Talk:Parker's Back

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MichelleRose913. Peer reviewers: MichelleRose913.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wgome1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Summary and Background Information

I added a quote from an article that comments on this particular work of O'Connor. 192.132.64.3 (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The summary section of the page seems too long for the story and has a lot of unnecessary details. Some parts of the summary could be shortened to make it more concise, such as the part about Parker and Sarah Ruth first meeting and the description of the opening of the story. In addition, the details about Flannery O'Connor at the beginning is distracting from the article itself and could be deleted as well. Morganmachado (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the details about O'Connor can be removed, especially since this article is linked to the article on her. Relevant material about her that pertains to this story might be an effective replacement. Oeparker1 (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the summary of the story is way too long. It should've been summarized in a shorter paragraph, it was extremely detailed, when it was not neededVquez1 (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I also agree there were some parts of the plot summary that were unnecessary. This was more of an analysis.Sstan6UNH (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I also agree that the summary was too long. There are minor details that are unnecceary and the main points should be focused on. GinaleeJimenez (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree, this plot summary is definitely too long. However, it also seems to reflect much more of an analysis of the story, rather than a factual summary of what happened. While This author's interpretation is valid and interesting, I feel that there should be a different section for a personal analysis, and the plot summary could be simplified to a true summary. Ecarpe3 (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I've reworked the Plot Summary to remove the analysis portions and to make it more true to the actual story. I have not posted it yet. Is there a way to have it looked over prior to posting to ensure the accuracy of the work?--Kmcin3 (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The article states that Parker "desires to obtain [a tattoo on his back] out of spite" for Sarah Ruth. I don't see evidence of this in the story.Oeparker1 (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree, evidence supports that Parker gets the tattoo to gain her affection.Adamcgregg70 (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The Literary Techniques section quotes from a "correspondence" that mentions an individual named Caroline. It would be helpful to indicate who Caroline is.Oeparker1 (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, I will add a link and brief bio for clarity.Adamcgregg70 (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, the article states, "Irony is an element that O'Connor uses commonly in her stories," without providing a citation.Oeparker1 (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that instead of quickly skimming through the summary, really highlight important parts especially when he had crashed the tractor. The tractor crash had given him an epiphany of some sort and it completely changed his life. Parker had a near death experience and that should be highlighted. DylanAponte (talk) 04:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Parker crashing the tractor is one of the most important parts of the story. It is only briefly mentioned in the article and I think it should be elaborated on. This is the point in the story where he figures out what tattoo to get on his back. He wants to please Sarah Ruth but he also wants to satisfy his need to get another tattoo so this is the exact moment when he decides to get a religious tattoo. MichelleRose913 (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The section where Parker crashed the tractor could use a direct quote from the story in order to give a better sense of how important to the story this event was, such as "Parker did not allow himself to think on the way to the city. He only knew that there had been a great change in his life, a leap forward into a worse unknown." Aross9 (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I do agree that the summary is not a summary at all and should be shorted, along with an improvement on the wording. There should be more use of direct quotations from the story for example in the beginning where it states "the reader is given insight into the attitude and thoughts" Bpalm3 (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I also agree.MichelleRose913 (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The details about Flannery O'Connor completely divert reader's attention from Parker's Back. I deleted some irrelevant information about O'Connor, that you can definitely find on her Wikipedia page.Autonomou5 (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

In the summary there are a few grammatical errors such as it says complicates to understand, I am going to make the small changes so that they are correct. Kcolv1 (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

In the Plot Summary I added a citation for evidence. I thought it would be useful.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wgome1 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

In the Plot Summary, the information is out of order in some places, and in others, there is no textual evidence for what is the author of the page's opinion. For example, there is no evidence of Parker's mother being protestant, and there is not evidence of his tattoo being put on out of spite. Some parts of the story are also glossed over or omitted completely, such as the tractor scene and Sarah Ruth's reaction to the accident. Additionally, there is a large amount of the author of the page's opinion in the summary that should be saved for another section.--Kmcin3 (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The story states, "his mother was a Methodist." Dumas1110 (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

If no one has any objections, I am going to update the Plot Summary section to read less like an essay, remove the original author's opinionated interpretations, and ensure that it is accurate when compared to the story.--Kmcin3 (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Character Analysis

I believe a section on character analysis for Parker would be useful, specifically regarding the significance of his name and how that influenced his actions throughout the story. Hayleywilhelm (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It is stated that Parker does not think highly of his wife, but according to Elaine Whitaker states that marriage was expected. They needed to do it. Ehewe1 (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I feel that this information should be placed in a character analysis page, if at all. However, it's presence on the page at all is very opinionated. --Kmcin3 (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree Swals2 (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I also agree with this because a connection to his name and the story could be drawn together. Erlayd1 (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Erlayd1

I agree with all of you but I believe there should be a small section about adding in the background on all of the characters or brief summary.Vquez1 (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Possible New Section on Biblical Connections

This page does very little to touch upon biblical connections that can be made with this story. The first basic connections to be made are that the main characters' names, Obadiah Elihue and Sarah Ruth are from the bible. Also many scenarios that happened in this story are similar to ones that occurred in the bible. For example, every time O.E. visits Sarah Ruth he brings gifts and baskets similar to how Obadiah brings prophecies in the bible. Also, it the story O.E. fears the face of God in the tattoo shop just like how in the bible Obadiah fears God's wrath. Kelsiepace1114 (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you here because there are a lot of biblical references that aren't mentioned in the article. The story has too many references for there to not have a section dedicated to symbolism with the Bible. Erisdon (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Something that could be part of this section could be the following line, which appears shortly after Parker gets his final tattoo: “Then a calm descended on the pool hall as nerve shattering as if the long barnlike room were the ship from which Jonah had been cast into the sea.” Dumas1110 (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you also. I think the biblical references were a very significant part of the story and should be added to the article.Wgome1 (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The section on biblical connections needs to cite passages from the Bible. Oeparker1 (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree.Jrams2 (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree also, not everything should've been from one source, having many sources can be more reliable.Vquez1 (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

This page has a few grammatical errors that should be addressed, as well as quotation use. Tpoul2 (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

There was many grammatical errors, but i believe there wasn't much quotation useVquez1 (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Good start to this section of the page, but there should be more elaboration on the examples given. The links given for the examples work and support them, but the first example is not cited and should be cited. It is a confusing comparison and whoever put it in should cite an article about the prophecies and explain the comparison. Svori1 (talk) 04:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you. A new section on biblical connections could help make the page more organized since the biblical connections would have its own clear section.Sparr3 (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Depiction of God

The description of Sarah Ruth's reaction to Parker's back tattoo is a little unclear or confusing I feel. Instead of writing that "God does not 'look'" maybe instead word it differently, like God does not have a corporeal form or image. Evangc (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I also agree with this. If someone who hasn't analyzed the story deeply, this may seem fairly confusing to them. Jovany Pedraza-Garay (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I also agree, Using "God does not 'look'" implies that Sarah knows how God looks likes and she doesn't, no one does. GinaleeJimenez (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Flannery O'Connor is a devout Catholic and writes fiction with regard to her religious beliefs as she uses biblical symbols like Moses "burning bush" to convey messages to her readers. Jaceto07 (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Byzantine Christ Addition

I am going to add a couple sentences in the section about Christ about how Sara Ruth's God isn't the same kind of God that Parker thinks she worships. As mentioned in the citation attached, her Christ is one that has no image, from the Hebrew people. This is essential in understanding why she rejects the tattoo that Parker gets for her.

http://www.jstor.org.unh-proxy01.newhaven.edu:2048/stable/20077673?read-now%3D1%23page_scan_tab_contents&seq=8#page_scan_tab_contents

Lflig1 (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I think a photo of the Byzantine Christ should be added to the page for reference on what Parker actually got tattooed on his back. Pdavi1 (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

It may be, but I feel that the presence of the picture is a bit unnecessary. Additionally, the source that the image uses is a bit complex to navigate, and the information there has very little relation to the story. I think this would be a good addition to describe the reasons behind why Sarah Ruth reacted in the manner she did.--Kmcin3 (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I am going to add more about the Byzantine Christ and some background information on the wooden panel image, including my sourceVquez1 (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources

The sources on this page should be more reliable, some links are not connecting or useful. Or they should be corrected.Vquez1 (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Additionally, it would appear that links two and four are copies of one another. Source four also appears to be a largely opinion-based article that does not improve the content on the page.--Kmcin3 (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Character List Section

I feel that this article could benefit from a character list section. I think names play a big part in this story, so it is important to acknowledge them. In addition, many of the characters contrast so it might be helpful to have a concrete list where you can compare the differences. There are only a few characters, so stating the names with a brief description might be beneficial. Ecarpe3 (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that stating names with brief descriptions is beneficial because it paints a picture in the reader's mind of the characters. GinaleeJimenez (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Criticism of Religion

Flannery O'Connor was a devout catholic, yet in this story Sarah rejected and beat Parker when he tried to change into a better man. Could O'Conner be critizing aspects of his religion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EthanLomax (talk • contribs) 13:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)