In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Toward a Consistent Ethic of Life in O’Connor’s “A Stroke of Good Fortune” Linda Naranjo-Huebl Thomas Haddox, in his article on urban community in “A Stroke of Good Fortune ,” refers to the story as one of the most “unloved” of Flannery O’Connor’s works, but the extremely diverse interpretations of the story by critics suggests its significance—if not its beloved status (4). These perspectives cover an impressive range of issues and approaches; they variously read the protagonist Ruby Hill as tragically flawed in her rejection of life, proud and selfish, comic and ridiculous in her naïveté and misery at the discovery of her pregnancy, horri fied at the materiality of her identity, overcome by the psychodynamics of the early mother-infant relationship, or sympathetic in her very real fear of the costs to women of reproduction and in her betrayal by her husband.1 Interpretations of the story that pass harsh judgment on Ruby Hill for rejecting her pregnancy, encouraged by O’Connor’s own characterization of the theme of the story as “the rejection of life at the source” (HB 85), recognize the strong life ethic that is characteristic of O’Connor’s fiction, but they tend to minimize the story’s details about the very real experience of Ruby’s mother and the equally real fear it instills in Ruby. Readings that sympathize with Ruby in her authentic and understandable fears and her choice not to parent—or not to define her personhood only in terms of motherhood—provide a necessary feminist perspective that appropriately extends concern to Ruby herself, but they do not deal adequately with the story’s obvious endorsement of life over death as it applies to Ruby’s pregnancy. Thomas Haddox offers impressive insight concerning the story’s privileging of community over an atomizing individuality , exemplified in the various neighbors’ participation in the diverse urban community contrasted to Ruby’s desire to escape such connection by fleeing to the suburbs, and Ralph Wood indirectly supports his reading in his broader discussion of O’Connor’s privileging of a communal ethos over one based on individual rights. While insightful, their criticism does not address the very real situation of many women in urban, suburban, and rural communities in which Linda Naranjo-Huebl 72 the self, according to prevailing definitions of motherhood in patriarchal culture , is entirely sacrificed to, rather than complemented by, the life of the child. I argue that while such varied readings may seem mutually exclusive, when the textual evidence for these disparate interpretations is brought into dialogue and added to a more historically feminist and inclusive idea of motherhood and childbirth, O’Connor’s story begins to offer a critique of limited and polarized visions of womanhood and motherhood. The story thus can be read not as an outdated or patriarchal characterization of women but rather as an embracing of mutually life-affirming alternatives for both women and children—a truly consistent life ethic compatible with O’Connor’s Christianity. Louise Westling’s and Margaret Bauer’s sympathetic, feminist interpretations of Ruby Hill provide necessary perspectives missing from previous readings of the story but that admittedly stand in opposition to O’Connor’s Christianity . Westling notes the story’s protest against “sentimentalized stereotypes of motherhood” by presenting Ruby’s very real fear of the physical cost of reproduction and her realization she has been betrayed by her husband (516). Bauer sympathizes with Ruby for the same reasons, taking critics to task for finding fault with her while refusing to acknowledge her husband’s treachery; and Bauer also aptly criticizes those readings of the text that would reinscribe woman’s identity only in terms of motherhood—a well-founded criticism considering O’Connor’s own position (41–46). Interestingly, both Westling and Bauer suggest that to get at these feminist readings of the text, one must subordinate O’Connor’s Christian perspective. Bauer notes, Reading “A Stroke of Good Fortune” . . . from a feminist rather than Christian perspective allows for the recognition of Bill Hill’s betrayal of his wife’s trust, which, I would argue, is vital to an objective reading of this story, for such a recognition illuminates the story’s feminist concerns and thereby renders Ruby a more sympathetic character than she has heretofore been perceived . (41, emphasis added) Westling similarly comments, the reader must do some violence to the religious theme in order to assess...

Share