Excerpt from Essay:
Arnold Friend is known as a Stalker
There are many nebulous elements to Joyce Carol Oates short tale, “Where Are You Going, In which Have You Been, inches for example , the origins of Connie’s troubled relationship with her mom (is it strictly a jealousy point? ), the peculiarity of Arnold Friend’s last name (what kind of good friend is this individual? ), the relevance of these secret amounts that Arnold Friend rattles off (“33, 19, 17”) or even why the story is dedicated to Frank Dylan (is ‘Bobby King’ a mention of the Dylan? ), but one aspect of the tale that is certainly very clear is that Arnold Friend is known as a stalker, a predatory malcontent. And it is the purpose of this article to decisivelydefinitively, determinately, once and for all, once for all demonstrate that Arnold Friend is a prototypical stalker through the use of three parameters – a psychological rubric, a literary comparative rubric, and a public judgment rubric – for assessing his predatory behaviors.
Maybe, it’s best to get started with the most effective evidence that Friend is actually a stalker and this seem to be using a mental rubric to evaluate his actions. According into a study, “Study of Stalkers, ” published in The American Journal of Psychiatry, stalking “refers into a constellation of behaviors concerning repeated and persistent attempts to impose in another person undesirable communication and/or contact. Interaction can be by means of telephone calls, characters, e-mail, and graffiti, with contact through approaching the victim and following and maintaining surveillance” (Mullen, ain al. ).
In looking at Friend’s groupe of actions, beginning with his first attempt at contacting Connie at the cafe, “He wagged a little finger and laughed and explained, “Gonna receive you baby, ” to his abduction of her at her home, “This is just how it is, darling: you emerge and we’re going drive away, have a very good ride. But once you don’t turn out we’re gonna wait till the people return home and then they’re all going to get it” (Oates) it’s clear that Friend is definitely, per the definition, a stalker (someone whom persistently harasses another with unwanted communication/contact).
As helpful and as uncomplicated, facile, undemanding, easy, basic, simple as that analysis could it be becomes even more evident the Friend is a stalker when ever one examines the different types of stalkers described in the aforementioned research. The experts found that there were five types of stalker personalities: rejected, closeness seeking, unskilled, resentful, and predatory (Mullen, et al. ). Of these five types of stalker personalities, it had been the last 1 mentioned that most aptly described Friend. The researchers noted that the deceptive stalkers that they interviewed “were preparing a sexual attack. These men took pleasure or in other words of power produced by harassment, and there was elements of getting to know their sufferer and rehearsing, in dream, their planned attack (Mullen, et ‘s. ).
In looking at Good friend’s dialogue with Connie, it becomes apparent that he is certainly preparing for a sexual harm, “Yes, Now i am your lover. An individual know what that may be but you will And I will come inside you wherever it’s most secret and you will probably give in to my opinion and you’ll take pleasure in me, inch (Oates) Friend tells Connie.
Moreover, this individual has certainly taken the time to study on his concentrate on, to get to know who also she is, who her family is, who her friends are, etc . “But I know what. I know name and all about who you are, lots of things, ‘ Arnold Friend said. He previously not shifted yet nevertheless stood nonetheless leaning again against the part of his jalopy. ‘I took a special interest in you, such a pretty girl, and found out exactly about you – like I am aware your parents and sister are gone somewheres and i also know exactly where and how lengthy they’re going to be gone, and I know who you were with last night, and your best young lady friend’s brand is Betty. Right? inches (Oates).
And finally, Friend appears to be taking joy in Connie’s distress, “Now, put your odds on your center, honey. Believe that? That feels solid too but we all know better. Be nice to me, be fairly sweet like you may because what else will there be for a young lady like you but to be sweet and pretty and give in? – and get away before her persons come back? ” (Oates) Right here Friend is instructing her to think how vulnerable she is, how ripe she is for the plucking. Friend knows the ability he provides over her, and he can relishing this.
In those passages Friend exhibits behaviors that are characteristic of a deceptive stalker: he researched his target, he elucidated a great explicit intimate fantasy (“Yes, I’m your companion, “), this individual seems to will take pleasure in her dread and the electric power he provides over her and he directly approached her pertaining to the reasons of a lovemaking encounter (standing at her front door requiring she “go for a ride”). By using a psychological rubric or framework to get evaluating Good friend, it’s crystal clear that Friend fits not merely the account of a stalker, but as a predatory stalker.
If the internal rubric is not enough to convince among Friend’s stalker-status, then one could also turn to a unique rubric, a literary comparative rubric. In other words, in the literary canon you cannot find any shortage of creepy malcontents and stalker personalities that would help one to sort out and define Friend’s behavior.
One of the most notorious stalkers in the literary canon that carries resemblance to Friend can be Nabokov’s Humbert. Humbert can be described as stage-five predatory stalker (‘stage-five’ being with the utmost degree). Like Good friend, Humbert includes a particular cast for a youthful girl, Lolita. And also just like Friend, Humbert is stalking his “nymphet” in the hopes that it may lead to an explicit intimate affair, “My knuckles put against the child’s blue denim jeans. She was barefooted; her toenails confirmed remnants of cherry-red shine and there was a bit of adhesive tape across her big toe; and, God, what would We not have given to kiss then simply and generally there those delicate-boned, long-toed monkeyish feet! inches (Nabokov 51).
Although they both share a desire to have contact with their themes, the similarities between Humbert and Good friend could ideal be comprehended by reviewing the way in which they will describe their particular immediate amour with the young girls, which proves to be the driving force behind their particular predatory manners. Humbert the actual following admission regarding Lolita, “It was love at first sight, at last view, at at any time and at any time sight” (Nabokov 221). Good friend makes a identical admission in conversing with Connie, he says, “Seen you in the evening and thought, that’s the one, yes friend. I by no means needed to appearance anymore” (Oates).
Therefore it stands to reason that the push behind both equally Friend’s and Humbert’s obsession with their respective nymphets is known as a “love initially sight” happening. It’s very clear to the target audience, or at least to the majority of visitors, that these characters have mental issues, since it’s irregular for produced men to fall madly in love with cotonneux girls. And by extension of the conceit (that these men are abnormal), someone can understand their proneness for following. Nevertheless, in the event the reader welcomes that Humbert is indeed a stalker, by virtue of the similarities between Humbert and Good friend (their sex expectations, their particular capacity to be besotted with nymphets) anybody can conclude that Friend is usually a stalker.
The last rubric for demonstrating the Good friend is a stalker is the most tenuous of the types discussed thus far; it’s the public opinion rubric. Essentially, this kind of rubric subscribes to the “perception is reality” theory. In a nutshell, if there is a consensus among readers or perhaps literary experts that Friend is a stalker or a sexy demon, and so forth then one may conclude Friend is a stalker (obviously there are specific limitations to the rubric, while public view can be fickle and confront fact, but also for the sake of both simplicity and brevity these kinds of limitations will never be discussed).
Within their essay, “Connie’s Tambourine Guy: A New Browsing of Arnold Friend, inch Mike Tierce and Ruben Michael Crafton discus the “univocal reading” of Arnold Friend, they will write, “No critic has yet questioned Joyce Weg’s assertion that ‘Arnold is clearly a symbolic Satan. Marie Urbanski argues that Arnold’s ‘feet resemble the devil’s clove hoofs, ‘ Joan Winslow calls the storyplot ‘an come across with the satan, ‘ Mary Quirk maintains the story explains a ‘demonic character, ‘ and Christina Marsden Gillis refers to ‘the satanic visitor’s incantation'” (Tierce Crafton). Looking at the critics’ reactions towards the story, you possibly can assume that the option word to describe Friend is definitely “devilish. ” The consensus is that Friend is synonymous with the satan. And what is the devil although a ttacker stalker? As it says in the bible, “Satan is a lion, roaring, trying to find and harassment whom he might devour” (1 Peter five: 8). Satan is an evildoer, a seducer of women (Eve), and a stalker – the same as Arnold Good friend.
The truth is that a person doesn’t need three several rubrics to determine whether Arnold Friend is actually a stalker, it can pretty apparent just by studying the story (assuming one has at least a cursory knowledge of what a stalkerGet your custom Essay