In “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?” Connie’s vain mentality, naive desires, and Arnold’s ability to invoke brainwashing thoughts are what caused her to become vulnerable and unable to resist temptation which ultimately led to her demise. In the short story, when Arnold first pulled up into Connie’s driveway, Connie seemed very untrusting of Arnold and his intentions for being there, especially because he was a stranger to her. As he spoke to her, she seemed very reluctant, to the point she thought he was insane, about the things Arnold was asking her to do. However, toward the end, Connie oddly gave in very easily to his desires and ultimately left her home with him. This occurred for multiple reasons, the first being that in the story, Connie showed a lot of vain and selfish behavior. …show more content…
The source, “Joyce Carol Oates’s ‘Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?’ as Pure Realism”, that Connie had made it clear in the story that Arnold had been watching her for a while and implied that because of that, he used what he knew about her narcissistic attitude to guess how she felt about her sister (Coulthard). Connie’s naive desires also contributed to her compliance with Arnold’s orders. The story constantly showed Connie daydreaming of love, diversion, and boys which ultimately caused her judgement to fog when Arnold arrived at her house to tempt her into leaving. The source, “‘Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?’: Seduction, Space, and a Fictional Mode”, acknowledged that, Connie constantly lives with a mood of expectation that is like a light that provides romance and experience to her (Gillis). The last reason Connie gave in was the fact that Arnold had an interesting choice of words that in the end, made her
Textual Analysis of the Tension(s) In the Story “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?” by Joyce Carol Oates Introduction The story "Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?" by Joyce Carol Oates is a prime example of the conflict between youth and experience since it pits Connie's naivete against the seductive yet dangerous Arnold Friend. Connie's need for direction from an older person and her yearning for independence is put into conflict by Joyce Carol Oates.
From the opening lines of, “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?” By Joyce Carol Oates, readers are immediately introduced to the character, as well as indicating the story is being told by a third person narrator. The use of a third person narrator lets readers know what connie is thinking allowing them to identify with her on a more personal level. The beginning of the story is also introduced in past tense. This could foreshadow the fact that something bad might have happened to connie, also suggesting the theme of violence.
Connie lives in a world where men enjoy exploiting women, so she doesn't see much of it. Connie respects Arnold's savage and forceful attitude as typical. Connie's house is like a cardboard box in the story. " In this location, inside your father's house, I can smash down any cardboard box."
Finally, Oates uses irony when Connie tells Arnold that he is "crazy"(72) and he responds by saying that she is the one who is "crazy"(72). This is ironic because it is clear to the reader that Arnold is the one who is truly unstable. Overall, "Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?" is a work of fiction that employs several different rhetorical devices to create a haunting
She felt like it was not up to her to make a decision. Even though she wanted to leave, run away from Arnold Friend and the dangerous situation he had her under. Connie did not want to jeopardize the life of her family. Arnold used the excuse of hurting her family members as a manipulation strategy to control her actions and decisions. As the quote stated, that her body wasn’t hers it empathized that her body was Arnolds.
In Joyce Carol Oats “Where Are You Going Where Have You Been,” we are introduced to two main characters. The names of the two main characters are Connie and Arnold Friend. In Oates’s short story, Arnold Friend is an imposter that tries to convince young Connie to go on a ride with him and his friend Ellie. Connie refuses to go on the ride but Arnold’s use unnatural techniques to force Connie to leave her house and go with him. Arnold Friend’s awareness of Connie’s family and friends and his ability to persuade Connie reveals that he is more than just a creepy old man trying to kidnap a young girl.
If Arnold were stabbing her with a real knife, Connie would not have been able to walk out to his car at the end of the story. However, Connie is guided out by Arnold Friend at the end of the story, so it can be inferred that the stabbing Connie feels is the action of her being raped. This follows the storyline, as earlier Arnold tries to convince her to get in the car with him, then he starts indicating sexual tendencies, which is later followed by threats when she tries to get away.
The problem lies here in that Arnold, as a man, recognizes Connie less as a human, and more as a toy for him to play with. This is common in many men with misogynistic ideologies, wherein it is believed that a woman’s goal is only to be beautiful. This leads to a large issue, where women who are not ‘beautiful enough’ for the patriarchal society, are treated as lesser, and are not given the same treatment as women who are. Arnold is clearly a manipulative person, who is able to talk to someone who he feels is lesser than him with confidence. When Connie eventually ‘gives in’ and goes with Arnold, this provides him with a power trip that will eventually lead to the repetition of this cycle of abuse.
At first glance, we are made to believe that Connie is a static character through her infuriating naivety and cliché persona. When we delve into the story we see the altruistic and sincere characteristics, which
However, this is countered when Connie notes that “he was much older—thirty, maybe more” (315), a fact that frightens her. What Arnold is to Connie is a challenge of her want to be an adult, and a trail of her ability to deal with adult issue. Such as a man who singles her out sexual reason. Her wish to be an adult is something she seeks while passively avoiding it. Her avoidance is marked by day dreams of puppy love romance, like a typical teenager; yet, her attractive flaunt to be mature is presented as if she seeks to be an
The short story “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?” was written by the author Joyce Carol Oates in 1966. Oates describes her idea for the story after briefly reading an article about the real-life murderer, Charles Schmid, who lured and murdered three teenage girls (Kirszner & Mandell 523). She uses this idea to create the character, Arnold Friend, and his victim, Connie. Connie is a typical teenage girl portrayed as naïve and self-centered. The short story appears realistic, given that the conflict in the story is based off of real events.
Overall, it is clear that Connie has three major psychological issues that caused her to make the decision to leave with Arnold Friend: insecurity, low self-esteem, and fear of relationships. While readers may not know where Arnold is taking Connie, they can infer the psychological problems from where she has been that led her to make the decision that she
Instead of realizing the danger that she was in, Connie was focused on what Arnold Friend was wearing and how attractive he was. Connie’s obsession with finding her own sexuality overpowered her gut feeling of danger. In an analysis of “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been”, Barbara Wiedemann discusses how the antagonist Arnold Friend is based upon serial killer Charles Schmid, who murdered several young girls during the 1960s. In the analysis, Wiedemann
Teenage girl’s desires to be beautiful and desired, feminism, and adolescent sexuality are a few of the issues Connie, along with others, faced during this time period (and some can argue today). Connie was responsible for her actions (obviously) but it only partially to blame for what happened to her. If she had never left her friend to go sit in some random guy’s car, maybe Arnold Friend would’ve never seen her, or had taken a liking to her. I’m not stating that what happened with Arnold Friend was her fault, he’s the pedophile that should’ve known better and not threatened her, but it could have been prevented if she had never ditched her
Not only had Connie given up all the physical things she owned, but also her own free will to Arnold. She gave up everything she had available to her, a feat that could only be accomplished by a passive victim. A noble heroine wouldn’t submit herself to someone as easily as Connie