Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 19:47:01 -0400
From: "Ralf A. Engeldinger" oatesian@feynman.harvard.edu
To: jco@usfca.edu
Subject: Re: "Where are you going..."

Harvey Diamond wrote:
> 
> Now, would Joyce Carol Oates ever say that "Some teachers aren't up to
> the intellectual task."? (let alone "some readers"!)

You obviously never read that piece in the New Yorker where she reports
her attempts to confirm her invitation to a screening of a movie based
on a novel by Walter Mosley.

Ralf A. Engeldinger



Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 18:30:15 +0000
From:  Francie Schwartz fabela@gte.net
To: jco@usfca.edu
Subject:  Re: "Where are you going..."

... But I have read that piece, and it was unforgettable, so very jco.

Francie



To: jco@usfca.edu
Subject:  Re: "Where are you going..."
From: composer2@juno.com (David C. Chaudoir)
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 21:05:58 EDT

Would the movie be "Devil In A Blue Dress?"  Yes it would.  JCO was
invited to the premiere, heh?  And did she go; did she want to go? 
Curious -- movies not such an intellectual venue, at least
stereotypically.  Especially Walter Mosely!  More info, please!

David C.
Berrien Springs, MI

On Wed, 01 Oct 1997 19:47:01 -0400 "Ralf A. Engeldinger"
 writes:
>Harvey Diamond wrote:
>> 
>> Now, would Joyce Carol Oates ever say that "Some teachers aren't up 
>to
>> the intellectual task."? (let alone "some readers"!)
>
>You obviously never read that piece in the New Yorker where she 
>reports
>her attempts to confirm her invitation to a screening of a movie based
>on a novel by Walter Mosley.
>
>Ralf A. Engeldinger
>



From: diamond@math.wvu.edu (Harvey Diamond)
Subject: Re: "Where are you going..."
To: jco@usfca.edu
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 17:17:29 -0400 (EDT)

No, I never read that piece. It obviously has something to do with what I
wrote, though. Perhaps it'll provide some guidance on when to sneer, eh?

Harvey Diamond
> 
> Harvey Diamond wrote:
> > 
> > Now, would Joyce Carol Oates ever say that "Some teachers aren't up to
> > the intellectual task."? (let alone "some readers"!)
> 
> You obviously never read that piece in the New Yorker where she reports
> her attempts to confirm her invitation to a screening of a movie based
> on a novel by Walter Mosley.
> 
> Ralf A. Engeldinger
> 



Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 23:43:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bryan M Valentine 
To:  jco@usfca.edu
Subject: Confused?

1. In paragraph 12 of "Against Nature", Joyce Carol Oates calls
"wonderfully consoling" (and, she implies, false) the usual way of
considering Nature  "as human, if not dilettante, experience." What does
she mean by "dilettante" and why does she use that word here?

2. In paragraph 15 of "Against Nature", Joyce Carol Oates refers to "our
first mother's awakening to the self's fatal beauty" in Milton's "Paradise
Lost." What does she mean by "our first mother" in connection with this
passage from Milton?

3. In paragraph 19 of "Against Nature", Joyce Carol Oates quotes Oscar
Wilde, who is referring to a beautiful evening sky as "simply a very
second-rate Turner, a Turner of a bad period." What does Wilde mean by "a
Turner"?

        I am the Resident Director here at the University of Pittsburgh at
Greensburg and I need these questions answered to completely understand
the reading. Thank you for your time.

Bryan M. Valentine
Resident Director



From: Cyranomish@aol.com
 Date:  Fri, 3 Oct 1997 07:18:22 -0400 (EDT)
To:  jco@usfca.edu
Subject:  Re: "Where are you going..."

Harvey, would you please give us the New Yorker reference for that piece
concerning the Walter Mosley book/film?  I'd like to read it. Thanks, Cyrano.



Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 11:38:45 -0700
From:  Randy Souther Randy Souther
 To:  jco@usfca.edu
 Subject:  Re: Confused?

Bryan M Valentine wrote:

> 1. In paragraph 12 of "Against Nature", Joyce Carol Oates
> calls
> "wonderfully consoling" (and, she implies, false) the
> usual way of
> considering Nature  "as human, if not dilettante,
> experience." What does
> she mean by "dilettante" and why does she use that word
> here?

I assume she means that most people's idea of
"experiencing"Nature is not unlike the way a tourist
"experiences" another
culture--as if Nature were some amusement park which you can

visit on the weekends and bring home photographs to show
that
you were "there."

>  
>
> 2. In paragraph 15 of "Against Nature", Joyce Carol Oates
> refers to "our
> first mother's awakening to the self's fatal beauty" in
> Milton's "Paradise
> Lost." What does she mean by "our first mother" in
> connection with this
> passage from Milton?

I seem to have missed this passage--I'm reading the essay as
collectedin (WOMAN) WRITER. Perhaps you have a different
version?

>  
>
> 3. In paragraph 19 of "Against Nature", Joyce Carol Oates
> quotes Oscar
> Wilde, who is referring to a beautiful evening sky as
> "simply a very
> second-rate Turner, a Turner of a bad period." What does
> Wilde mean by "a
> Turner"?

J.M.W. Turner (1775-1851) English painter, known,
apparently,for his atmospheric landscapes.  Nature filtered
through Art is
better than Nature? Or we see Nature only through the filter
of Art.

Randy



Date:  Fri, 03 Oct 1997 20:15:11 -0400
 From:  "Ralf A. Engeldinger" oatesian@feynman.harvard.edu
To:  jco@usfca.edu
Subject: Re: "Where are you going..."

David C. Chaudoir wrote:
> 
> Would the movie be "Devil In A Blue Dress?"  Yes it would. 

She didn't give the name of the movie.


> JCO was
> invited to the premiere, heh? 

Yes.


> And did she go; 

Presumably, but she seemed to have written it before the actual
event.


> did she want to go?

Sure, that's what got the whole thing started.


> Curious -- movies not such an intellectual venue, at least
> stereotypically.  Especially Walter Mosely!  More info, please!

I don't have the copy here, thus I can't give you the reference.
Maybe Francie can help. Suffice it to say that the Roger S. Berlind
Professor for Creative Writing is not always above raising her 
eyebrows at the literarily (and aurally) impaired, especially those
in LA, especially those at TriStar offices.

Ralf A. Engeldinger



Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 19:46:36 +0000
From: Francie Schwartz fabela@gte.net
To:  jco@usfca.edu
Subject:  Re: "Where are you going..."

Thanks Ralf, for thinking i've kept track of jco's New Yorker stuff -
but I don't have the date for you on the "invitation" brouhaha.  It was
in "SHOUTS & MURMURS" - the back page.  Maybe I can find out from
NYorker.  I'll try... I've saved every issue with anything of value in
it, so it's probably in my personal "stacks"...

Francie



From: Cyranomish@aol.com
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 18:18:13 -0400 (EDT)
To:  jco@usfca.edu
Subject:  Re: Confused?

Hi Bryan, "First mother."  Well, who in the Bible -- would you suppose to be
"our first mother"?  Chances are she's the first female mentioned in the
Bible.   Go for it!
Cyrano.



Date:  Fri, 03 Oct 1997 19:46:51 -0700
From:  Randy Souther Randy Souther
To: jco@usfca.edu
 Subject:  New Yorker article

Cyranomish@aol.com wrote:

> Harvey, would you please give us the New Yorker reference
> for that piece
> concerning the Walter Mosley book/film?  I'd like to read
> it. Thanks, Cyrano.

  

I believe the article you're trying to locate is
the following:

Phone Hex
New Yorker
Sep 4 1995  p102
 

Randy



To: jco@usfca.edu
 Subject:  Re: New Yorker article
 From: composer2@juno.com (David C. Chaudoir)
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 09:59:32 EDT

Randy,

You are a walking Joyce Carol Oates dictionary.  Wow!  How could you
reference an article like that from so far back?  I'm impressed!  

David
Michigan



To:  jco@usfca.edu
Subject:  New Yorker Article
 From:  composer2@juno.com (David C. Chaudoir)
Date:  Sat, 04 Oct 1997 09:59:32 EDT

If it's not too long, Francince, perhaps you would key it in for those of
us who have been New Yorker-illterate of late (the past 4 years!). 
Thanks.

David C.
Michigan



Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 07:18:39 +0000
From: Francie Schwartz fabela@gte.net
To:  jco@usfca.edu
Subject:  Re: New Yorker Article

If I find it in the stacks, which I'll be searching this morning for the
recent Kinsey bio, yes, I will.

francie



Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 14:07:47 +0000
From: Francie Schwartz fabela@gte.net
To:  jco@usfca.edu
Subject:  Re: New Yorker Article

Dear David:

I was going to re-organize my NYorker stacks anyway, so please don't
think I'm in a huff about this - the issue with jco's "Phone Hex" piece
must be one of the three issues I DIDN'T save from 1995. Drat.

But then I realized: if Randy knows the date of publication and the page
number, why doesn't HE key it in so we can all relax?  Or scan it onto
the mailing list.  Whatever!

It was really a very light, funny piece about the way moviedom and its
PR minions have no clue how to deal with jco, by telephone, or
apparently, in translating her work to the screen... I remember when the
"operator" says "Joyce who?"  Plus the Op doesn't even know who Moseley
is, either.

Back to work.

Francie



To: jco@usfca.edu
  Subject: Re: New Yorker Article
From:  composer2@juno.com (David C. Chaudoir)
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 12:32:35 EDT

Good Idea Francince!

Randy, could you key in the New Yorker article about JCO and the movie
premiere?  It would be SOOO much appreciated!  Thanks.

Thanks for all your work, Francince!

David



To: jco@usfca.edu
 Subject:  Where are you going...
From:  composer2@juno.com (David C. Chaudoir)
Date:  Mon, 06 Oct 1997 21:56:35 EDT

I would just like to get the discussion on "Where are you going, Where
have you been?" up and running again.  Somehow I deleted all the
interpretations recently posted about it, and would appreciate others'
imput about its meaning, and particularly to the signifigance of Oates's
use of the name "Friend" as Arnold's last name, as well as a general
analysis for the story.  I am currently discussing it in a university
literary analysis course and would love to share your thoughts with the
class.  Thanks as always.

David 
Michigan



Date:  Mon, 06 Oct 1997 20:39:26 -0700
From: Randy Souther Randy Souther
 To:  jco@usfca.edu
Subject:  Re: New Yorker Article

Francie Schwartz wrote:

> But then I realized: if Randy knows the date of
> publication and the page
> number, why doesn't HE key it in so we can all relax?  Or
> scan it onto
> the mailing list.  Whatever!
>  
>  

  
It is true: we at Celestial Timepiece have all JCO trivia
memorized.
And we do enjoy watching the discussion group scramble for
texts.
However, we do aim to please, so here, forthwith, is the
much-
discussed "Phone Hex."  ;-)
 

PHONE HEX
Joyce Carol Oates
New Yorker, 9-4-95, p102
 

"DEAR FRIEND, the invitation reads."

"You are cordially invited to a special screening for our
upcoming TriStar Pictures presentation 'Devil in a Blue
Dress.'" What welcome news! You're an admiring acquaintance
of the mystery writer Walter Mosley, from whose best-selling
novel the film has been made, so you R.S.V.P. at once,
setting into motion the ensuing exchange-much abbreviated in
this space, and from memory.

"Publicity, Columbia TriStar," a youngish-sounding woman
announces, already a bit impatient, so you give your name,
explaining that you're accepting the invitation to the
screenin g of "Devil in a Blue Dress." The young woman says,
"Who? How do you spell Your name?" You spell out your name
carefully, last name first. Irritated, the young woman says,
"Which name is that? I can't hear you, ma'am." So you raise
your voice gamely and spell out your name again, stumbling a
little bit at this higher volume. "Listen, I can't hear you,
it's like you're long distance," the woman says. "You're
gonna have to speak up." So you raise your voice by several
decibles, veins tremulous in your throat, and the woman
interrupts, "All right! No need to shout, Ma'am!" So You
apologize-you, who so rarely shout that the experience has
left your vocal cords raw- and she interrupts, "Listen,
Ma'am, you weren't shouting. That was a scream. You were
screaming in my ear!"--So you naturally apologize again.
You've begun to perspire-you, who so rarely perspire--and
there's that dull throbbing of a migraine coming on, like a
leaf-blower just revving up in the near distance.

"Affiliation?" the woman asks, brusquely.

You draw a blank: "Affiliation?"

"Are you TriStar, or Mystery Writers, or what?"

"Well, I don't know--"

"Don't know your affiliation, Ma'am? What's your
affiliation?"

"Well, possibly-"

"Speak up! I can't hearyou!"

"Possibly Walter Mosley invited me? I can't think who else
would have invited me."

"Who, Ma'am?"

"Walter Mosley-the author."

"The who?"

"The author."

"What's that name?"

"Wal-ter Mos-ley. You know, the-" "'Wadder' what? How do you
spell that?"

"Walter Mosley, the author of'Devil in a Blue Dress'? You
must know his name?"

"Ma'am, I asked how do you spell that?"

"W-a-l-t-e-"

"Is that first name, last name, or what?"

"'Walter' is his first name. W-a-l-t-e-r"

"Ma'am, I can't hear you, it's like you're long distance.
You're gonna have to speak up."

"W-a-l-t-e-r M-o-s-"

"No need to scream in my ear, Ma'am! Break my eardrum!"

"But you can't seem to hear-"

"I can hear fine, Ma'am, without you screaming."

"I'm sorry! I'll try again. You asked for my affiliation,
and I'm giving you the author's name, Walter Mosley."

"I said spell that, will you?"

"WALTER MOSLEY-he's the author of the novel-"

"0.K, I'm putting you down for 'Mystery Writers.' "

"Thank you." A sharp click in your ear. The young woman has
hung up.

A week later, on the eve of the screening, the phone rings.
A man says, "Walter Moses, please."

"Walter Moses? There's no one heer by that name," you say.

"Which number is that there?" the man asks, annoyed.

"Which number are you calling?" you counter. The man pauses,
as if re-thinking his approach. "I'm calling to confirm your
reservation for the screening of 'Devil in a Blue Dress
tomorrow night," he says.

"Oh, well--yes," you say, catching on, almost. "Except
you're not calling Walter Moses, you're calling-" and you
provide him with your three-pronged name, which,
unexpectedly, he doesn't ask you to spell.

You explain that you are coming to the screening, but that
"Mr. Moses" won't be accompanying you. And you can't resist
adding (oh, why can't you leave well enough alone?), "But
the name isn't Walter Moses, in any case."

"The who?"

"The author. Author."

"Who's that?"

"Walter Mosley."

"That's who?"

"The person who wrote the novel the film is based on, Walter
Mosley."

There's a baffled pause. "What about him?" the man asks, and
your mind has gone blank, as if a great thumb has pressed
'ERASE' or were moving even now to do so.



From: smancin1@ix.netcom.com
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 16:51:45 -0500 (CDT)
To: jco@usfca.edu
Subject: upon the sweeping flood

Anyone,

I am going to discuss "Upon the Sweeping Flood" in my fiction group 
tomorrow.  My reading of this short story is simply that Stuart recognizes 
the evil in nature in himself after confronting it in the flood.  This 
causes him to act on it in the violent fashion he chooses.  The collapse of 
the house is the collapse of his faith in goodness and order, and the snakes 
signify evil as well as the capacity to remake oneself.

Does anyone care to add to that?  I appreciate all of your careful insights.

SMB



To: jco@usfca.edu
Subject: Re: New Yorker Article
From: composer2@juno.com (David C. Chaudoir)
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 19:26:26 EDT

thanks randy -- a great article!

david 



To: jco@usfca.edu
Subject: Re: upon the sweeping flood
From: composer2@juno.com (David C. Chaudoir)
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 19:26:26 EDT

good story...

but i am interested in anyone's views (i know you're tired of this) on
where are you going, where have you been.  please!  

the best,
david
michigan



Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 19:42:42 +0100
To: jco@usfca.edu
From: chgrgrl@widomaker.com (Pitard)
Subject: "Where..."

I know that this has been discussed previously, but hopefully someone is
okay with me opening it again.  I wrote to Randy Monday night, desparate
for answers, and he was gracious enough to send me to the discussion list.
Thanks!  I see that people agree that the "code" on Arnold Friend's car
means '69'.  However, you all don't agree why he has that.  Does anyone
think like me, in the fact that he wrote that because he is older and
trying to get her to think on his level? (whatever that might be!)  It is
funny because I thought of it meaning "69"  but I couldn't think of why!
Also, I am studying to be a high school English teacher.  Would this story
be appropriate for them?? Let me know and thanks for you help...  Katie




From: Murray72@aol.com
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 19:50:34 -0400 (EDT)
To: jco@usfca.edu
Subject: "Where are you going..."

I am curious: Of those who've read the story, how many thought Connie's
encounter with Arnold Friend was a dream, and who thought it really happened?


Christine Murray



From: Murray72@aol.com
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 20:01:04 -0400 (EDT)
To: jco@usfca.edu
Subject: Re: Where are you going...

In a literature class I took, the teacher guessed that it was a dream Connie
had.  She had been laying out in the sun, remember, and it certainly had
dream qualities.  Arnold Friend might have been a garbled "Our old friend",
something the radio announcer might have said.  

Christine Murray

\I would just like to get the discussion on "Where are you going, Where
\have you been?" up and running again.  Somehow I deleted all the
\interpretations recently posted about it, and would appreciate others'
\imput about its meaning, and particularly to the signifigance of Oates's
\use of the name "Friend" as Arnold's last name, as well as a general
\analysis for the story.  I am currently discussing it in a university
\literary analysis course and would love to share your thoughts with the
\class.  Thanks as always.

\David 
\Michigan



Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 17:40:54 -0700
To: jco@usfca.edu
From: Nikki Senecal 
Subject: Re: "Where are you going..."


>I am curious: Of those who've read the story, how many thought Connie's
>encounter with Arnold Friend was a dream, and who thought it really happened?

Why would it matter?  What are the implications that are raised if we read
the story as "true" or having happened?  Which ones are no longer present
if we think it was all a dream?

Are we doing students' homework again?

Nikki


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




Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 22:09:04 -0400
From: "Thomas A. Hulslander" 
To: jco@usfca.edu
Subject: Re: "Where are you going..."

Murray72@aol.com wrote:
> 
> I am curious: Of those who've read the story, how many thought Connie's
> encounter with Arnold Friend was a dream, and who thought it really happened?
> 
> Christine Murray
I think it really happened--for Connie, it was slow-moving, like a
dream, but that is what makes the story's impact so profound.  By the
time her realization hits, it is too late...she looks around the house,
thinking of her sister, her parents, and knows that she will not return.
She wants it to be a dream, but it is not....



From: Amy_Hendrick@baylor.edu
 Date:  Wed, 08 Oct 1997 09:07:22 -0500
Subject:  Re: Where are you going...
To:  jco@usfca.edu


>In a literature class I took, the teacher guessed that it was a dream Connie
>had.  She had been lying out in the sun, remember, and it certainly had
>dream qualities.  Arnold Friend might have been a garbled "Our old friend",
>something the radio announcer might have said.  
>
>Christine Murray


How about Arnold Friend as "A(r)n old friend," a name we might presume to have 
been chosen by the character for its supposed subliminal appeal, like the 
numbers on the car?  

To the person who is wondering if it might be suitable high school material:  my 
brother was introduced to the story in a first-year junior college class, to 
great effect. The story seems to generate lively class discussion no matter what 
the setting, although obviously some high school students might need a lot of 
prompting and preparation

Christine Cavitt  



Date:   Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:58:13 -0500
To:  jco@usfca.edu
From:  Ray Lewis White rlwhite@ilstu.edu
Subject:  Re: upon the sweeping flood


For a wonderful topic for a student paper, compare "Where Are You Going..."
to eecummings' poem in just spring
Both about innocence inevitably becoming maturity/knowledge/sex/ etc.

Cheers!

                        BENE FACERE SED BONUM



Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 19:02:49 -0400
 From:  "Ralf A. Engeldinger" oatesian@feynman.harvard.edu
To:  jco@usfca.edu
Subject:  Re: "Where are you going..."

Murray72@aol.com wrote:
> 
> I am curious: Of those who've read the story, how many thought Connie's
> encounter with Arnold Friend was a dream, and who thought it really happened?

Answering this question implies imposing a frame on the story which is
not given or intended (or even implied) by the author. The story is
a work of fiction and not an account of an actual event. Since there is
no
"real" Connie, one cannot ask whether she actually experienced the
series of events or whether she just dreamed about it.

Ralf A. Engeldinger
                        


From:  composer2@juno.com
To:  jco@usfca.edu
Date:  Thu, 9 Oct 1997 07:51:20 -0400
 Subject:  Re: "Where are you going..."

CERTAIN PLOT SUB-STRUCTURES AND DRAMATIC IRONY IMPLY THAT POSSIBLY CONNIE
IS DREAMING THE EVENTS W/ ARNOLD FRIEND.  IT IS WRONG TO SAY THAT ANY ONE
INTERPRETATION IS WRONG.  THE DREAM INTERPRETATION OF "WHERE ARE YOU
GOING" IS WIDELY HELD AMONG LITERARY CRITICS, ALTHOUGH NOT AS MUCH AS
OTHER INTERPRETATIONS.  CHECK IT OUT.

DAVID
MICHIGAN



Date:  Wed, 08 Oct 1997 21:05:15 -0400
 From:  "Ralf A. Engeldinger" oatesian@feynman.harvard.edu
 To:  jco@usfca.edu
 Subject:  Re: "Where are you going..."

Does that invalidate anything I said?

Ralf



Date:  Wed, 08 Oct 1997 19:54:14 -0700
From:  Randy Souther Randy Souther
To:  jco@usfca.edu
 Subject: Re: "Where are you going..."

Ralf A. Engeldinger wrote:

> Murray72@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > I am curious: Of those who've read the story, how many thought
> Connie's
> > encounter with Arnold Friend was a dream, and who thought it
> really happened?
>
> Answering this question implies imposing a frame on the story
> which is
> not given or intended (or even implied) by the author. The story
> is
> a work of fiction and not an account of an actual event. Since
> there is
> no
> "real" Connie, one cannot ask whether she actually experienced
> the
> series of events or whether she just dreamed about it.
>  
>  

I can't see Connie's experience as being a dream--it would seem to
blunt
the significance of her "demise"--which is to say, she would have
none,
but simply wake up. Nonetheless, I do think it's a perfectly
reasonable
question to ask and explore. That it is a work of fiction and
therefore not
"real" enough to even ask the question seems a rather disingenuous

suggestion. I mean, why then discuss it at all?


I am struck by the incongruity of the ending: Connie is presumably

going to her death, yet the landscape to which she is crossing is
described in glowing terms. I believe this has been discussed in
the
criticism. In any case, I have found it helpful to read this
ending (and
to read many of JCO's earlier works) in the light of her essay
"New
Heaven and Earth." http://storm.usfca.edu/~southerr/earth.html
It opens: "In spite of current free-roaming terrors in this
country, it is really not the case that we are approaching some
apocalyptic close. Both those who seem to be awaiting it with
excitement and dread and those who are trying heroically to
comprehend it in terms of recent American history are mistaking a
crisis of transition for a violent end."

I would argue (and I don't believe this is original with me) that
you can see Connie's "end" as just such a transition.

Randy



Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 20:11:21 +0000
 From:  Francie Schwartzfabela@gte.net
 To:  jco@usfca.edu
Subject:   Re: "Where are you going..."

Thank you, Randy.  As usual, jco herself provides cogent "answers" all
over the place.

As a writer, I particularly enjoy the interpretations of those who are
NOT bound by the standard criticisms.

My mother remembered a phrase from somewhere that has been glowing
transcendant in my head for days...

"permission of interpretation".

And ralf, I liked your take very much.  I will answer the question you
asked me several days ago when I get a break.  Very hectic week!

Francie  



Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 13:49:10 -0400
From: "Ralf A. Engeldinger" 

To: jco@usfca.edu
Subject: Musings about Interpretations


Randy Souther wrote:
> 
> Nonetheless, I do think it's a perfectly
> reasonable
> question to ask and explore.

I was merely illuminating the semantical setting implied by the
question.
My point is that simply reading it as a dream implies constructing this
frame I alluded to, and thus any naive adoption of a dream
interpretation
(i.e. one unaware of this) is misleading. In principle, one can make of
any "text" whatever one likes to. I mean, "Black Water" could be read
as the nightmare of a manic depressive, couldn't it? (Ignoring the
Real World connection of the story.) Doesn't the constant iteration
of certain sequences, among other things, make this rather plausible?

In other words, a dream interpretation is a speculation adding an
exterior element to the narrative. A critic who maintains to be taken
seriously has to be aware of that and acknowledge it. An immediate
consequence of this is that such an interpretation can never be more
than
an option and can't possibly claim universal validity because the
exterior element is by its very nature subjective, since added by the
reader - or left out. This seriously limits the usefulness of the
concept for interpretations. Nor do I deem it necessary since this
author, for one, provides more than enough structure with the narrative
itself for the reader/critic to dwell on.


> I am struck by the incongruity of the ending: Connie is presumably
> going to her death,

I have to admit that I feel that this interpretation is imposed on me
by critics. I take the ending as it stands. I do not see any need
to rationalize or "translate" this (or any, for that matter) story
into some kind of underlying "denotative" plot of events that can
be reported objectively. I cherish the literary medium (as utilized
by thus inclined, gifted authors) for the absence of such necessity.
To be honest, for me the "artistic" or "literary" quality of writing
begins where the need for such rationalization ends. In this sense,
(explicit) interpretation inevitably trivializes literature. (This
is not to be constructed as an implicit criticism of interpreting or
discussing writings. It is not directed at anyone, it's merely a
"musing", if you like. Thinking out loud.)

Ralf A. Engeldinger



Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 11:49:11 +0000
From: Francie Schwartz fabela@gte.net
To: jco@usfca.edu
Subject: Re: Musings about Interpretations


Hear, Hear! Ralf, I thank you for saying that criticism, especially
"credentialed" criticism, has a trivializing effect.

I have published a memoir that reads like fiction, sold (but aborted
just before publication due to editorial revolt) a novel, published
dozens of non-fiction feature articles (mostly humorous counter-culture
journalism) and written a few short stories.  I am currently working on
a nonfiction project that deals with the current schizophrenic ethics of
literature (including academic) and art.

Sorry I took so long to answer - I am always flattered to be asked,
especially in this distinguished forum.  I have been extremely busy
moving, setting up my new office, and finishing a proposal.

I look forward to your next post.

Francie



From:  Amy_Hendrick@baylor.edu
 Date:   Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:37:20 +0000
 Subject:   Re: "Where are you going..."
To:  jco@usfca.edu

On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:50:33 -0400 (EDT) jco@usfca.edu wrote:

>\Since there is
>\no
>\"real" Connie, one cannot ask whether she actually experienced the
>\series of events or whether she just dreamed about it.
>
>\Ralf A. Engeldinger
>

I don't mean to corner you, but I am curious:  if we were to be constantly aware 
only of the artifice in a story, what would then be discussable?  Your view 
seems to allow only for a narrow, particular kind of deconstructive 
interpretation. Perhaps I misunderstand--please explain!
Christine Cavitt



From:  Murray72@aol.com
 Date:  Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:43:22 -0400 (EDT)
To:  jco@usfca.edu
Subject:   Re: "Where are you going..."

\I am struck by the incongruity of the ending: Connie is presumably
\going to her death, yet the landscape to which she is crossing is
\described in glowing terms. 

I interpreted the landscape behind Arnold Friend as representing adulthood,
for  which she was leaving adolescence.  But then, I also thought it was all
a dream.

Christine Murray



From:  Murray72@aol.com
Date:  Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:50:33 -0400 (EDT)
To: jco@usfca.edu
  Subject:  Re: "Where are you going..."

\Since there is
\no
\"real" Connie, one cannot ask whether she actually experienced the
\series of events or whether she just dreamed about it.

\Ralf A. Engeldinger

I was simply curious as to what other people thought about it.  Is it your
place to decide what "one cannot ask"?  I thought this group was for
discussion, and if you think my question wasn't worthy of discussing-THEN
DON'T ANSWER IT.

Sorry to get defensive,
Christine 



From: Ehaggar@aol.com
Date:  Fri, 10 Oct 1997 13:46:28 -0400 (EDT)
 To: jco@usfca.edu
 Subject:   Re: "Where are you going..."

Hi!  I am new to the list so perhaps I shouldn't jump right in; but Joyce
Carol Oates was at the College of Charleston two years ago, and in a speech
there said that "Where Are You Going..."  is supposed to show Connie in a
dream-like state, but that we are to understand that this is really happening
and that Connie is going to be killed when she goes of with Arnold

Ellen Haggar



Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 13:59:19 -0400
 From:  "Ralf A. Engeldinger" oatesian@feynman.harvard.edu
 To:  jco@usfca.edu
Subject:  Re: "Where are you going..."

> >\Since there is
> >\no
> >\"real" Connie, one cannot ask whether she actually experienced the
> >\series of events or whether she just dreamed about it.
> >
> >\Ralf A. Engeldinger
> >
> 
> I don't mean to corner you, but I am curious:  if we were to be constantly aware
> only of the artifice in a story, what would then be discussable?  Your view
> seems to allow only for a narrow, particular kind of deconstructive
> interpretation. Perhaps I misunderstand--please explain!
> Christine Cavitt

Yes, you misunderstood. I don't consider the story as artifice, but that
doesn't mean it can be "interpreted" in whatever way somebody might
please. I think it's necessary to 
distinguish between an entirely subjective reading, where everything 
is allowed in principle, but no argument or general validity claim is
possible at all, and anything one intends to argue for and insist on
when being challenged. As pointed out in my "Musings" post, an
appropriate approach to the literary medium requires a sharp distinction
of what is contained in the narrative and what is not; as far as I am
concerned this is indispensible as an expression of respect for the 
author, respect for the community with which one wants to enter a
discussion and of one's own intellectual integrity as well as one's
respect of that of others. There are only few
things I detest more than incapability to properly distinguish between
subjective and "objective" (what one can reasonably expect others to
accept on the grounds of insight and honesty) or refusal to do so.

An argument that the narrative itself allows a dream interpretation
cannot be uphold due to failure of sheer semantic consistency
which I described in previous posts, alone (if for no other reasons).
(This is how I wanted the "one cannot ask" to be understood.)
A sincere argument for that interpretation requires the acknowledgement
that this actually amounts to an extention of the story - which nobody 
is obliged to adopt. 

Ralf A. Engeldinger



To: jco@usfca.edu
Subject:  Literary Analysis
From:  composer2@juno.com (David C. Chaudoir)
Date:  Sat, 11 Oct 1997 01:46:13 EDT

As a professional literary critic, I have authored and adopted the
following thesis for those who analyze literature, and perhaps it will
end, at least temporarily, the youthful bickering over who's right and
who's wrong (and why neither one is correct):

"The defining and appealing aspect of good literature is that it speaks
to all who read it, and that no one's interpretation is ' wrong.' "

David
Michigan



 Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 06:08:05 +0000
 From:  Francie Schwartz fabela@gte.net
To:  jco@usfca.edu
Subject:  Re: Literary Analysis

Bingo.  I am grateful, as one who has had plenty of nasty professional
criticism tossed at my work, to see that there is at least one critic
who has a decent foundation for his approach.  

Francie



To: jco@usfca.edu
 Subject:   Re: Literary Analysis
From:  composer2@juno.com (David C. Chaudoir)
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 19:52:29 EDT

Francine:
Believe it or not, there are people who analyze and critique my
REVIEWS!!!  Isn't that absurd?  Or perhaps it's just the literary
equivalent of checks and balances, and if so, let it be.  As far as nasty
reviews go, I don't believe in them.  Personal attacks are unnecessary
(as the NY Times Book Review has done to JCO of late, and Norman Mailer
for years).  Speaking of NY Times, they need to get rid of some of those
critics with the personal vengeance! Perhaps I would be available to fill
the positions. :-)



From: Cyranomish@aol.com
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 17:02:56 -0400 (EDT)
To: jco@usfca.edu
Subject: Re: "Where are you going..."

Hi Ellen, welcome to the discussion group.  Thanks for the info on Oates's
own recent interpretation of "Where Are You Going."  The sentence at the
story's end: "so much land that Connie had never seen before and did not
recognize except to know that she was going to it" -- always seemed extremely
ominous to me; it suggests shallow graves;
and that old expression "gone to earth" which is a euphemism for death.  On
the primary level of the story I've always thought that Connie will not
survive her ride with Arnold, unlike the movie version in which Arnold is
merely a dream figure and a steppingstone for Connie to maturity and sexual
self-actualization.  A few weeks ago someone in these pages said that Connie
achieves "vaginal awareness."  I think there's a lot more to the story than
that since Connie is already getting to be a randy young lady before she
meets Arnold.  Oates used to drive me crazy the way she juxtaposes sex and
death (as in that early story title of hers: "What Death with Love Should
Have to Do" in the colection "Upon the Sweeping Flood." )  This is psychic
territory loaded with landmines.
Why do lovers so often turn up in the tabloids in murder-suicide pacts?  It's
very baffling.
We just had a trial here in Boston about a 15 year-old boy who slaughtered
his 48 year-old neighbor because he had a morbid crush on her and had been
stalking her for months before he sneaked into her house one afternoon, found
her napping on her sofa, and stabbed her 98 times.  I find Oates's
explorations in the murder/sex line fascinating;
few other writers explore it as intelligently and thoroughly as she does.
Cyrano



From: Cyranomish@aol.com
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 17:13:18 -0400 (EDT)
To: jco@usfca.edu
Subject: Re: ee cummings


Hi Ray.  YES.  Those little goat-footed balloon men will get you every time.
 Cyrano

Maintained by Randy Souther
Last updated 10-6-97
Send comments and suggestions to Randy Souther