The Secret Pupil: Brave New World Rection

No one understands. Even I had trouble getting it at first, but it is essential that you understand. Science and religion can both be extremely tempting, and if the average person thinks about them too much, he can be easily be sucked into their traps. As we go through these lessons, you have to remember that I am giving you knowledge, but you must not try to pursue science or religion any further. The happiness of our Society is far more important than anything we could discover with science or feel with religion. As a World Controller, it is my job to preserve everyone’s happiness, and one day it will be your job, so listen up.

Science and self-denial have always failed us. Look at Shakespeare. In fact, look at all of the major people of the past, before the time of our Ford: Jesus, Gandhi, Einstein… They were all brilliant and revered, but at what cost? Jesus was persecuted and left for dead. He was forced to face immense suffering on the cross, all to help end the rest of the world’s suffering. But people still suffered, they still faced hardships every day. Soma is a much better fix. All the happiness and no tears. Or consider Gandhi. He forced himself to be completely peaceful and celibate, suppressing so much of his nature. What a backwards way of thinking! Why would we have these urges if we weren’t supposed to act on them? Our current system is much better: everyone belongs to everyone; nothing is suppressed so everyone’s happy and fulfilled. Einstein is the best example of the flaws of science. Such brilliance, he helped bring so many inventions and innovations into the world, but science is ultimately dangerous. Once people learn a little about the world, they become ravenous for more and more information, which in the end leads to unhappiness. In short, truth is a menace to society (Huxley 204).

Now you can see why John killed himself. He was obsessed with religion, self-denial, and the search for more truth, all of which drove him mad. I don’t blame him for taking his own life, I knew that was his inevitable end as soon as he came into our “brave new world,” as he liked to call it. John was born into chaos. That’s all he knew and all he was destined for. He was never conditioned to be happy, never taught the benefits of soma.

In the past, people would have regarded such actions as sad, but now we know better. His death, as all others’, is an inevitable part of life. You’re a little young to completely understand the joy in his death, though, so let’s take some soma and then we can resume our lesson.

***

Okay, so now we’re in the Fertilization Room. “These…are the incubators” (Huxley 16). As you know, this is where humans are made. Do you remember how many identical twins we can make now through bokavskification? That’s right, sixteen thousand and twelve! Individuality can be useful in some cases, as is with the Alphas, but in most cases uniformity yields the most happiness. We are all one Society, and uniformity helps us achieve our collective goals with the least amount of conflict. It is no coincidence that the people who are exiled to the island are all Alphas, nor was it an accident that the island of entirely Alphas broke into a civil war. When people are different, it can become very dangerous. That is why we manage who is the same, who is different, and how they are different; and that is why the job of the World Controller is so important.

One day, when you are older you will take my place as a World Controller. You will get to make the decisions about how our Society will work. You must not take your responsibility lightly, though, for you will be in charge of the happiness of the entire Society, which is why these extra lessons are so important. You must be aware of science and religion and knowledgeable about their dangers so that you will not be tempted by them. But you have a few years before you have to worry too much about this, so for now, go join your friends in Centrifugal Bumble-puppy.

Okay fath-I mean Mustapha!

Works Cited: Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1932. Print. 

Frankenstein Reaction

Frankenstein is in the genre of Gothic literature because Shelley uses elements of that genre to criticize both romanticism and rationalism. Shelley shows favoritism to romanticism, though, which can be seen in her characters’ strong admiration for nature. Victor, for example, spends a whole day wandering through the mountains after William and Justine’s deaths. He describes his beautiful surroundings in detail, exclaiming “the sublime and magnificent scenes afforded me the greatest consolation that I was capable of receiving” (Shelley 101). Descriptions like this one pepper the novel and illustrate Shelley’s romanticism, especially in her fondness of nature.

Continuing her praise of nature and its peacefulness, Shelley criticizes rationalism and science through her novel. Victor Frankenstein, a chemist and pupil of the natural sciences, clearly represents rationalism. Rational thought, especially in the context of the enlightenment, focused intensely on the abandonment of emotional thought and motivation, in favor of a way of thinking that was clearer, more concise, and based in fact. Shelley points out that this new way of thinking is flawed through Victor Frankenstein’s insanity in his work. Frankenstein himself even admits as he’s recounting the story that he got a little too obsessed with creating his being. In fact, he got so consumed with the small details of his work that he failed to recognize the bigger picture of what he was creating. Thus, Frankenstein was shocked and horrified at the creature that he alone spent night and day working on for months. He could not really see the monster because he was looking at it through his rational and scientific “lenses,” if you will. However, when life was breathed into the Creature, Frankenstein viewed his creation with emotion and saw a repulsive being. In his surprise, Frankenstein panicked and fled, leaving the confused monster to fend for itself. Through this series of events, Shelley points out that emotions are necessary to see the full picture, yet are also flawed and should not be the only tools used to make decisions.

The Creature’s representation, on the other hand, is not as clear. He is an unnatural creation, an artificial being that Frankenstein created in his rational defiance of the laws of nature. However, the Creature himself, as his own being, represents romanticism. The Creature is completely controlled by his emotions, acting on whatever anger or sadness he is feeling at the moment. Give in text example of him changing his mind twice after the family freaks out at him.

Overall, Frankenstein resonates with every reader because it calls into question the everlasting nature vs. nurture debate. Whether you are someone controlled by your emotions, or someone who meticulously and rationally thinks through your actions, we all wonder whether people are naturally evil or if they are corrupted by human experience. Should we blame the Creature for killing all of Frankenstein’s family, or should we blame Frankenstein for creating the Creature in the first place? The answer all depends on your perspective.

Works Cited

Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. Frankenstein. New York: The Penguin Group, 2013. Print.

The Sun Also Rises Reaction

            There are many famous authors, Hemingway included, that take a page to say what could be said in one sentence. In my opinion, though, Hemingway does not accomplish this properly or eloquently. Other writers such a J.K. Rowling use imagery and devices like metaphors or synecdoche to give these long descriptions, thus pulling the reader into the scene and making them feel like they are experiencing it with right alongside the characters. Hemingway, on the other hand, has very dry and straightforward descriptions, which can give the text a feeling of droning on. For example, when Bill, Jake, and Cohn are driving to Pamplona, Jake describes the scene by saying,

“After a while we came out of the mountains, and there were trees along both sides of the road, and a stream of ripe fields of grain, and the road went on, very white and straight ahead, and then lifted to a little rise, and off on the left was a hill with an old castle, with buildings close around it and a field of grain going right up to the walls and shifting in the wind.” (Hemingway 99).

As you can see, it’s not that Hemingway doesn't give descriptions; in fact, he gives extremely lengthy descriptions. That one sentence description (containing seven ‘and’s) required a block quote in and of itself. The problem here is not brevity, but lack of imagery.

That being said, Hemingway’s straightforward descriptions can add to his novels in some ways; and The Sun Also Rises is a great example of this positive impact. The Sun Also Rises is full of lengthy, drawn-out descriptions, combined with short, back-and forth dialogue between characters. Hemingway uses this style to give his characters a feel of always being displeased and bored with the world, an attitude that is fitting of a group of war veterans drinking the rest of their lives away in Europe.

For once we actually decided to go somewhere. It was getting boring just hanging with Cohn, Brett, and everybody. We all drove out to New Orleans for the Mardi Gras Parade. The drive up there was a pain. Cohn was all over Brett and Mike was jealous and Bill was drunk the whole time and I was just sitting watching the trees and the mountains and the billboards and the cars go by. God, they are all so annoying, but especially Cohn, that guy really pisses me off!

…

            When we got there we headed out to the parade. There were people everywhere and it was loud and colorful and energetic. This was a great place to be. Nobody ever lives their life except at Mardi Gras. Unless you’re Cohn, that moron, he wasn’t even happy here. He was too busy pining after Brett, which just made Mike mad. What an asshole.

Works Cited: Hemingway, Ernest. The Sun Also Rises. New York: Scribner, 2003. Print.

Wuthering Heights Reaction

Wuthering Heights is a highly cyclic book, essentially everything from characters to housing comes full circle by the conclusion of the novel. Bronte uses these cycles to point to the need for balance in society.

The similarities between both generations of Catherines is evidence enough of Bronte’s use of circular patterns in her novel. Most evident is the similarity between their names. Catherine Earnshaw marries Edgar and becomes Catherine Linton; then she gives birth to Catherine Linton, who marries Hareton and becomes Catherine Earnshaw. This specific example not only shows the similarities between the two generations of Catherines, it also shows, through the reversal of their last names, the contrasts between them. As a child, Catherine Earnshaw (I) was a rugged tomboy and “as rude as a savage”, learning to be more proper when she married into the Linton family. As Nelly, one of the main narrators of the story and a personal friend of Catherine’s family, describes her transformation, “instead of a wild, hatless little savage jumping into the house, rushing to squeeze us all breathless, there lighted from a handsome black pony a very dignified person” (Bronte 50). Conversely, Catherine Linton (II) was a proper and sheltered child, learning to embrace her tough side only through her marriage back into the Earnshaw family.

Readers can also find circular patterns through several other characters, such as the characters of Edgar Linton and his nephew, Linton Heathcliff. According to Nelly, both Edgar and Linton are weak and cowardly men who each marry one of the Catherines, although Catherine (I) and Edgar’s marriage was more successful than that of Catherine (II) and Linton. Another great example is the abusive relationship between Hindley and Heathcliff in the first generation, and Heathcliff and Hareton in the second generation. After his father passed away, Hindley “drove (Heathcliff) from their company to the servants, deprived him of the instructions of the curate, and insisted that he should labor outdoors” (Bronte 44). Hindley took his (often drunken) rage out on Heathcliff, often having him flogged for little to no reason. This childhood trauma came full circle for Heathcliff when he was an adult through his constant abuse of Hindley’s son, Hareton, once he was under Heathcliff’s care.

These circular patterns all point to one central theme: the second generation, though in the same circumstances, thrived exceedingly compared to the first generation. One example of this success is the marriage between Catherine (II) and Hareton, whose love was much healthier than that of Catherine (I) and Heathcliff, and their happy ending at Thrushcross Grange. There are many speculations as to Bronte’s intention behind this circular pattern of tragic endings followed by happy endings. One theory that intrigued me was the idea that through the generations, Bronte was trying to display the ways in which primitivism and civilization clash, but one can only succeed when there is a good mix of both. The Earnshaws (Heathcliff, Hindley, Catherine (II), etcetera), who were all uneducated and brutal, ended up dying in the end. On the other hand, so did the educated and sophisticated Lintons (Edgar, Linton, etcetera). However, the people who were open to change and realized that a mix of primitive instincts as well as civility were the best way to live (Catherine (II), Haretone, Nelly, etcetera), prospered in the end of the novel.

Works Cited: Brontë, Emily. Wuthering Heights.  New York: New American Library, 2004. Print.

Bright Lights, Boring Highschool

You open your eyes. Do you know where you are? Do you know what day it is? “Oh, right,” you remember. It’s 2 am. You fell asleep while working on that goddamn project for that stupid history class. You think about how pointless that class feels, how pointless school feels. You suppose that some of history is important to learn, the general patterns, for example. But who cares that the guy who created the first steam engine was named Steven? Does that really even matter?

                What’s worse is your drill sergeant of a history teacher. Mrs. Paulis, or crazy Paul, as everyone calls her. Crazy Paul has it out for you; that’s for sure. Although it’s your own fault and you know it. You honestly don’t even know how you’re still passing the class. It’s just hard for you to get motivated. Read this chapter, read that chapter. Take notes here, take notes there. You’re sick of hearing the same one-sided stories about the same people. You want to get out of your hellhole of a school and experience the world.

                But for now, you realize that you have to get back to work. You have to focus. You always have a hard time focusing at two in the morning, or at any time of the day, really. Just one more Adderall, then you’ll get through this. Now you’re focused, only problem is you’re still not focused on the stupid history project. You are focused on cleaning your room. A full blown purge of old stuff.

                The next thing you know your alarm is screeching at you. What time is it? You suddenly realize that you’ve been cleaning all night. You didn’t finish your project, but who really cares. It’s kind of done, you might as well just turn it in now. You throw on some clothes and head out the door, dragging your feet to the bus stop. Just another day in the cycle of your boring life.

Catcher in the Rye: Holden & Non-conformity

Salinger uses Holden in several different ways to show the non-conformity of teenagers. Holden’s pathological lying and feelings of phoniness (as well as feeling that others are phony) not only display the non-conformity of teenagers, but also the insecurities and unsureness that are the roots of the problem both with Holden as well as teenagers in general.

Holden’s brother, Allie, died of leukemia at the young age of eleven, when Holden was only thirteen years old. Experiencing such a loss at such a young age traumatized Holden, who was unable to handle his grief properly, as we can see when he “broke all the goddam windows with (his) fist, just for the hell of it” the night of Allie’s death (Salinger 39). This series of traumatic events leaves Holden wondering who he is and where, if anywhere, he belongs. Holden always feels out of place, as he phrases it when speaking with Sally, “I don’t get anything out of anything” (Salinger 131).

Aside from Allie’s death, Holden is starved for attention, especially from his parents. We can see through little side comments, such as the fact that “(Allie’s) teachers were always writing letters to (his) mother, telling her what a pleasure it was having a boy like Allie in their class” and all the mentions of how amazing his brother, D.B. is as an author, that Holden feels like he is the only child that isn't intelligent or high achieving. People, especially teens, often fill the shoes they are given, which is exactly what Holden does by slacking off in school.

However, Holden is actually an extremely intelligent boy, so he feels phony for not acting like it. Holden has a hard time tracing his phony feeling back to its source, though, so he is simply left feeling greatly unsettled. Unable to understand all of the emotions going on inside of him, Holden projects those emotions onto those around him, which is a very common practice among teenagers. Going around calling everyone else a phony takes the pressure off of him so that he doesn't have to deal with his own feelings of phoniness. However, this projection is self-destructive, because it causes Holden to be very angry at the world and everyone in it.

In a reaction to what he perceives as others’ phoniness, as well as in an attempt to deal with his own emotions, Holden constantly lies and pretends to be someone he’s not. For example, when on the train, Holden wants to impress the attractive woman on the train so he lies and says that his name is Rudolf Schmidt and that he has a brain tumor. After a few moments, Holden realizes that he shouldn't have made up all those stories, but he explains “once I get started, I can go on for hours if I feel like it. No kidding. Hours” (Salinger 58).

These are only a few examples of the many emotions and insecurities that cause Holden, as well as teenagers in general, to be deviant and non-conforming. Teenage years are full of pressures of conformity, but Holden struggles even more due to the death of his brother, not quite sure where to go or who he should be. I think one of the most powerful re-occurrences in the book is Holden’s obsession with where the ducks go after winter. His questioning seems to represent how Holden doesn't know where to go after this “winter” of a traumatizing event. 

Salinger, J.D. Catcher in the Rye. New York: Little Brown and Company, 1951. Print.

Merricat: An Unreliable Narrator

Disclaimer: sorry guys for the long post, I got kinda carried away...

One characteristic of postmodern literature is an unreliable narrator, which is when the opinions and actions of the narrator reflect differing opinions and actions from the truth. Merricat, the eighteen year old girl who narrates We Have Always Lived in the Castle, perfectly embodies the unreliable narrator that is often found in postmodernism. Merricat’s unreliability is mostly due to her mental instability. Merricat seems to have several mental disorders, including psychopathic tendencies (if not full blown psychopathy), autism, and paranoid schizophrenia. These disorders distort Merricat’s view of the world, and therefore distort our perception of the story.

            The most obvious mental disorder that Merricat suffers from is psychopathy. It is revealed to readers that Merricat killed her whole family (except her Uncle Julian, whom she intended to murder anyways, and her sister) by poisoning them with arsenic when she was only twelve years old. Besides the fact that this is fairly young to commit a premeditated murder, Merricat shows no remorse for her actions, feeling that they were perfectly justified. As we can see through her thoughts and conversations, to Merricat, murdering her whole family is a completely nonchalant event, and so is the idea of murdering those around her. We can see these psychopathic tendencies throughout many of Merricat’s thoughts and conversations, but especially during her conversation with Constance after the fire: “I said aloud to Constance, ‘I am going to put death in all their food and watch them die.’ Constance stirred, and the leaves rustled. “The way you did before?’ she asked…’Yes,’ I said after a minute, ‘the way I did before’” (Jackson 110).

This conversation is a subtle example of Merricat’s lack of remorse towards killing, however some more disturbing thoughts are displayed when Merricat is in the town and describes how she imagines with delight the townspeople “lying there crying with the pain and dying,” and how she would “(step) over their bodies, taking whatever (she) fancied from the shelves, and go home, with perhaps a kick for Mrs. Donnell while she lay there” (Jackson 9).

            Psychopathy is not the only mental disorder that plagues her, however. Merricat also most-likely suffers from paranoid schizophrenia. One example occurs within the same grocery store scene mentioned previously. Merricat is extremely paranoid that the villagers are out to get her, explaining that even though she could not physically see them because her back was turned to them, she knew that “the women in the store were watching… (she) could feel them standing behind (her), holding a can or a half-filled bag of cookies or a head of lettuce, not willing to move until (she) had gone through the door again and the wave of talk began” (Jackson 7). In reality, it is very unlikely that the whole store stopped dead in its tracks to hatefully watch Merricat buy her groceries, only to begin talking about her as soon as she left.

Merricat is also paranoid that her cousin Charles is out to get her. For all we know as readers, Charles very well could have been an evil man. However, since Merricat was usually the only one to notice his “evil,” it is much more likely that Merricat was paranoid, and imagined many of Charles’ evil doings. One day in the kitchen, for example, Charles says to Jonas (Merricat’s cat), “Where would poor Cousin Mary go if her sister turned her out…what would poor Cousin Mary do if Constance and Charles didn’t love her?” (Jackson 78). These questions came out of the blue from Charles, and if they were actually spoken by Charles would be very threatening and frightening. However, the more likely scenario is that Merricat was scared that Charles would replace her, and Constance would begin to love Charles more than her, which caused Merricat to wonder those questions herself. Since Charles was the person she was afraid would replace her, Merricat then projected those feelings onto Charles, imagining that he was threatening her.

Merricat also has wild delusions and fantasies, which can be a symptom of schizophrenia. For example, Merricat is constantly talking about how different things happened or didn’t happen because of supposedly magical items. Some of these items include her box of silver dollars or her father’s book which she “nailed to the tree in the pine woods,” which make Merricat feel safe, reasoning that “so long as they were where (she) had put them nothing could get in to harm (them)” (Jackson 41). Merricat obviously does not feel safe where she is (maybe she doesn’t feel safe in her own skin, or maybe she is scared that people will find out that she is the real murderer) so she creates these items as a false sense of safety to ease her mind.

Merricat does not restrict these delusions to physical items, though; she is constantly fantasizing about being somewhere else. Most of the time, Merricat fantasizes about being on the moon, which she describes as having “lettuce, and pumpkin pie… and horses dancing with their wings,” she dreams that “on the moon Uncle Julian will be well and the sun will shine every day” (Jackson 75). When she is at the summerhouse, Merricat also dreams that her family is alive again and is praising her and loving her, something that (at least she felt) they never did when they were alive. Both of these fantasies are Merricat’s coping mechanisms to combat the loneliness and sadness that fills her life.

Another mental illness that Merricat most-likely suffers from, causing her to be an even less reliable narrator, is autism. Autistic children often have a difficult time interpreting emotions, both their own, as well as those of others. We can see in several situations that Merricat has a difficult time expressing her own emotions. One of the ways that Merricat copes is by breaking things, such as in her reaction to Helen Clarke’s suggestion that Constance should go out into the world. Merricat panicked, “my head was huge and going to explode; I ran to the back door and opened it to breathe. I wanted to run; if I could have run to the end of our land and back I would have been alright,” and since she was unable to handle her emotions, “(she) had to content (her)self with smashing the milk pitcher” (Jackson 27). To most readers, breaking things seems like an illogical way to deal with frustration, but to Merricat, it is her only way to cope.

Merricat has an even more difficult time interpreting the emotions of others. One example of this occurs when Merricat realizes that Helen Clarke has brought another guest to tea. Merricat immediately thinks that Constance will be scared and keeps insisting to Constance that they should send the guests away so that Constance won’t be frightened, despite the fact that Constance keeps replying that she is not frightened at all. Merricat, probably frightened herself, cannot understand how Constance could not be afraid, interpreting her sister’s insisting that she is fine as trying to be brave. This lack of ability to properly interpret emotions makes it hard as a reader to discern whether or not people are really acting and reacting in the ways that are described to us.

All in all, We Have Always Lived in the Castle definitely includes many characteristics of postmodern literature, however the unreliable narrator is the predominant characteristic. The narrator, an eighteen year old murderer named Merricat, suffers from several mental disorders including psychopathy, which causes fantasies of the deaths of those around her; paranoid schizophrenia, which causes paranoia and delusions that make us question the events described to us; and autism, which distorts Merricat’s and therefore the reader’s perception of the emotions and intentions of others. All of these mental disorders combined equal one very unreliable narrator.

Works Cited: Jackson, Shirley. We Have Always Lived In The Castle. London: Penguin Books, 2006. Print.

Satire in Persuasion

Jane Austen is an author who is quite fond of satire, often using it throughout her whole stories. Persuasion is one of her books that is filled with satire. From satirical characters, such as Sir Walter, Mary, and Elizabeth; to satirical situations such as Louisa’s fall.

                Several of the characters in Jane Austen’s Persuasion are deeply satirized. For example, Sir Walter is used by Austen to poke fun at the obsession many people of her time had with wealth and status. Specifically she uses irony with Sir Walter’s character, such as the fact that he is so obsessed with status, yet has to give it all up because he spends too much of his money. Mary, Anne’s sister, is another character that Austen satirizes. Austen uses exaggeration in Mary to represent the weak and needy characteristics that so many women in that time period had. Typically these characteristics shine through Mary’s self-centered and often self-pitying attitudes towards things, such as when Anne first came to visit her and some of her first words were “So, you are come at last!  I began to think I should never see you.  I am so ill I can hardly speak.  I have not seen a creature the whole morning…I do not think I ever was so ill in my life as I have been all this morning:  very unfit to be left alone, I am sure” (Austen 36). As you can see, Mary’s character does nothing more in the book than whine and complain, a perfect characteristic for satirizing the women of Jane Austen’s time.

I have only read two of Jane Austen’s books, but I have found an interesting pattern in the fact that she typically does not satirize her main characters. These strong, independent, female main characters, such as Anne in Persuasion, remain above all of the petty nonsense for which other characters are being satirized. Another one of Jane Austen’s satirical themes that appears throughout several of her books is the idea of the poorer characters being the wisest and most pleasant to be around. In the case of Persuasion, Ms. Smith embodies this poor and disabled, yet wise and kind character. Ms. Smith has lost all of her fortune, so many of the satirically pretentious characters such as Elizabeth and Sir Walter cannot understand why Anne would rather spend time with her rather than with the rich and powerful, yet quite dull, Lady Dalrymple.

                Jane Austen also uses situations in Persuasion as a satire for ridiculous aspects of her society. One of the best examples of this is when Louisa Musgrove stubbornly jumps off the stairs, only to fall and hit her head. Earlier in the book, Captain Wentworth talks of how he likes that Louisa is strong willed and not easily persuaded. This preference probably derives from Anne previously being persuaded by Lady Russell to leave him; however it is still ironic when her strong will is precisely what leads Louisa into a coma, and is the factor that allows Captain Wentworth to leave her in pursuit of Anne.

Works Cited: Austen, Jane. Persuasion. New York: Barnes & Noble Classics, 2003. Print.

An Unfilmable Conclusion: WAGYWHYB & Smooth Talk

Both Smooth Talk and Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been address the issues of sexism and racism, however, Sooth Talk takes a more revolutionary approach towards the issues.        

            Daly addresses the criticisms that both Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been and Smooth Talk have received for being a “cautionary tale” to women. She displays the opinion of B. Ruby Rich who is disgusted at the way that Chopra’s film seems to warn girls to “keep a lid on their sexuality” through the use of camera spacing. As quoted by Daly, “Every time Connie is on screen, she’s shot in close-up…every time Arnold is on screen, he’s in middle-shot framed against ample landscape” (Rich 148). Both Rich and Daly feel that this use of tight, close-up spacing is a way to show women as inferior and in the same token, “each time Connie crosses into new and larger spaces…she becomes increasingly more vulnerable” (Daly 148). I felt this sexism as I read as well, however it was quite subtle because, as Daly points out, Oates simply followed the formula of the too common horror story where the girl is trapped and helpless. I felt that Chopra’s Smooth Talk showed equal signs of sexism, however I noticed most of this in the dialogue and Connie’s reaction to male characters. I did not consciously notice the difference between the close-up shots of Connie and the properly spaced shots of Arnold, however this too could have been a result of my familiarity with such stories.

Daly goes further to say that Oates’s original story is revolutionary in its feelings towards women. Oates does not blame Connie, the victim of the story, for the attack, and in fact give her the last word, rather than giving that privilege to Arnold. This is quite revolutionary for the 1960’s, a time in which women were never considered superior. However, Smooth Talk provides even more empowerment to Connie, as it is set in the 1980s.

 This difference between the power given to Connie is most evident in the end of the movie, when Connie is shown returning safely to her home, seemingly unshaken by the events. This is quite a change from Oates’s book, in which the reader is left wondering if Connie will ever return at all, let alone return safely. Oates is quoted saying “Laura Dern’s Connie is no longer ‘my’ Connie at the film’s conclusion; she is very much alive, assertive, strong willed-a girl perhaps, of the mid 1980’s and not of the mid-1960’s” (Oates 149). Daly explains that the reason for this difference is most likely due to the fact that the 1960’s had not experienced the feminist movement, making women of the 1980’s much more “resisting readers” to the “smooth talk” of men around them.

As you can see, both Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been and Smooth Talk address the issues of sexism and feminism. However, Smooth Talk, due to its later time period, gives quite a bit more empowerment to Connie.

Works Cited: Daly, Brenda O. "An Unfilmable Conclusion: Joyce Carol Oates at the Movies." The Journal of Popular Culture 23.3 (1989): 101-14. Print.Oates, Joyce Carol. “Where are you going, where have you been?” New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press, 1994. Print.

WAYGWHYB & "Seduction, Space, and a Fictional Mode" Reaction

I found Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been to be a very fascinating story that highlights many of the insecurities and fears of our world, especially for a rebellious young woman. Gillis’ analysis was even more interesting and focused on several aspects of Oates’ story that were very abstract and insightful.

                For example, Gillis emphasizes the invasion of space that is displayed throughout Oates’ Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been. I found it fascinating how she points out the theme of invasion that is seen throughout the book. I had noticed the literal invasion of Arnold Friend into Connie’s home, but there were a few other symbolic invasions that I did not originally pick up on. For example, there was the symbolic invasion of her innocence by the new and seductive life of partying at the drive-in restaurant.

                Another point that Gillis made that I found quite fascinating was the idea that personal invasion has become a much greater issue in the more recent times in which has led to fictional stories dealing more with the “evil represented as that which threatens the privacy of self” (Gillis 134). I find this particularly interesting because it related to some of the other readings that we have done in this class. One example being Benjamin Barber, who explains in his book, Consumed, that in our day and age, people are becoming increasingly privatized. He explained that we are beginning to focus more on the individual, rather than the collective and postulated that that led us to be vulnerable to the invasion of consumerism into our lives. This vulnerability to consumerism parallels the way that Connie’s vanity and focus on her own wants and needs rather than those of her family leaves her vulnerable to be invaded by Arnold Friend. If Connie had not been so vain in feeling the need to stay home from the picnic to wash her hair, she would not have been home alone and not have needed to deal with Arnold Friend.

                Gillis also explains that in its own way, Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been is a coming of age story, which I find to be an interesting interpretation of the story. She explains that “the tale catches its main character at a passage point where, it is implied, the future may depend precipitously on the past” (Gillis 135). I can see how Oates’ story could be interpreted as coming of age story, what with Connie, at the young age of 15, separating from her parents and going to the drive in, experiencing things that she has never before experienced. However, most coming of age stories do not have the dark undertone that characterizes Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been. When Connie comes out into the world, while she is greeted with the common seduction and temptation that is found in other coming of age stories such as Gatsby (as Gillis uses for an example), her experience is much darker and unfriendly, guided by the most frightening of all, Arnold Friend.

                Overall, both Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been and Seduction, Space, and a Fictional Mode were extremely fascinating reads that touched on issues that were very engaging. I felt that Gillis’ critical essay was especially interesting because of her illustrative analysis of Oates’ story.