Connie is defenseless to Arnold Friend’s manipulations mainly because she has no visible identity of her own. Arnold Friend was there to take Connie away; away from her childhood and home, which never quite felt like home until her fantasy world deteriorated and reality set it. The next moment is pivotal, this is when Connie forgets her hedonism and becomes something of much more substance. Before Connie studies Arnold Friend’s abnormal personality and erratic behavior she is fascinated by him and even worries that she is ill prepared for this
In the story, Connie looked at the phrase “man the flying saucers and she felt like “words meant something to her that she did not yet know” (p.) which if she was on drugs she might not be aware of the fact that what she is seeing is not real, but eventually when she is sober she will understand. The ambiguity of Arnold Friend leaves many unanswered questions for readers. Unless Joyce Carol Oates decides to reveal the real Arnold Friend, readers may never know if he was in fact the devil or just a figment of Connie’s
In “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?” there are many theories as to who Arnold Friend is and what his role. The story does not introduce Arnold till the middle and end of the story when Arnold Friend and Ellie Oscar, his friend, decides to pull up to Connie’s house trying to be gentle, but threatening at the same time. The tone sets the mood of the story, the way he talks is suave, so he doesn’t scare her as much but you could sense a little of annoyance in his voice when she refuses. He asks her to come ride with him, but then starts to threaten her family so she would get out the house and be with him. Many would argue he portrays Satan or Connie’s karma for her misbehavior.
Connie, being so young, did not have the slightest idea what she was in for. The more Connie resisted, the more forceful Arnold Friend became. Oates then sheds a strange light on the character Arnold Friend. He oddly knew what her family was doing during that moment, his hair did not appear to look natural, and his shoes were oddly misshaped on his feet. Oates throws the reader off for a moment, to only speed the story up with a streak of cringing fear.
Never Let Me Go is an intentional failure of the Coming of Age genre. Kazuo Ishiguro constructed the novel around clones, which makes it hard for the reader to relate to the characters. The only way of understanding the world in which clones exist is through the protagonist’s narrative. Kathy H. is an unreliable author, considering that she tries to justify every event and every act throughout the novel. “Without protest, she takes on the euphemisms used to label the artificially created humans and to describe, or avoid describing, their fate” (Groes 108).
One mistake can be caught on camera by those who are distrustful of nurses. Overall, Fowler article was extremely unsuccessful at pusadering her audience to take action and become a part of policy making in healthcare because of her structural errors and usage of irrelevant sources in a failed attempt to build credibility with her audience. Fowler’s structural weaknesses in her organization and thesis statement was not persuasive, thus leaving her readers confused. Fowler first begins her article with background information about her topic, stating the history of Nursing. She outlines extensive details about the founding of the code of ethics for three paragraphs, which was not necessary for her argument.
The mistress is proud of her sister Claire, but this doesn’t stop the mistress from taking a few shots at Claire anyway. She admires Claire’s accomplishments and even looks to Claire for approval. Claire’s view of the relationship between the mistress and her married professor is accepting. Claire says, “Just go for it, sister. If you can unhinge a marriage, it’s ripe for unhinging, it would happen sooner or later, it might as well be you.” Ironically, Claire’s lack of judgment makes her the better sister.
An-Mei says to June, “Not know your own mother? How can you say? Your mother is in your bones!” (1, 1, 134). And portrays Tan’s idea of the indivisible mother-daughter link. Mothers and daughters go through hardships together, but love always finds a way to win.
The story has a conflict that is related to opposition. The narrator disagrees with what her mother wants her to be, since the narrator felt that her mother was controlling her for years. For instance, the mother in the story suggests that her daughter would become the perfect girl and she would become famous. The traditional daughter relates to the American icon, “Shirley Temple”. Furthermore, the narrator goes through a rough time during the story because her mother feels like she can be good at something and stick to it.
These generations mirror each other in many ways, but the approach to forgiveness is different. Cathy and Hareton, two characters from the second generation, are the first ones to learn how to forgive each other. Cathy has in the past treated Hareton badly by making fun of his inability to read, like in this quote “Is he all as he should be?” asked Miss Cathy seriously, “or is he simple… not right? I’ve questioned him twice now, and each time he looked so stupid I think he does not understand me; I can hardly understand him, I’m sure!” (pg. 203).