Life in Post War American through the Eyes of Joyce Carol Oates

Analysis and Discussion of Joyce Carol Oates’ “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?” Outline

Introduction

Review and Discussion

Overview of the plot

Discussion of carelessness as part of immaturity

Conclusion

Analysis and Discussion of Joyce Carol Oates’ “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?”

Except for the armed forces still slugging it out in the frozen battlefields of Korea, the late 1950s were a great time to be alive in the United States – especially if you were white and middle-class. In very sharp contrast to today, American kids rode their bikes everywhere freely, without being overly concerned about anything except flat tires, stray dogs and potholes and the future was bright. People in small-town America left their doors unlocked and everyone knew everyone and no one had even heard of domestic terrorism except for the blacks in the Old South where this was the status quo. Against this idyllic backdrop, it is not surprising that some young people, most especially females, experienced a suboptimal adolescence due in large part to the freedoms they otherwise enjoyed due to their propensity for experimentation during this formative period in their lives. It was during this post-war period in American history that Oates’ set her short story which examines what happens when one young girl becomes a victim of the times. The purpose of this paper is to provide a review of the relevant literature to analyze and discuss Joyce Carol Oates’ short story, “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?” to identify its plot and the theme of carelessness as part of immaturity. Following this review, the paper presents a summary of the research and significant findings concern the foregoing issues in the conclusion.

Review and Discussion

Overview of the plot. In reality, 15-year-old Connie’s life was not so dramatically different from the vast majority of American girls during the late 1950s. Unfortunately for Connie, the plot of this fictional story also concerns how her vulnerability due to carelessness also translates into a violent encounter with an older, predatory male. In sum, Connie is a typical American adolescent who tends to daydream and indulge in romantic fantasies. In this regard, Anand, Velayathikode and Chatterjee point out that, “Connie is introduced to the reader as a teenage girl who like other girls at her age is very conscious of her physical appearance. Oates, however, develops her character in contrast with her prim and prudish sister by specifically focusing on her preoccupation with beauty” (84).

The plot unfolds as Connie’s world takes a dark turn when she encounters a mysterious and charismatic stranger named Arnold Friend. With his disturbing blend of machismo and menace, Friend approaches Connie at her home when her family is away. As the story draws to a conclusion, the tension between the two escalates, revealing Friend’s sinister intentions and Connie’s vulnerability. The plot explores various themes of adolescence, the danger that carelessness causes, and the loss of innocence due to this same carelessness which is an inherent part of growing up. The story’s conclusion, discussed further below, leaves readers with a haunting and ambiguous feeling that compels reflection on the vulnerabilities of youth. Because Connie’s unsettling experience was not particularly uncommon – then or now – it is important to examine these overarching themes which are discussed further below.

Discussion of the theme of carelessness as part of immaturity. Sibling rivalry is a powerful force in American families, as Connie’s was no exception. As noted above, Connie’s sister was employed full-time (at her school no less). In sharp contrast to Connie’s overwhelming self-consciousness and vanity, her sister was a veritable paragon of virtue who was consistently placed on a pedestal by her mother who made it clear that she disapproved of Connie’s self-absorbed behaviors. For instance, Oates writes, “Her mother, who noticed everything and knew everything and who hadn\'t much reason any longer to look at her own face, always scolded Connie about it. ‘Stop gawking at yourself. Who are you? You think you\'re so pretty?’” (1).

Imbued with the unshakeable belief that she was in fact pretty (countless hours before the mirror confirmed it), Connie chalked her mother’s critical actions towards her to her loss of her own youthful beauty and hopes of living a better life vicariously through Connie. In this regard, Oates adds that in response, “Connie would raise her eyebrows at these familiar old complaints and look right through her mother, into a shadowy vision of herself as she was right at that moment: she knew she was pretty and that was everything” (1). This early assertion concerning Connie’s thoughts and familial tensions helped define the characters and set the stage for what would follow.

As the old saying goes, “When you got it, flaunt it,” and this is precisely what Connie intended to do as she experimented with flirtatious interactions with her adolescent male peers and sought reassurances from her friends that she fit in with the group. Although this continuous search for self-affirmation ran contrary to her firm belief that “she was pretty and that was everything,” Connie’s actions can be attributed, at least in part, to a fundamental lack of relevant positive and negative life experiences, experiences that would come in time.

This youthful naivete on the part of Connie is made unclear during her first encounter with Arnold Friend, who was driving a gold-painted jalopy at a drive-in where he wagged his finger at her and said, “Gonna get you, baby,” without her boyfriend de jure noticing (van de Ven 2023). Disregarding this overtly threatening behavior, Connie remained imbued with youthful exuberance while she enjoyed her burgeoning relationships with her peers. Indeed, Connie was more interested in experimentation than she was in a long-term relationship. As Oates points out, “Al the boys fell back and dissolved into a single face that was not even a face but an idea, a feeling …” (3).

These behaviors were normal, of course, but they also contributed to Connie’s carelessness since – like many adolescents – she believed she was immortal, nothing could hurt her, and the world was her oyster for the taking. This initial encounter with Arnold Friend presaged a more violent encounter that occurred on a Sunday afternoon while her parents and older sister were away, allowing Connie to stay at home along after yet another argument with her mother.

When Connie heard a car pull up in the driveway, she knew it was not her parents and she was surprised to see the gold jalopy again, driven by the story’s antagonist, Arnold Friend. In fact, Friend wasted no time in making his intentions clear to Connie, even if she was too innocent to realize it at the time. For example, Arnold emphasized that he said he would be out to see her and he was insistent that they hook up by inviting her for a ride. Although Connie was uncertain whether she liked him or if Arnold “was just a jerk” she asked him what the numbers painted on his car meant to buy some time. In this regard, Oates writes that, “Arnold Friend explained. He read off the numbers 33, 19, 17 and raised his eyebrows at her to see what she thought of that, but she didn’t think much of it” (2).

While Oates does not explain what this secret code means, and literary critics remained disagreed, the simple addition of these numbers reveals Friend’s sexual deviant intentions for the virgin Connie (Hurley 1987). This conclusion concerning the secret code is reinforced by Friend’s subsequent actions with Connie, going so far as to threaten her family with violence unless she willingly complied with his demands. In truth, Connie found herself is this predicament precisely because of her carelessness, but even many seasoned adults might have missed the clues that Friend communicated to Connie initially, assuming them to be yet another random encounter with a peculiar stranger.

As Connie’s desperation at Friend’s behaviors intensifies, she pleads to know what he intends to do with her. In response, Friend makes it apparent that he intends to sexually assault her, perhaps multiple times, but he tries to assuage her natural fears by explaining that she will like it and it will even help prepare her for her future as an American female adult. For instance, Connies asks Friend:

What are you going to do?” to which he responds, “Just two things, or maybe three. But I promise it won\'t last long and you\'ll like me the way you get to like people you\'re close to. You will. It\'s all over for you here, so come on out. You don\'t want your people in any trouble, do you? (5).

Although these themes are readily apparent in the story, the growing body of scholarship concerning Oates’ actual purpose in writing this story has resulted in some authorities reading more into the story than it presents (Sutton 2006), an eventuality that was reinforced by the author herself. For example, Coulthard (1989) points out that there is a tradition among critics of the story of equating the Arnold Friend character with overtly demonic figures and mythologizing the story as a symbolic dream sequence rather than realistic fiction. In this regard, Anand and his associates emphasize that, “Arnold Friend has been depicted as a Satanic being full of malice and evil” (83). This perception may partly stem from the author herself suggesting Arnold Friend represents abstract concepts such as Death, menacing fantasy creatures from folklore (e.g., “elf-knights” who prey on young girls), Dreams and Imagination, Love, Evil (Coulthard).

In other words, the growing body of scholarship concerning Oates’ story suggests that the Friend character simultaneously subsumes multiple abstract roles that transcend his overt predatory male persona. In this regard, Coulthard notes:

The tendency among commentators is to equate Arnold Friend with the Devil himself and to ‘mythicize’ the story into a dream allegory. This interpretation may have been largely inspired by the author\'s remark that ‘Arnold Friend is a fantastic figure: he is Death, he is the \'elf-knight\' of the ballads, he is the Imagination, he is a Dream, he is a Lover, a Demon, and all that.’ This is a lot of weight for one short man to carry. (505)