Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?” is one of Joyce Carol Oates’s most well-known pieces of writing. It has been widely anthologized in many college English textbooks throughout all of America. This story is actually based on a true story about a serial killer named Charles Schmid based out of Arizona. He is responsible for the death of four people from the Tuscon area in 1960 and was sentenced to death for his actions. Oates creates her own version of this story using the characters Connie and Arnold Friend. Arnold embodies many characteristics of Charles Schmid and his victim is a fifteen year old Connie. Oates says she was inspired by Bob Dylan’s song “It’s All Over Now, Baby Blue”. That song inspired Arnold’s famous line “I’ve got
…show more content…
She states in her article that Arnold “leads his victim not to a promising new world” (Gillis 65), but instead to a probable rape followed by murder. Another point Gillis makes regarding the title of the short story is “implied, the future may depend precipitously on the past” (Gillis 65). This means Connie’s past decisions she has made directly affect the outcome of her situation, which is not a desired outcome. Connie is responsible for her actions, despite not being an adult, which makes her a victim to Arnold Friend. Gillis claims in her article that when Arnold Friend entered the driveway, Connie’s “reality and dream are beginning to crash dangerously” (Gillis 68). Connie is constantly dreaming about her perception of the adult life, which is a false view of how being an adult actually is. When Arnold drives into the driveway, reality sets in for Connie when she realizes he is not at all who she believed him to be. Connie does not know that Arnold saw her one night when she was going somewhere she was not supposed to be. Arnold probably stalked her and she did not even realize it, because she is not observant. Connie’s home is a symbol of her safe place, but when her parents are not home and she is forced to step outside “Connie is not yet ready to make the step” (Gillis 65) to where Arnold Friend is standing. Connie is officially a victim and loses her …show more content…
Michele Theriot, a literary critic, has an explanation for Connie’s perception of time called the “eternal presence”. Her inability to see past this eternal presence caused her to lose her innocence and become a victim of Arnold Friend. However, Theriot makes a good point when she claims Connie “is not the only one initiated into a new reality” (Theriot 3). Since it is highly probable Connie will not escape Arnold Friend alive, “her parents and sister also lose a little bit of innocence as a result of losing a daughter and sister” (Theriot 4). This is a perfect example of how Connie is irresponsible about her actions. It seems to be that Connie’s parents are stuck in an eternal presence as well as Connie. Her mother never questions Connie about her past whereabouts, she is content with knowing where Connie is at the
She states in her article that Arnold “leads his victim not to a promising new world” (Gillis 65), but instead to a probable rape followed by murder. Another point Gillis makes regarding the title of the short story is “implied, the future may depend precipitously on the past” (Gillis 65). This means Connie’s past decisions she has made directly affect the outcome of her situation, which is not a desired outcome. Connie is responsible for her actions, despite not being an adult, which makes her a victim to Arnold Friend. Gillis claims in her article that when Arnold Friend entered the driveway, Connie’s “reality and dream are beginning to crash dangerously” (Gillis 68). Connie is constantly dreaming about her perception of the adult life, which is a false view of how being an adult actually is. When Arnold drives into the driveway, reality sets in for Connie when she realizes he is not at all who she believed him to be. Connie does not know that Arnold saw her one night when she was going somewhere she was not supposed to be. Arnold probably stalked her and she did not even realize it, because she is not observant. Connie’s home is a symbol of her safe place, but when her parents are not home and she is forced to step outside “Connie is not yet ready to make the step” (Gillis 65) to where Arnold Friend is standing. Connie is officially a victim and loses her …show more content…
Michele Theriot, a literary critic, has an explanation for Connie’s perception of time called the “eternal presence”. Her inability to see past this eternal presence caused her to lose her innocence and become a victim of Arnold Friend. However, Theriot makes a good point when she claims Connie “is not the only one initiated into a new reality” (Theriot 3). Since it is highly probable Connie will not escape Arnold Friend alive, “her parents and sister also lose a little bit of innocence as a result of losing a daughter and sister” (Theriot 4). This is a perfect example of how Connie is irresponsible about her actions. It seems to be that Connie’s parents are stuck in an eternal presence as well as Connie. Her mother never questions Connie about her past whereabouts, she is content with knowing where Connie is at the