Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 09:49:52 -0400 (EDT)
From:  Richard Ressmyer ressmyrr@wvlc.wvnet.edu
Subject:  Re: Reviews
To:  jco@usfca.edu

Randy and JCO List:

I heard a very POSITIVE review of MAN CRAZY on NPR two weeks ago.  This 
morning, after reading Randy's notcie of the negative NYT review I 
thought I should draw attention to the one I heard.  I have requested the 
full text from NPR.

The review was on All Things Considered [evening NPR news and features] 
on Friday August 15, 1997.  I found the following abstract at
        http:www.npr.org/programs/atc/rundowns/1997/Aug/atc.08.15.97

[MANCRAZY] -- Alan Cheuse has a review of the latest novel from
Joyce Carol Oates...it's set in upstate New York, and examines the darker
side of the workingclass life. He says that the material is bleak, but the
prose is exquisite. (STATIONS: "Mancrazy" is published by Dutton.)


Alan Cheuse (Ph.D., Rutgers University, 1974; Creative Writing Faculty, 
George Mason University) is the author of three novels, two collections 
of short fiction, and the nonfictional Fall Out of Heaven. As a book 
commentator, Cheuse is a regular contributor to National Public Radio's 
"All Things Considered," and he serves as the host and co-producer of the 
NPR syndicated fiction short story magazine "The Sound of Writing." With 
Caroline Marshall, he has edited two volumes of short stories. His own 
short fiction has appeared in The New Yorker, Black Warrior Review, 
Boston Globe Sunday Magazine, Another Chicago Magazine and elsewhere. His 
articles, magazine journalism, and reviews have also appeared widely.

Hope this is helpful,

Richard
in Charleston, WV

On Sat, 30 Aug 1997, Randy Souther wrote:

> There's a short, mixed review of Black Water
> in the August Opera News, and a horrible
> review of Man Crazy in the Aug 29 NYT.
> 
> I look forward to a discussion of the book
> here in the near future.
> 
> Randy



From:  RJohn713@aol.com
 Date:  Tue, 2 Sep 1997 10:55:58 -0400 (EDT)
To:  jco@usfca.edu
Subject:  Re: Reviews

MAN CRAZY will also receive a positive review in next Sunday's Atlanta
Journal-Constitution.

Greg J.



From: smancin1@ix.netcom.com
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 21:40:51 -0500 (CDT)
To: jco@usfca.edu
Subject: AJC

Greg,

Are you writing the review?  I hope so.


smb



From: Brecher_Keith/mskcc_Neurology@mskmail.mskcc.org
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 97 18:31:01 -0400
Subject: MAN CRAZY
To: jco@usfca.edu

     Gentlemen and less gentle men--
     
     It seems that Michiko Kakutani has grown fangs of late. In something 
     like two consecutive weeks she's trashed Denis Johnson's ALREADY DEAD 
     and our beloved JCO's MAN CRAZY. Now, I know somebody like Denis 
     Johnson can take that kinda criticism, but I'm worried about JCO. 
     Sure, she took alot of heat for the equally abysmal ZOMBIE, but how 
     much more nasty criticism can she stand before she 'morphoses 
     (annoying word courtesy of Thomas Pynchon) into Enoch Skaggs, the 
     beast within. The problem is that Kakutani, sort of wrong about 
     ALREADY DEAD, is right on the mark of the beast about MAN CRAZY. 
     
     Michi sayeth, "An embarrassing performance." She's right. MAN CRAZY 
     sucks, which is also why it's so great. Like Michi, I was wondering 
     whether JCO listened to "Death Valley 69" one too many times before 
     sitting down and writing MAN CRAZY, probably in one night. Joyce seems 
     to have maybe enjoyed HELTER SKELTER and all that Waco footage a 
     little too much because, as Michi points out, her prose gets really 
     heated during the Satan's Children parts. 
     
     I'll confess, though, MAN CRAZY isn't all bad. Some of JCO's fanciful 
     prose was damn evocative. I'm thinking about the description of a 
     bridge that Joyce rambles on about for awhile. And, the doll-girl 
     parts seem just like a John Waters or a David Lynch film because of 
     the time-warp, fifties-style JD behavior and all those weird names. In 
     fact, I think MAN CRAZY is the best film John Waters didn't make.
     
     In conclusion, MAN CRAZY: The best worst novel of the year. Keep 
     churning them out, Joyce. You've adequately proven that Michi and I 
     will read anything you write.     



Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 22:36:22 -0400 (EDT)
From:  Matthew A Cheney macheney@hopper.unh.edu
 Subject:  Man Crazy
 To:  jco@usfca.edu

Though I haven't yet read MAN CRAZY (though I did pick up the first copy I
saw), I did read Michiko Kakutani's review in the NY Times.  I also read
her similarly negative review of FOXFIRE, and having just finished that
novel days ago, I've got a couple thoughts on reviewers, Oates, and bad
writing.  (Warning: skip this message if you've got anything mildly
interesting to do; I'm likely to ramble and not express myself
coherently.)

A friend of mine, who is a professional and award-winning writer, told me
that she thought Oates was one of our most important writers, but that she
doesn't seem to have the capacity to edit herself, or at least to tell her
good writing from her bad.  This has been, of course, a criticism of Oates
from the beginning, and is usually tied to her "notorious" or "disturbing"
prolificity.  I tried my best to describe to my friend Greg Johnson's
description of the Oates archive and the careful process of revision that
Oates's manuscripts reveal.  At the time, I didn't think I convinced even
myself -- after all, there have been a number of short stories of Oates's
that I've thought were, well, shoddy; and I couldn't even finish BLACK
WATER, which has got to be one of the worst books I've ever attempted to
read.

But I've also begun to count Oates as one of my favorite authors.  Her
works take up a whole shelf on my bookcase.  All of the problems Kakutani
cites in her reviews of FOXFIRE and MAN CRAZY are problems I've noticed in
much of Oates's work. The question is, though: are they problems?

It has bothered me from the time I began reading Oates that this
incredibly intelligent, literate woman -- this woman who seemed to have
achieved moments of genius -- could so consistently write badly.
Embarrassingly badly.  But I think I've solved the conundrum, and the
answer seems obvious (but I haven't seen anyone bring it up before): Of
course Oates knows what she's doing, of course she knows when she writes
"badly".  It's intentional, part of the book or story's conception.
While we tend to give her credit for writing how she wanted in the Gothic
Trilogy, critics seem to be trying to fit her recent pseudo-realistic
novels into the genre of standard realism, and so of course they can't
compare: they aren't meant to.  (When they are meant to, as I would guess
MULVANEYS was, they are as good as anything else that's been written in
this country in the last fifty years.)  John Crowley's review of FOXFIRE
in the NY Times was much more accurate than Kakutani's in that same
publication because Crowley gave Oates credit for writing a mythic tale
that is only ostensibly realistic (Crowley, himself a wonderful fantasy
writer, is much less willing to pigeonhole Oates than Kakutani, a
professional reviewer).

Oates takes risks, and sometimes, I believe, she falls flat on her face.
Hurray for that!  If only more writers were willing to risk so much!  I
look forward to reading MAN CRAZY, and I hope it's just as bad as some of
the reviewers think it is -- at least it won't be quite like anything else
published this year.

Matthew Cheney



From:  RJohn713@aol.com
 Date:  Sat, 6 Sep 1997 11:49:51 -0400 (EDT)
 To:  jco@usfca.edu
Subject: Re: AJC

yes, I am...thanks




Date:  Tue, 9 Sep 1997 15:19:30 -0400 (EDT)
From:  Karen Gaffney kgaffney@odin.english.udel.edu
To: jco@usfca.edu
Subject:  Re: Reviews


On Tue, 2 Sep 1997 RJohn713@aol.com wrote:

> MAN CRAZY will also receive a positive review in next Sunday's Atlanta
> Journal-Constitution.
> 
> Greg J.
> 

Greg-
I'm looking forward to reading your review, but i couldn't find it on the 
Atlanta Journal Constitution web site on Sunday the 7th. Is there a web 
site you could direct us to to read it? if not, would it be possible for 
you to post it on our discussion list?

thanks
karen



From:  RJohn713@aol.com
 Date:  Tue, 9 Sep 1997 16:06:23 -0400 (EDT)
To:   jco@usfca.edu
 Subject:  Re: Reviews


Thanks, Karen.  Yes, the review was pushed back a week due to the Princess
Diana coverage, I presume.  It will definitely appear this coming Sunday.

Best, Greg



From:  composer2@juno.com
 To:  jco@usfca.edu
  Date:  Wed, 10 Sep 1997 05:28:23 -0400
  Subject:  Re: Reviews

GREG -
ATLANTA JOURNAL/CONSTITUION
I will be meeting Joyce Carol Oates on Friday, the 19th at Hope College
here in Michigan.  I presume MAN CRAZY will be her featured topic for the
lecture; is it worth my while to read??   I have reviewed her books for
the SOUTH BEND TRIBUNE, Sunday editions, in South Bend, IN.

David Chaudoir
Berrien Springs, MI?



Date:  Wed, 10 Sep 1997 19:28:17 +0000
 From:   Francie Schwartz fabela@gte.net
To:  jco@usfca.edu
Subject: Re: MAN CRAZY

Did someone call ZOMBIE abysmal?  Yo - the long short story version
published in New Yorker was way better than the hardcover, but still,
it's one of the best "late" works of fiction to come from jco!

i've been unplugged for 2 weeks - this forum gets better all the time. 
So what's the Atlanta Constitution's web address so i can check out the
review of Man Crazy?

The New York Times is getting fang-y all around.  But they've been
dissing jco for years.  I think American Appetites was the last one they
really liked... and that only because the first part was very "foodie"
material.

Can't wait to read the good-bad latest... but i must admit it'll be a
library copy or nothing at all.  

Good to be back among jco freaks.  And by the way, i don't think the
reviews bother her one little bit.  Randy - any thoughts?

Francie S



To:  jco@usfca.edu
 Subject:  Re: MAN CRAZY
From:  composer2@juno.com (David C. Chaudoir)
 Date:  Thu, 11 Sep 1997 10:28:38 EDT

ZOMBIE was a triumph in my opinion.  It was so horrific and unbelieveable
that it worked.  I reviewed it for the "South Bend Tribune" Sunday
edition a year ago, Indiana's second largest newspaper (only to
Indianapolis).

Anyway, so far MAN CRAZY is not the best work I've read of jco, but I
still cannot help but like it because 1) it's innovative (as always); and
2) her sentence structure is almost poetic, and highly unique among
novelists, so it's a refreshing read just having completed a Lawrence
(gag gag) Sanders romp, "The Timothy Files."

My fav jco novel is WHAT I LIVED FOR.  What an EXCELLENT book, and I read
it almost once a year.  It's great!

David C.
Berrien Springs, MI



From:  diamond@math.wvu.edu (Harvey Diamond)
Subject:  Appetites & What I Lived For
   To:  jco@usfca.edu
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 13:02:18 -0400 (EDT)

   This is not about Man Crazy - I'm going to steer clear of that one, like
I steered clear of Zombie. Just too much, literary merit or no literary
merit. Does anyone else out there draw such lines, or does a hunger for
the macabre come with the territory (this territory of Oates fans)? 

Just had a couple of comments about today's comments-

        WHAT I LIVED FOR: It took a while to get "into it", maybe a
hundred pages or so (so only a small fraction of the book!) but soon
one is caught up in the details and idiosyncracies of Corcoran's life as 
if he were a close friend of yours, all of whose flaws you know. The plot, 
although claustrophobically close
in space and time, becomes compelling as well. And we have that slightly
shifted reality of Oates, and the character struggling mightily against that
reality to move forward through it. Despite its length, one is
sorry to see it end and that Corcoran dies (he does die, doesn't he?). The
detail in which the main character is drawn is memorable indeed.

        AMERICAN APPETITES: When I read it I thought - here is Oates trying
on a "normal" story line. So I found the title/book to be multilayered - on
top, the role that food plays in the storyline; next layer, the "appetites"
of the players in the story; and below that, Oates trying to satisfy 
(no doubt in an ironic way) the "appetites" of American readers. (a layer
cake?)


Harvey 



   Date:  Fri, 12 Sep 1997 10:05:03 -0700
 From:  Tom & Sandy Fasano tomchat@gte.net
 To:   jco@usfca.edu
Subject:   Re: David C.

My hat off to anyone who can make it through a Lawrence Sanders book. 
Patience for garbage is a virture, I suppose.  Personally, I'd rather 
watch gnats do the big nasty.



To: jco@usfca.edu
Subject:  Re: David C.
 From:  composer2@juno.com (David C. Chaudoir)
Date:  Fri, 12 Sep 1997 17:07:42 EDT

Not to bash Lawrence Sanders, but what is his appeal?  Yeesh!  The only
reason I read "The Timothy Files" was because I was stuck on a long
flight to Zimbabwe, Africa and was too cheap to buy a book in London on
my way there from the US.  Next time I will spend the money for a better
book!!

David C.
Berrien Springs, MI



Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 22:23:10 -0400
From:  klauda klauda@ibm.net
To:   jco@usfca.edu
 Subject:  "Where are you going...."

to whom it may concern-
i am a high school student who recently read "Where are you going, where
have you been?" I have been greatly confused about it ever since. I have
many questions, and I'm not sure where to ask them to? If anyone knows
the explanation to the story, please e-mail it to me ASAP.
                                thanks,
                                 Jen



From:  Cyranomish@aol.com
 Date:  Tue, 16 Sep 1997 16:06:28 -0400 (EDT)
To:jco@usfca.edu
 Subject: Re: "Where are you going...."

Dear Jen, "Where Are You Going" is a baffling story...that's what makes it an
enduring classic.  It infuriated me the first time I read it -- 26 years ago
-- but I've come to admire the layers of myth and legend the author packs
into it.  It's much more than a story of a teenage girl who is abducted and
possibly murdered by a charismatic psychopath.  Think fairy tales.  Think of
Bob Dylan, to whom it was originally dedicated and his song lyrics for "It's
all over now baby blue."  You might look at her novella from last year,
"First Love," in which the heroine encounters a similarly magnetic creep.
 Did you ever know anyone who was mysteriously attracted to a magnetic creep?
 Think about it.  And have fun because "Where Are You Going "  is a very
artful story that doesn't yield its secrets
easily.  How boring it it did.  Cyrano



Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 17:16:15 -0500
To: jco@usfca.edu
 From:   "Ray L. White" rlwhite@ilstu.edu
Subject:   Re: "Where are you going...."


and try the Pan/Satan figure with the strange boots/feet, come to
tempt/lead the girl;

and the necessity, sad as it may be, as I see it, of her going riding into
experience/adulthood

Cheers!


BENE FACERE SED BONUM



To:  jco@usfca.edu
 Subject:  Re: "Where are you going...."
 From:  composer2@juno.com (David C. Chaudoir)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 21:47:23 EDT

"Where are you going..." is JCO's trademark piece.  Even non-literary
people, and even many non-readers (people who don't read for enjoyment or
academics) often recognize that title and Oates's attachment to it.  It
was made into a non-successful film sometime in the 80's, I believe, and
I think it was called "Smart Talk" or some such title.  Perhaps Randy S.
has the info. on "Celestial Timepiece" Web site.  
Anyway, "Where are you going..." is one of the most-often anthologized
stories among short story collections for teens and JCO short-story
collections.  It is also widely studied at most University English
departments as part of the academia or a women's fiction class (or a
study of the short story).  
Next to Updike, Cheever, and perhaps Bernard Malamud, Oates is one of the
all-time modern masters of the short story.  I would say she is more
crafty (if not more interesting) than Peter Taylor, Reynolds Price, and
even Shirley Jackson.  Among emerging short-story writers, Bobbie Ann
Mason bores me with same old, same old.  Richard Burgin (sp?) is
likeable, and J. California Cooper is admirable; but there is no one
quite like Oates, nor anyone quite as talented (as we all would agree).  

David C.
Berrien Springs, MI

p.s. - So what's up with "Man Crazy?"  "Zombie" and "...Mulvaney" were so
liberating and wonderful.  What went wrong in "Man?"  It was readable and
entertaining enough, I supposed, but not quite up to the typical Oates
par.



Date:  Tue, 16 Sep 1997 19:17:39 +0000
From:  Francie Schwartz fabela@gte.net
To:  jco@usfca.edu
Subject:  Re: "Where are you going...."

Agreed, but I think you omitted Margaret Atwood.

Having seen "Smart Talk" on PBS years ago, I recall thinking the film
was so very Oatesian in its subterranean lust/thrill of fear aspect, and
of course the casting was sublime.  Laura Dern was perfect to play a
teenage girl whose erotic imagination was about to expand and flower -
and the truly juicy portrayal by Treat Williams of the seducer or "Older
Man" who initiates the girl into the pleasures of vaginal awareness...

I was introduced to Oates by "them" and have actually preferred her
novels to the short stories, with the glaring exception of "Zombie"
which I have stated here before, was better in New Yorker than in the
"novella" hardcover.  I mention this as a defense to being accused of
not knowing the short stories nearly as well as I do the novels.

I am fascinated by the discussion, periperal as it is, of what is
"successful" when we speak of filmed "translations" - the abominable
"Foxfire" was shown on Cinemax this weekend - there's no comparison -
the movie seemed not at all Oatesian in tone.  Whereas "Smart Talk" had
the same creepy sexuality as "them".

Francie



Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 19:37:54 -0700
 To:  jco@usfca.edu
From:   Nikki Senecal senecal@scf-fs.usc.edu
Subject:  Re: "Where are you going...."


>"Smart Talk"

The movie version of "Where are you Going . . ." was called "Smooth Talk"
(as in the kind A. Friend does).


and sometimes Pedant


Department of English
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0354
Internet: senecal@scf-fs.usc.edu



Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 20:25:14 -0700
To:  jco@usfca.edu
From:  Nikki Senecal senecal@scf-fs.usc.edu
 Subject:  Re: "Where are you going...."


>>"Smart Talk"
>
>The movie version of "Where are you Going . . ." was called "Smooth Talk"
>(as in the kind A. Friend does).
>
>
>and sometimes Pedant
>
>
>Department of English
>University of Southern California
>Los Angeles, CA 90089-0354
>Internet: senecal@scf-fs.usc.edu

This note should have been signed

Nikki Senecal, ABD
and sometimes pedant

Which makes much more sense!



Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 06:33:01 +0000
 From:  Francie Schwartz fabela@gte.net
To: jco@usfca.edu
Subject:  Re: "Where are you going...."

Thanks for the correction, Nikki... anyone else care to comment on
Ralph's assertion that Atwood is the anti-Oates?  I just don't see it
that way.  I only brought up Atwood for the short list on contemporary
masters of the short story.  No one compares with jco for volume of
stories produced, but someone could make a case for Atwood having
different but equally impressive skills as a creator of atmosphere that
recalls childhood fears, concerns, kid politics and the like.  jco wrote
many more teen angst stories, and Atwood's young girls are just as
convincing in their own softer way...

"Cat's Eye" is what i'm thinking of...



Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 08:49:05 +0000
 From:  Francie Schwartz fabela@gte.net
To:  jco@usfca.edu
 Subject:   Re: "Where are you going...."

Cyrano: That's what makes horse racing, i guess.  i've read Alice Munro
and found her less emotionally satisfying than Atwood.  Also, i savored
every word of Cat's Eye, although Atwood has yet to match it in the long
form, that i'll admit.

She is far more than just an interesting Canadian writer.  Do you credit
her at all for "Handmaid's Tale" or was that too easily deconstructed? 
Even jco herself could use a little of Atwood's unwieldy risk-taking
from time to time.  And i seriously doubt there exists the usual
professional jealousy between the two writers.
Atwood's sensibilities, especially where adult heterosexual
relationships are concerned, seem more suited for the majority of
readers than jco's.

I sincerely hope some of those members of this forum who are writing
about the inverted sexuality that jco memorializes, I hope someone is
looking at jco's characters as more than the transmutations of her own
childhood experiences and/or fantasies.  The role of femininity in
fiction, its tense parallels with phallocentric thinking, would be a
helluva topic.



From:Cyranomish@aol.com
Date:  Wed, 17 Sep 1997 11:26:23 -0400 (EDT)
  To: jco@usfca.edu
 Subject:   Re: "Where are you going...."


I've always found M. Atwood an overesteemed fiction writer.  When "Surfacing"
came out in the early 1970s, it seemed a pale imitation of what Oates was
already doing.  I found "Cat's Eye" too long and it glossed over many
interesting issues it raised; plus it's use of "the double" technique was
pretty ham-handed, not engaging.  If anyone asks me, she's okay, an
interesting Canadian writer, but that's about it.  (Her poetry is terra
incognita to me; I've no opinions on that part of her work.)   If you want to
read an excellent Canadian fiction writer, check out Alice Munro's stories:
"The Albanian Virgin" is delightful and might be fun to study alongside
"Where Are You Going ..." on the theme of young people moving out into the
thrilling, dangerous world.  Cyrano



To: jco@usfca.edu
 Subject:  Re: "Where are you going...."
 From:  composer2@juno.com (David C. Chaudoir)
Date:  Wed, 17 Sep 1997 13:47:23 EDT

Cyrano--

Agreed on M. Atwood.  A fairly good Canadian writer.  A wonderful poet,
though.  She may have Oates cornered there.  I feel Atwood is more at
home in the poetry medium than Oates (who seems to be at home everywhere
else, surprisingly, even, plays).
Also, I agree that Alice Munro is an excellent writer and I love her
stories.  Perhaps she, too, should be on the Top 10 list of best short
story writers of this century.

1. John Updike
2. John Cheever
3. JCOates
4. Alice Munro
5. ???
6. ???
7. Sandra Cisneros
8. Gary Soto (surprise)
9.  Peter Taylor
10. Reynold Price

David C.
Berrien Springs, MI



To: jco@usfca.edu
Subject:   Re: "Where are you going...."
 From: composer2@juno.com (David C. Chaudoir)
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 13:47:23 EDT


Francine:

Margaret Atwood -- yes, a talented novelist, but I don't care much for
her short stories (Blubeard's Egg -- yuk).  As a novelist, she almost
never misses, but what happend with "Alias Grace."  I just couldn't get
into it.

I think "Zombie" was one of Oates's most creative pieces.  It's not my
favorite, but I don't think I've ever read a scarier book.  She REALLY
scared me with that one, and no author since has been able to make me
feel quite the same.  Speaking of Atwood, "The Handmaid's Tale" was a
disturbing book, until I read "Zombie" a month later.  Yikes.  I was
restless for countless nights afterwards and still get jittery when I
think about it today.  That's talent!

I agree whole-heartedly with you about the movies.  foxfire just looks
"dumb."

David C. 
Berrien Springs, MI



To: jco@usfca.edu
Subject:  Re: "Where are you going...."
 From:  composer2@juno.com (David C. Chaudoir)
 Date:  Wed, 17 Sep 1997 13:47:23 EDT

I stand corrected.  You're right. 

David C.

On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 19:37:54 -0700 Nikki Senecal 
writes:
>>"Smart Talk"
>
>The movie version of "Where are you Going . . ." was called "Smooth 
>Talk"
>(as in the kind A. Friend does).
>
>
>and sometimes Pedant
>
>
>Department of English
>University of Southern California
>Los Angeles, CA 90089-0354
>Internet: senecal@scf-fs.usc.edu
>



To: jco@usfca.edu
Subject:  Re: "Where are you going...."
From:  composer2@juno.com (David C. Chaudoir)
 Date:  Wed, 17 Sep 1997 13:47:23 EDT

Francine--

Certainly Oates's sexual sensibilities aren't always the norm or suited
to the majority of the people reading her (because I'm male doesn't mean
I have the same sexual fodder that composes jco's Corky Corcoran in "What
I Lived For").  But that, in essence, is her appeal.  Frankly, wouldn't
it have been avant-garde of Atwood to have her female protagonist in
"Handmaid's Tale" be the subject of the mean woman's sexual desires
rather than her husband's?  (I'm sorry their specific names escape me;
it's been several years since I've read the novel, but you know what I
mean).  I hesitate to publish that comment, realizing the can of worms it
may open, and I don't think Atwood should have fashioned her any
different because it worked for that book and it turned out great. 

But Oates, I have to defend, is FAR more of a risk-taker than Atwood.  I
think that ATWOOD could learn a few things or two from Oates about
risk-taking.  Granted, "Handmaid's Tale" was fresh and new, and said a
lot about politics and society, but could Margaret Atwood have written
"What I Lived For" or even "Haunted."  No, I don't think so.  And she
especially could not have written "Zombie."

Having said that, I do enjoy Margaret Atwood's writing; especially her
poems.  So I'm not trying to bash her at all -- I think she is very
talented and possesses her own unique writing qualities. 

David C.
Berrien Springs, MI



Date:  Wed, 17 Sep 97 15:57:04 CST
From:  "Frank Malgesini" fmalgesi@uachih.uach.mx
To:  jco@usfca.edu
Subject:  Making Lists


I realize that the list of short story writers was not meant to be taken 
seriously as no such list could be but I can`t help remarking that there 
are 100 years in a century and there are major figures in twentieth century 
literature who are no longer alive.

Frank Malgesini 
Facultad de Filosofia y Letras
Universidad Autonoma de Chihuahua



To: jco@usfca.edu
Subject:  Re: Making Lists
 From:  composer2@juno.com (David C. Chaudoir)
 Date:  Wed, 17 Sep 1997 21:55:03 EDT

Since you are new to this forum perhaps you should learn a little of its
dynamics and observe before making curt comments.  The list of short
story writers was an opinion-based list ONLY -- MY opinion.  And you know
what?  It really doesn't matter what official "lists" are out there -- in
the back of Harold Bloom's "The Western Canon," he has compiled gobs of
lists of different authors relating to different topics and mediums. 
Perhaps he, too, should be criticized for compiling a list.  Obviously
there are many great authors who are no longer living from this century,
but perhaps I should have stated more clearly that the list I compiled
was of contemporary authors, mainly American, mainly living (with the
exception of Cheever and a few others), who I feel have shown and
published the greatest contributions to the short story medium.  Other
than that, it's just a group of authors on the same list, with no serious
purpose intended.  Now I will get off my soapbox.

David C.
Berrien Springs, MI



From: Cyranomish@aol.com
Date:   Wed, 17 Sep 1997 22:49:35 -0400 (EDT)
To:  jco@usfca.edu
Subject:   Princess Di

Did everyone see JCO's piece on Princess Diana in the special issue of Time
Magazine
last week?  She really let the "so-called 'royal family' of Britain" have it
in the lead paragraph.  We were talking about it tonight in class.  Many of
 us were stuck by O's comment on Diana's "naively trusting, almost childlike"
attitude toward Dodi.  It's one of the most cogent pieces I've read about
that whole sad business.  The issue date is Sept. 15.  Cyrano



Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 06:46:09 +0000
 From:  Francie Schwartz fabela@gte.net
 To:  jco@usfca.edu
 Subject:   Re: "Where are you going...."

Dear David: Thanks for the very civilized "argument" re Atwood/Oates and
risk-taking.  Maybe a bit of clarification is in order.  What I meant
was Oates seems to maintain more "distance" from the emotions of her
characters (I'm speaking now about the novels as I'm not sufficiently
versed in the short stories) - whereas Atwood gets messy and even
"ham-handed" as someone else put it when writing about sexual feelings
and attitudes.

"Where Are You Going?" in the form of "Smooth Talk" really translated
well to film, and I'll use it as the example; this girl is at a remove
from her own libidinous inclinations, as are many of Oates's young
people, and it's one of Oates's trademarks as I see it, because so many
can identify with it.  Yet it's "cool", which I personally find to be
the "safe" way for jco to write.  I meant to say that only in this
respect, the characters' distance from their own emotional truth is
something jco seems to be comfortable doing.  Whereas Atwood's women get
uncomfortably close to their own inner process where sexuality is
concerned, and this is riskier writing (at least in this writer's
opinion).

Since this IS a jco forum, I would respectfully suggest that no one here
is quite objective when it comes to comparing the writing with that of a
much less prolific, much more underrated writer than jco.
I mean what did I expect?

Certainly jco takes great great risks in many of her works.  I just
wanted to narrow the focus down to the two authors' ways of writing
about female sexuality especially.  For me, Atwood's girls and women are
just more in touch with the daily-ness of being female.  And you are so
right: Atwood couldn't have written Zombie.  But so what...

They are both uniquely themselves.

Funny, I never thought I'd be comparing jco to Atwood in this forum!
It's brought out some interesting opinions, nevertheless.

Francie (not Francine)



Date:  Thu, 18 Sep 1997 12:05:29 -0500 (CDT)
From:  Scott David Woodcock sdwoodco@sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu
To:  jco@usfca.edu
Subject:  "Where are you going..."


        In the story Arnold Friend shows her the numbers 33,19,17 on the
car as says they are a code, what do they represent?  I will be grateful
for any help you can give me.   

******************************************************************************
Scott Woodcock
Accounting
www.olemiss.edu/~sdwoodco
sdwoodco@olemiss.edu



Date:  Thu, 18 Sep 1997 13:19:35 -0500
To: jco@usfca.edu
 From:  Ray Lewis White rlwhite@ilstu.edu
Subject:  Re: "Where are you going..."


Perhaps 69, a number with some kind of sexual connotation?

Cheers!

                        BENE FACERE SED BONUM

                        

To: jco@usfca.edu
 Subject: Oates/Atwood Saga Continues
From:  composer2@juno.com (David C. Chaudoir)
Date:  Thu, 18 Sep 1997 17:34:33 EDT


Francine--
I now see your point; your explanation somewhat illuminated your thesis
of the previous e-mail about Atwood and women.  And now, for the shocker,
I agree with you.  Agree, that is, with your point that Atwood is more
in-touch with the daily-ness of being female; perhaps her women
characters are a bit stronger than Oates's.  I would even go so far as to
say that Oates's strongest characters have been male!  In "Man Crazy" I
find Oates's women boring (I basically found the whole book boring); but
when compared to MOST writers (OK, we'll exclude Atwood at this point,
and of course Updike) ANY of Oates's characters are much more developed
and stronger than the norm.

We cannot totally exclude Oates from the development of strong women
characters, though.  "foxfire," " them," and stories in "Haunted" -- even
as late as "...Mulvaneys" all had some strong, wonderfully-crafted
females.  

As far as being removed, I think you are right in pointing out that Oates
is more removed from her females than Atwood, who seems to live inside
them.  Much of that is just her style, and why they're different writers.
 However, Oates, I believe, lives inside of her males, whereas Atwood
opts for the gallery in creating her men.  They evolve from the outside
in, whereas Oates's men develop from the inside out.

Not being female, I probably can't identify many of the qualities you
could in each author's respective female protagonists (or antagonists as
the case may have it).  As a male, I can say that there is not even a
CHANCE for comparison with Atwood's and Oates's "men."  Oates is the
winner by a long shot, and even the most die-hard Atwood fans would
probably agree to that.

As far as the women go, though, Atwood probably is more intimate and
detail-oriented.  Now, what about Updike's women?  (Just kidding).

Great discussion.

Dave C.
B.S., MI



To: jco@usfca.edu
Subject:  Oates's Lecture
 From:  composer2@juno.com (David C. Chaudoir)
 Date:   Sat, 20 Sep 1997 01:17:15 EDT

Dear JCO Friends,

Tonight I had the great opportunity to meet Joyce Carol Oates in person,
hear her lecture, and talk briefly with her after.  She is an excellent
speaker, if no one here has heard her yet; full of life, vigor, and
humor.  She had the audience laughing quite a bit. 

At her book signing, she was gracious, warm, and very friendly.  What a
wonderful thing to know about a wonderful writer -- I am sure all of her
fans and readers will be happy to know that.  Bravo, Ms. Oates -- a job
well done.

(Just for the record, she spoke at Hope College in Holland, MI -- a FREE
event, nonetheless.  What a remarkable, intellectual evening!).

David C.
Berrien Springs, MI



From: diamond@math.wvu.edu (Harvey Diamond)
Subject: Re: Oates's Lecture
To: jco@usfca.edu
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 09:24:44 -0400 (EDT)

If I'm not mistaken, Hope College is where Oates' former student,
the West Virginia writer Pinckney Benedict, is a professor. His writing
seems to have been influenced by Oates' style - if you want to 
check it out, and get a pungent taste of  West Virginia at the same time,
I recommend his short story collection The Wrecking Yard.

Harvey Diamond



From: composer2@juno.com
To: jco@usfca.edu
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 03:03:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Oates's Lecture


Harvey Diamond--
Hope is where Pinckney Benedict teaches.  I happen to know him and that
is how I found out about Oates's lecture.  He is an extremely nice man,
and his writing is great.  I find his novel, "Dogs of God," excellent and
prefer his earlier collection of short stories, "Town Smokes," to "The
Wrecking Yard."  Way to go to pick up on that info!

David C.
B.S., MI



Date:  Wed, 24 Sep 1997 12:23:21 -0400
From: "Ralf A. Engeldinger" oatesian@feynman.harvard.edu
To: jco@usfca.edu
Subject:  Faulkner

Today the Boston Globe features an article about the 100th anniversary
of William Faulkner's birth. If anyone sees a piece by JCO on this
occasion, please post.

Ralf A. Engeldinger



Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 13:00:45 -0400
From: "Ralf A. Engeldinger" oatesian@feynman.harvard.edu
To: jco@usfca.edu
Subject: New York Times website

Anyone with access to the New York Times websites should check out
this page.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/09/21/reviews/970921.21scott.html

Ralf A. Engeldinger



 From:  smancin1@ix.netcom.com
 Date:   Sun, 28 Sep 1997 10:11:24 -0500 (CDT)
To:  jco@usfca.edu
 Subject:  How I Escaped . . .

Could anyone out there provide me with the full name of the JCO short story, 
"How I Escaped the Detroit House of Correction etc." ?  Also, is this story 
done in second person?  I need to reference it for someone and would 
appreciate any help.

Thanks,
smb



From: RJohn713@aol.com
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 15:21:06 -0400 (EDT)
To: jco@usfca.edu
Subject: Re: How I Escaped . . .

"How I Contemplated the World from the Detroit House of Correction and Began
My Life Over Again."  Alternates between first- and third-person.

Greg



From: Murray72@aol.com
Date:  Mon, 29 Sep 1997 19:51:18 -0400 (EDT)
To: jco@usfca.edu
Subject:  Re: "Where are you going..."

:       In the story Arnold Friend shows her the numbers 33,19,17 on the
:car as says they are a code, what do they represent?  I will be grateful
:for any help you can give me.  

******************************************************************************

:Scott Woodcock

My literature teacher said that the numbers added up to 69, and that we could
take from that what we pleased.  She said it might represent the dark side of
sexuality, which Arnold Friend represented himself, IMHO.

Christine Murray



Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 23:40:45 -0400
 From:  "Ralf A. Engeldinger" oatesian@feynman.harvard.edu
 To: jco@usfca.edu
Subject:  Re: "Where are you going..."

Murray72@aol.com wrote:
> 
> My literature teacher said that the numbers added up to 69, and that we could
> take from that what we pleased.  She said it might represent the dark side of
> sexuality, which Arnold Friend represented himself, IMHO.
> 
> Christine Murray

I really don't think Joyce Carol Oates would "represent the dark side of
sexuality"
by anything as banal and childish as the number 69. At most she might
use this
as a pointer to illustrate the level of sophistication of _his_ idea of
sexuality
or its dark side.

Ralf A. Engeldinger



Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 06:27:39 +0000
From:  Francie Schwartz fabela@gte.net
To: jco@usfca.edu
Subject:  Re: "Where are you going..."

I concur, Ralf.  Some teachers aren't up to the intellectual task.

Francie



From: diamond@math.wvu.edu (Harvey Diamond)
Subject:  Re: "Where are you going..."
To:jco@usfca.edu
 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 10:51:04 -0400 (EDT)

Now, would Joyce Carol Oates ever say that "Some teachers aren't up to
the intellectual task."? (let alone "some readers"!)
> 
> I concur, Ralf.  Some teachers aren't up to the intellectual task.
> 
> Francie
> 



Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:43:37 +0000
 From:  Francie Schwartz fabela@gte.net
To: jco@usfca.edu
Subject:  Re: "Where are you going..."

Probably not, Harvey... but I did.

Francie



Date:Tue, 30 Sep 1997 18:49:33 -0700
 From:  Randy Souther Randy Souther
To: jco@usfca.edu
Subject:  JCO on Jane Eyre

Greg just let me know of a discussion with
JCO going on at Salon Magazine. Check it
out:

http://www.salonmagazine.com/sept97/oates970929.html

Randy

Maintained by Randy Souther
Last updated 9-18-97
Send comments and suggestions to Randy Souther