married him because she meant to save him” (510), demonstrating the crippling influence of Sarah Ruth’s piety, which restricts their marriage. While some passages support sexism, the Bible also counters Sarah Ruth and Parker’s unhealthy marriage, such as when Paul writes that “as the Scriptures say, ‘A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.’ This is a great mystery. [...] Each man must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband” (Eph. 5.31-33 NLT). Peter instructs husbands that their wives are their “equal partner[s] in God’s gift of new life” (1 Pet. 3.7 NLT). In terms of faith, Peter adds that wives’ “godly lives will speak to [their husbands] without any words. They will be won over by observing your pure and reverent lives” (1 Pet. 3.1-2 NLT). Similarly, Paul explains that “the believing wife brings holiness to her marriage. [...] Don’t you wives realize that your husbands might be saved because of you?” (1 Cor. 7.14, 16 NLT). The Bible’s demand for married couples to love and support each other equally in faith reveals the unhealthiness of Sarah Ruth and Parker’s marriage, which Sarah Ruth’s extreme religion cripples.

In the same way that Sarah Ruth’s piety destroys her marriage, her extreme claims identify Sarah Ruth as a spiritual hypocrite and therefore a destructive Christian who ostracizes Parker from Christianity. Sarah Ruth’s extreme views distort Biblical meaning, such as her belief that “churches were idolatrous” (“Back,” 518). While the Bible adamantly refutes idolatry, such as when the psalmist writes that “troubles multiply for those who chase after other gods” (Ps. 16.4 NLT), the Bible also emphasizes the importance of the physical church as a gathering space for believers, explaining that people should “consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another” (Heb. 10.24-25 ESV). Similarly, Parker notes that “in addition to her other bad qualities, she was forever sniffing up sin” (“Back,” 510), thereby revealing Sarah Ruth’s own sinful judgement. For instance, she judges Parker’s tattoos by telling him that “‘at the judgement seat of God, Jesus is going to say to you, ‘What you been doing all your life besides have pictures drawn all over you?’ [...] You’re tempting sin,’ she said, ‘and at the judgement seat of God you’ll have to answer for that too’” (519). The Bible severely condemns passing judgement, such as when Jesus tells his followers that if they “do not judge others, you will not be judged. For you will be treated as you treat others. The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged” (Matt. 7.1-2 NLT). Likewise, Paul asks the Romans, “Why do you pass judgement on your brother? [...] For we will all stand before the judgement seat of God, [...] and each of us will give an account of himself” (Rom. 14.10, 12 ESV). Ultimately, then, Sarah Ruth’s hyper-piety removes scripture from its original context, causing her to sin and revealing the downfalls of Christian shortcomings, which ostracize others from Christianity. Sarah Ruth’s hypocrisy tarnishes Parker’s view of the religion when, as a believer and as his wife, Sarah Ruth should encourage him to subscribe to Christianity as the Bible instructs.

The conflict between Sarah Ruth and Parker allegorizes the premise of the Old Testament Book of Obadiah, thereby evoking significance in Parker’s first name and furthering O’Connor’s purpose of criticizing destructive Christians. The conflicts in the Book of Obadiah surround God’s punishment for the Edomites, who betray his chosen people, the Israelites. The foundation of this dispute derives from the conflict between Isaac’s two sons, Esau and Jacob in Genesis. Esau, the firstborn son, and Jacob grow to hate each other after Jacob cheats Esau out of both his birthright and their father’s blessing so that “from that time on, Esau hated Jacob” and planned to kill him (Gen. 27.41 NLT). After Rebekah, Esau and Jacob’s mother, hears of Esau’s plans to murder Jacob, she confers with Isaac, who sends each son to live with a different uncle and find a wife. Esau’s descendants become the Edomites, and Jacob’s descendants become the Israelites. Hatred between the two lines continues hundreds of years later when the prophet Obadiah chronicles God’s anger toward the Edomites for not helping the Israelites against the Babylonians, who captured Jerusalem in 586 B.C. Because the Edomites and the Israelites are related by blood, God condemns the Edomites for not helping their brothers in their time of need, therefore characterizing the book as one about betrayal. Not only do the Edomites refuse to help the Israelites, they also plunder Jerusalem after it is captured, thereby further taking advantage of the Israelites. As a result, Obadiah writes that “the Lord says to Edom, ‘I will cut you down to size among the nations; you will be greatly despised. [...] I will bring you crashing down,’ says the Lord. [...] ‘Because of the violence you did to your close relatives in Israel, you will be filled with shame and destroyed forever’” (Obad. 1.2, 4, 10 NLT). Therefore, the betrayal that characterizes the Book of Obadiah parallels the conflict between Sarah Ruth and Parker.

Parker’s mirroring of the Israelites and Sarah Ruth’s mirroring of the Edomites further characterizes Sarah Ruth as a hypocritical Christian. Parker confesses that “all along, that was what he wanted, to please” Sarah Ruth (“Back,” 527). Instead, she betrays Parker through her constant judgement and criticism, which climax when Parker shows Sarah Ruth his new tattoo:

“Idolatry!” Sarah Ruth screamed. “Idolatry! Enflaming yourself with idols under every green tree! I can put up with lies and vanity but I don’t want no idolator in this house!” and she grabbed up the broom and began to thrash him across the shoulders with it. Parker was too stunned to resist. He sat there and let her beat him until she had nearly knocked him senseless and large welts had formed on the face of the tattooed Christ. (529)

In this way, Sarah Ruth ultimately rejects and hurts Parker in the same way that the Edomites betray the Israelites. Cofer points out that, “through her namesake and ability to quote scripture, O’Connor gives readers the expectation that the zealous Sarah Ruth [...] will be the moral compass of the story” (32). However, Wood notices that Sarah Ruth is instead merely “a Bible-memorizer who can readily quote Scripture in order to condemn and reject, rather than to succor and save” (45), thereby highlighting the extent of her betrayal. Instead of supporting Parker as his wife and encouraging him to subscribe to Christianity as the Bible instructs, Sarah Ruth betrays Parker by continually judging and critiquing him as well as by allowing her hyper-piety to cripple their marriage, ultimately emerging as a destructive hypocrite. In this way, Sarah Ruth echoes the treacherous Edomites and reveals O’Connor’s criticism of Christians whose proclaimed piety distorts Biblical doctrine, which ostracizes non-believers, like Parker, from Christianity as a whole.

General scholarship praises “Parker’s Back” for capturing the depth and sophistication of O’Connor’s understanding and artistic portrayal of Christian principles. For instance, Jacqueline A. Zubeck proclaims that this story “serves as the alpha and omega of her life’s work, and represents O’Connor’s religious, moral, and artistic sensibilities” (92). In this way, Shloss adds that, in “Parker’s Back,” “it is clear that the tattoo is not a picture of Christ but an image with a keenly felt moral imperative” (75), which defines O’Connor’s ability to use Christian imagery to convey messages. O’Connor’s manipulation of comprehensible ideas to convey Christian doctrine that she valued to a wide audience demonstrates the sophistication and success of her craft. Winter elaborates that “the practice of rendering Christian dogma into an easily consumed form is not only impossible, but trying to accomplish this goal alters and reduces the mysteries of faith into practical untruths” (4). Therefore, in explaining the true difficulty of engineering Christian principles into an understandable and effective message for readers, Winter reveals the exceptionality and matchlessness of O’Connor’s work, which the depth and sophistication of “Parker’s Back” best captures. As a result, scholars generally agree that “Parker’s Back” is “obviously one of her most mature works” (Cofer 36).

Works Cited

Andretta, Helen R. “The Hylomorphic Sacramentalism of ‘Parker’s Back.’” Inside the Church of Flannery O’Connor: Sacrament, Sacramental, and the Sacred in Her Fiction, edited by Joanne Halleran McMullen and Jon Parrish Peede, Mercer UP, 2007, pp. 41-63.

Cofer, Jordan. “The ‘All-Demanding Eyes’: Following the Old Testament and New Testament Allusions in Flannery O’Connor's ‘Parker’s Back.’” Flannery O’Connor Review, vol. 6, 2008, pp. 30-39. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26671134.

ESV Study Bible: English Standard Version. Translated by Crossway, ESV text ed., Wheaton, Crossway Bibles, 2011.

Gooch, Brad. Flannery: A Life of Flannery O’Connor. New York, Little, Brown, 2009.

Holy Bible: New Living Translation. Translated by Tyndale House Publishers, Carol Stream, Tyndale House Publishers, 2015.

Leigh, Davis J. ‘Suffering and the Sacred in Flannery O’Connor’s Short Stories.” Renascence: Essays on Values in Literature, vol. 65, no. 5, fall 2013, pp. 365-79. MLA International Bibliography.

O’Connor, Flannery. The Habit of Being. Edited by Sally Fitzgerald, New York City, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1979.

---. “Parker’s Back.” The Complete Stories, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1971, pp. 510-30.

Shloss, Carol. “Epiphany.” Modern Critical Views: Flannery O’Connor, edited by Harold Bloom, New York City, Chelsea House Publishers, 1986, pp. 65-80.

Whitt, Margaret Earley. Understanding Flannery O’Connor. Columbia, U of South Carolina P, 1997.

Winter, Cameron Lee. “‘I Ain’t Got No Use for None of That’: Contemporary Christian Kitsch and Iconography in Flannery O’Connor’s ‘Parker’s Back.’” South Atlantic Review, vol. 84, nos. 2-3, summer 2019, pp. 1-14. MLA International Bibliography.

Wood, Ralph C. Flannery O’Connor and the Christ-Haunted South. Grand Rapids (Michigan), W.B. Eerdmans Publ., 2005.

Zubeck, Jacqueline A. “Back to Page One in ‘Parker’s Back’: An Orthodox Examination of O’Connor’s Last Story.” Flannery O’Connor Review, vol. 8, 2010, pp. 92-116. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26671190.