Family Relationships in the Fiction of Joyce Carol Oates

T ESE DE D OUTORAME NTO FAMILY RELAT IONSHIPS IN THE FICT ION OF JOYCE CAROL OA TES Esther Góme z López ESCOLA DE DOUTORAMENTO INTER NACIONAL PROGRAMA DE DOUTORAMENTO EN ESTUDOS INGLESES AVANZADOS: LINGÜÍSTICA, LITERATURA E CULTURA SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTE LA 2019 D E C LA R A C I Ó N DO AUTOR /A DA TE SE Fa m i l y Re l at io n sh ip s in th e Fic ti on of J o yc e C ar ol O a tes Dn a. Est her G ó m ez L ópe z Presento a miña t es e, segui ndo o proc edemento a xeitado ao Regulamen to, e declaro que : 1) A tes e abarca os r esultad os da elaboración d o m eu traba ll o. 2) De selo caso, na tes e fa i se referencia ás colab oracións que tivo este traba ll o. 3) A tes e é a versión definitiva presentada para a súa defensa e c oincide co a versión enviada en for mato electr ónico. 4) Confir mo que a tes e no n in corre en ningún tipo d e plaxio d ou tros autores nin de traba ll os presentad os por min para a o btención doutros títulos. En S a nt i a g o d e C o m p o st el a , 20 d e s e t e m b r o d e 2 0 19 Asd o. E s t h e r G ó me z L ó p e z A UT OR IZ ACIÓ N DO D I R EC T OR / TI T OR DA T E S E F a m i ly R e l a ti o n s h ip s i n th e F i c t io n o f Jo y c e C a ro l O a t e s Dn a. Su san a Mar ía J im é ne z Plac er INFORMA: Q ue a present e tese , correspón de se co tr aball o realizado por Dn a . Esther Gómez López , ba ixo a miña dirección , e a utori zo a sú a presen ta c ión , cons ide r and o que r eúne os r eq ui sit o s es ix i d o s no R eg u l a m e n t o de E s t u d o s de D o u t o ra m e n t o d a USC , e q u e co m o d i re c t o r de st a no n i n c or r e na s ca u s a s de a b st e n ci ó n e s ta b l e c i d a s n a Le i 40 / 2 0 1 5 . En S a n t i ag o d e C o m p o s t el a , 20 d e s e t e m br o d e 2 0 19 Asd o. S u s a n a M a r í a J i m é n e z P l a c e r Esta tese está dedicada ós meus pais Consuelo e Manolo, a quen agradezo na alma o seu agarimo, a zos, apoio e pa cie ncia, ademais da xe nerosa ce si ón de es pazo. A Ma ría e Hans, por ese s inesqueci bles meses en Erlang e n, polo seu afect o e axuda , e por face lo todo tan doado, inter esan te e d ivertido . A Javier e Basia p olo seu cariño, ap oio e xenerosidade; e a Max por darn os tanta ledicia a todo s. A Beatriz , Juan e Bea polo seu afect o e po r est aren sempre pend entes de todo. A L uis López po r pr egun t a rme e an imarm e sempre, e a Luis Don o por a l entarme ca escri tura. A Rocío, Esther, Gon z alo, S anti e G ustavo p or facer me sentir coma na casa e n B ilb ao . Á s mi ña s amigas po r a conse llarme, mo tivarme , aturarme e darme ledicia, enerx ía, c on fianza e per spectiva; en especi al a Flavia, que fix o do a tlá ntico unha po za g razas ó seus con stantes folgos; a Ana, Laura Sante e Marta, igualmen te próximas aínda es tando lonxe en mo itas o casións; a La ura Á lvare z po r e sp allar t an t a alegría entre todos nós ; a Laura Cou selo polo s d e bates e suspiros a coro , o s pase os, ruta s e excurs ións; a Mar p or da rme tantos a zos; e a Vero, q ue me amo sou qu e a a mizade chega en c alquera mo mento e luga r, i ncluso nos máis e speci ais. Ó meu se ns ei Ósc ar por descubrir me e transmitirme a fo rza, d ete rmin a ción e confian za d o k árate. A Ále x, Doni, Lizi e Tru fa p or entendelo todo e dar tan to cariño a todas h or as. Fina lmente, ós que xa non e stán canda nós p ero tampouco no s deixaron nunca, especialme nte a Belé n, C oncha e Luis. ACKNO WLEDGEMENTS I would like to than k first of all, my thesis direc tor Dr. Su sa na María Ji ménez Placer , for her suppor t, pa tie nce an d h ard work; Dr. Const an te Go nzález Groba for introducing me t o Joyce Carol O ates’ s works; Dr. Laura María Lojo Rodríguez fo r her supp ort ; the research g roup Disc ou rse and Identity, the department of Eng lis h and German studies fr om th e U niver sity of S a ntiago d e Compo ste la, as well a s my fe llow PhD stud e nts from the USC for their kindness and support ; the library sta ff fr om the USC, for bei ng so kind a nd helpful a t a l l times ; Dr. Heik e Pa ul fr om the Friedrich Alex and er Un ive rsität from Erlang en fo r her gentle ness and good advic e during my inter nship, as well as the res t o f professors o f the A meric an Stud ies department, f ellow s tudents and sta ff from the FAU . RELACIÓ NS FAMILIARES N A FICCIÓN DE JOYCE CARO L OATES O obxect ivo de sta te se é analizar as rel acións familiare s que se desenvolven no ámbito d a familia nu c lear trad ici on al nun c orpus representativo da escritora norteame r ica n a Joyce Ca rol Oate s (na da e n 1938 en Lockport, Nova York). O cor pus está composto por sete novela s: A G arden of Earthly Delights (1967), Expe nsive People (1968), t hem (1969), Wonde rland (1971), We Were t he Mulvaneys (1996), Litt le Bird of Heav en (2009) e Car thage (2014). A e sco lla d este corpus baséa se nas súas dive rsas data s de publ icación, que cobren as eta pas máis s ignificat ivas d a prolongada carreira l ite r aria de Oa tes (que abrangue dende o ano 1964 at a o present e); na adherencia dos argume ntos das obras á meirande parte d a historia estadounidense do século vinte e comezos do sécu lo vin teún, unha cuestión d a máxima importa ncia para a escritora, que t en expresado en n umerosas ocasións o seu desexo de re crear mediante a súa ob ra o desaparecido mundo de seus pa is, a sí coma os principais acontece mentos históricos d e Estados Unidos (com a a gran de depre sión ou a segunda guerra mund ial ) ; na predilecci ón de Oates pol a nove la fronte a outros form atos de expre sión lite raria ; e finalmente, na ada p tación do c orpus ás necesidades temáticas da tese. Tendo observado que ne stas obras, o modelo f amiliar máis recorre nte é a familia heterosexual en que cada un dos membros ocupa un rol tradic ional e patr iarcal d e acordo c o modelo d a f amilia nuclear clá sica, est e traba llo céntrase en analizar d itos roles mailos subsistema s ós que dan orixe : os roles dos pais, das na is e dos fillos (espec ial mente durante a adolescenci a); m ailos subs istemas d e na i-pa i, nai-fillo/a, pai- fillo/a e i r mán -i r mán. En p articular, a te se pretende analizar a s expec tativ as patriarcais asociadas a estes roles e subsistemas. Co mo se pode observar, pónse a énfase na s re lacións ent re pais e fi llos (é di cir, nais-fil los e pa is -fillos) por c onsid erar que result an esenciais na 10 formac ión da identidade das personaxes das novel as, en especial durante a adolescencia. Non obstante, tamé n se exam inan os subsis tem as nai -pai e irmán-irmán de bido á súa inf luencia no desenvolvemento das personaxes. En c o ncret o, a tese d este traballo consiste en ana liz ar ata qué punto os rol es famil iares t radicionais e as expec tativ as e obriga s p atriarcais asocia das a eles d entro d a familia nucle ar clásica te ñen u n efecto nocivo n as personaxe s de Oat es, qu e comunme nte provoca non só di storsións nas súas i denti d ades, senón tamé n violencia, definida como unha serie de inte racc ións negativas e física e emocion almente pe rxud iciais ( ou a lo menos, pote ncialmente perxudic iais), incluíndo coacción ou a gre sión sexua l, intimidación ou agresión física, ameazas, pri vación de liberdade , et c. No corpus, a meira nde par te da violencia ten lug ar no seo da fa milia. A fa mili a considé ra se unha das pri ncipais form as de a grupaci ón social . É d entro do círculo familiar onde xera lme nte os suxeitos adquire n a súa identidade e onde se relacionan con out ros por primeira vez. O mode lo de familia que Oates prese nta con m aior frecuenc ia é o da fa milia nucle ar t r adicional, que n a súa definición m á is básica se considera composta por unha pa rella m onógama e heterosexual con fillos que conviven no mesmo e spa zo. Na súa ve rtente m áis t radicional, este tipo de familia a dop ta unha ser ie d e roles fa mili ares r íxidos e estáticos que manif estan unha evident e des igual dade segundo o xén ero dos seus membros. Tras analizar diferentes a proxima cións ó conc epto de famil ia por parte de varios autores, na tese defíne se a fam ilia coma un grupo de persoas non necesariamen te relacionadas por la zos s anguíneos (ou be n unha pa rella que ten unha relación de interdepe ndencia) e que compa rten un sentimento de pertenza á unidade familiar. Estas rela cións son i dealmente estables e dura deiras, e di st ínguense po los seus laz os de afecto, intimidade, reciprocidade, cooperación, comprom iso e/ou solida r ieda d e. As fa milias son o conte x to onde se adoita desenvolver a ident idade pers oal, e onde se adquire n coñec emen tos e destrezas b ásicas c oma a linguaxe. Polo x eral, as familias tenden a exhibir unha se rie d e roles , norma s e e xp ectati v as p ara cada un dos seus membros. As fa milias, por últim o, funcionan no conte xto mái s a mplo da sociedade. A t ese conc lúe, poi s, que a familia 11 non é un c oncepto obxectivo e e stable, senón unha construc ión que depende do xeito en que cada individ uo ou soci edade pe r cibe e interpreta o seu entorno; é dicir , non se tra ta dun c on cept o e stático senón ma leable; e que ademais soe exhibir un de sequilibrio de poder noseu núcle o. Isto demóstrase present ando un percorrido polas transformacións que atravesou a familia durant e o séc u lo vi nte nos Estados Unidos, así co m a unh a c lasificación dos d istintos tipos de familias. Nesta tese, a familia nuclear t radicional defíne se coma un grupo familiar conformado por tres rol es básicos : o pai/marido, a n ai/esposa e os fillos; unidos os pai s por matri monio e os pais fil los pola lexitimi d ade do seu n acement o dentro do me smo. A sociedade patri arca l pre senta correntemente á s fami lias nuc leares coma a form a de a grupame n to soci al máis ha rmoniosa e be nefic iosa pa ra os seus membros. A fami lia nu clear t radicional aséntase sobre c atro pi ares bá sicos: privac idade, propiedade, pro t ección e desigua ldade de xén ero. A privac idade desta s fam ilias implica a sú a c on cepción co ma grupos autónomos, mentres qu e o conc epto de propiedade conc ede ó pai/marido o total c on trol de mulleres e ne nos. E ste co nt rol é á s veces exerc ido pola descendencia m asculina. A protección que supos tame n te se dá ne stas fami lias pregoa a seguridade dos seus membros. Por úl timo, estas fami lias teñ en unha fort e divi sión de tarefas de a cord e co xé nero: os hom es manteñ en á familia co seu tra b allo re munerado no ámbito da esfera públic a, m entres qu e as mul leres coidan os nenos e en cárganse das tarefa s do fog ar dentro da esfera privada. Na ficci ón de Oates, a rixidez asociada á familia nucle a r clásica tende a orixinar conflitos, c onfusións d e roles e violenci a de diverso tipo. É prec isamente esta co inci d encia da c entra lidad e da fam ilia e a violencia n a narrativa oatesiana o que nos leva a examinar a relación entre ambos fenómenos, e a form u la r a hi pótese inicial de qu e a exec ución tra dicional dos rol es de pai, nai e fil lo/a xeran unha serie de desequili br ios no seo da fami lia así coma a a parición de violen cia na ficc ión de Oat es. Máis e specificamente, examinamos o rol do pai coma o c abeza de familia autoritario e princip al sustento eco nómic o da mesma ; a nai, 12 cent rada na súa face ta reprodutiva a expensas da s úa faceta produtiva e crea tiva, e rel egada ó fog ar e á crianza dos fil los; e os fillos, que n este traba llo s e analizan pr incipalmente dura n te a adol escenc ia, unha fase vital pola que Oates sinte un des tacado intere se, e que nos serve de premisa para examinar cóm o se desenvolve a i dentidade persoal da s personaxes dent ro do marco da familia nesta etapa vita l. Esta s a n álises reflí ctense na e strut ur a da tes e, co mposta por catro c apít u los principais, titulados “Pais e nais,” “Nais,” “Pai s” e “F illos/as,” precedidos dunha introduci ón e dun capítulo inicial a dicado a expoñer a vida e carreira de Joyce Carol Oates e os conce ptos básicos que se m anexa n no resto do estudio. A tese péchase c oas conclusións e un apéndice que inclúe o resumo das novela s do corpus. A introduc ión a este estudo presenta os obxectivos da te se, a hipótese x eral, a estrutura, a m etodoloxía e o marco teórico. O primeiro capí tulo, titulado “Informac ión preliminar,” compren de a biogra fía de Oates e unha c oncisa introdu ción ós conceptos básicos da tese: a familia, os roles e a violencia. O c orpo da tese está for mado polos capí tulos “ Pais e n ais,” “ Na is,” “Pais” e “F illos/as,” que pre sentan unha organiz ación paralela. É dicir, este s catro ca pítulos comezan c o a presentación das definicións e descricións dos princi pais traz os do rol familiar que se exa mina, así coma as re strici óns e obrigas sociais asociados a el, tomando numerosos exemp los do c orpus. A continuación, os c apítulos examinan as relacións entre os d i versos subsis tem as dos seus respectivos roles: en “Pai s e nais, ” analízanse as rela cións entre a parella qu e dá orixe á familia; en “ Nais,” as relacións nais-fil las e nais-fil los; e n “Pais,” a s re lac ións pais -fi llas e pais-fillos e en “Fillos/as,” as re la cións e ntre irmáns . O c apítulo “ Conclusións” recol le os pr inci p ais achados que s e de scubriron durante a investigación. O marc o te ór ico empregado encádrase polo xeral dentro dos es tudos de xénero, c o mposto por e nsaios en feminismo e masculi n idade s. As obra s deste ámbi to consulta d as con ma ior frecue n cia son Gend er. Psyc ho logic a l Perspectives (2005) de Li nd a Brannon, que achegou unha ampla gama de c onceptos relaci on ados co xénero e se xo; Gender and Social Psyc ho logy (1998) de Vivien Burr, que propón defi nició ns de pat riac ado; e o arti go “Men, Fathers and t he 13 State: N ational and Global Relations” (2002) de Jeff Hearn, que describe a hexe monía masculina. Aparte de rec orr er a estudos de xénero, a te se exhi be un ache gamen to int erdisciplinario ás obras do c orpus, xa que se c onsiderou que é ste poderí a i nfundir ó estudo un enfoque máis pre ciso e minucioso. En concreto, r ecórrese a investigacións sobre a fami lia , especialmente a exposta por Da vid White e Anne Wool let no seu libro Families. A Contex t for Development (1 992), empr egado recorrentemente ó longo da te se para expl icar o desenvolvemento individual dentro da familia e os seus proce sos sociai s, emocionais e cognitivos , e a s re pres entació ns da pa ternidade e a do lesce n cia . Outras ob ras de referencia de similar rele vancia son Crisis f ami liares: Causas y repe rcusiones (1983) de José Antonio Ríos González, e o art igo “ La familia: Formas y funci on es” (1994) de Gonzalo Musitu e Juan H errero. Os e studos sobre ma terni d ade centrárons e e n Of Woman Born. Motherhood as Expe ri ence and Institution (1991) de Adrienne Rich, Las c ontradicc iones c ulturales de l a mate rnidad (1998) de Sharon Hays e The Irigaray Re ader (1997) de Luc e Iriga r ay, entre outros. A pate rnidade a nalizouse princip almente c oa axuda de “The G ood Provider Role: It s Rise and Fall” (1997) de Jesse Bernard, Fathers and Adole scents . Developmental and Clinic al Pe rspec tives (1997) de Shmuel Shulm an e Inge Seiffge Krenk e, e Maki ng Men into Fath er s. Men, Mascul initi es and the So cial Politics of Fa therhood (2002) de Barbar a Hobson e David Morgan. Finalm ente , a a dolescencia estudouse tomando coma referencia a s obras Adol escenc e (2001) de John W . Santrock, “New Aspects of Family Rel ati ons” (2000) de E ugenia Scabini e “From Adolescence t o Yo ung Adult hood: A Family Transiti on ” (2000) de Margherit a La n z. Os e studos sobre viol enci a abr anguen obra s como Family V iole n ce Across the Lifespan (1997) d e Ola W. B arnett, C indy L. Miller -Perrin e Robin D. Perrin, ou From Pain to V iolence. The Traumatic Root s of Destructive n ess (2006) de Fe licity De Zulueta. Aparte disto, empre gáronse i nv estigacións máis con cret as sobre aspectos espe cíficos da violencia presente no c orpus: vi olencia psicolóxica, ana liz ada e ntre outras obras en “Psychological Maltre atment of Women” por Richard M. Tolm an, Daniel Rosen e Gi llian Ca ra Wood’s en 1999; a busos 14 físicos infa ntís e n “Child Physical Abuse: The ory and Research ” (1999) de Joel S. Milner e Julie L. Crouc h; vi olación no a rtigo onli ne “Em otional and Ps ychological Impact of Ra pe” (2008) e bullying en “School Bul lying: An Overview” (2002) d e Gordon MacNeil. Ademais, empregáronse estudos sobre trauma (“Trauma and Gri ef: A Comparat ive Analysis” de Marga ret Stroebe, Hank Schut e Wolfgang Stroebe, 1998), perda ( The She ll and t he Kernel de Nicolas Abraham e Maria Torok, 1994), e id entidade ( Persons: Unders tanding Psychological Selfhood and Age ncy de Ja ck Martin, Jeff H. Sugarma n e Sarah Hic kinbottom, 2009), entre moit os outros ma nuais apl ic a dos a cuestións que aparecen no c orpus en m enor me dida, como por exemplo, a obra de Ca rl Jung, analizada en “ La psique creativa: pri n cipales aporta ciones de Jung” (1999) d e Sherry Salma n. Tam én se recorre á crítica literaria de Oates para comple mentar a investigación. Algunhas das obras máis co munme nte referenciadas son Lavish Sel f-Divisions. The Novels of Joy ce Carol Oates de Brenda Daly (1996), Joyc e Carol Oates (1980) de Ellen G. Friedman e Understanding Joyce Carol Oates (1987) de G reg J ohnson. Por úl tim o, as entrevi st as, arti gos, e demais obras de ficción de Joyce Carol Oat es foron una fonte de coñecemento im pres cindi ble nesta investiga ción, especialme n te a cole cción de artigos ( Woman) Writer. Occasions and Opportunities (1989), o artigo “New Heaven a n d Ear th” (1972), e a entre vista “Conve rsations with Joyce Caro l Oate s” (2003). Os princ ipai s de scubrimen tos realizados nos catro c apítulos princi pais da tese permiten confirmar a hipóte se ini cial: a rixidez dos roles da fam ilia nucle ar pat r iarcal co munmen te produce c onflitos, confusión de rol es e mes mo viol encia. Máis conc retamente, no cap ítul o “Pais e na is,” ana lízase a evol ución dunha parel la de nd e o noi vado at a o matri monio en Wonde rland , caracte riza da pola forte posesivida de de Je sse Vogel c ara a súa m uller He lene Cady; e polo asen tamento do matrimonio sobre a ilusión de que o outro m embro da p arella cumpr e á perfección o seu rol de ntro da fam ili a patriarcal. Deste xe ito, Jesse reduce a H elene á súa función reprodutiva; m entres que Helene conte mpla ó se u hom e com a unha fi gura nec esaria para c umprir o seu (non desexado) d estino coma muller : conv erterse en n ai e esposa. Esta s abstraccións ine vitablemente producen ins atisfacción dent ro da pa rella, 15 e dan c onta da rixidez do subsistema q ue conforma n. O capítul o tamén anal iza os diversos ti pos de matrimon io: os cham ados m atrimonio de compa ñía, inde p endencia e i nterdependencia; así c oma os distintos estilos de educ ación que os pais dan ós s eus fillos: autor itaria, democ rática, indi ferente e permisiva. O es tudo da evolución temporal de am b as experiencias p ermitiunos comprobar a súa progresiva democ ratizac ión. Así mesmo, comprobamos a infl uenza d a rel ación de parel la nos fill os, e a i nterdependencia dos subsistemas de pai s e fill os no toc ante á educación d estes últ imos: é di cir, sen dúb ida os p ais infl úen nos fillos co seu estil o d e educaci ón, pero os fill os tamén alteran o tipo de educación que reciben coa s súas a ctitu des, o que resulta ev idente en them , onde Maureen Wenda ll, a filla obedient e , recibe máis responsabili dades da s úa nai que os seus descoidados irmáns. O capítul o “Nais” presen tou a chamada in s tit ución da matern idade coma un r esultado da intervención patriar cal n a expe r iencia natural da mate rnidade debido ó seu intento de c on trol ar a capacidade r eprodutora das mulleres, convert endo deste xeito un rol natural e c orporal nun rol social. Unha da s obrigas soci ais m áis prom inentes da institución da mate rnidade é a de lexitimar o naceme nto dun fil lo por me dio do matrimonio, co mo se ex em pl ifica no cas o de Cl a ra W alpole de A Garden of Earthly Delights , que lexitima ó seu fill o ilex ítim o casando cun t erratenente c oa e sper anza de d arlle un futuro mellor. O capítulo tamé n s e centra na tr ansmisión das actitudes patriarcais de na is a fillas, co mo se describe en Wond e rland , onde a señora Pedersen e Helene transmiten á s súas filla s Hilda e Shel ley a súa restriti v a vi sión das perspect ivas de fut uro p ara unha mu ller. A fa lta de autoesti ma e autonomía destas nais provoc a que ambas filla s desenvolvan un sent ido da ident idade débil e maleable, metaforic amente representado na súa rela ción c oa c omida: Hilda é unha rapaza obesa debido ó asfixiante exce so de a mor/comida que reci be da súa nai, mentre s que Shelley, privada do c ariño e ate n ción m aternais, es tá escu álida. Esta obesidade e del gadeza tamén son o resulta do da relación das filla s c os seus pai s: Hilda vese abafada polas e sixencias de seu pai e refúxiase na com ida, e Shelley é obxecto da persec u ción i ncestuo sa de seu pai, pol o qu e te nta que o seu c orpo sexa m enos at ractivo renunciando a unha inxesti ón equili brada de a limen tos. En conclusión, as rel aci óns nai -filla do c orpus 16 raram ente presentan un equilibrio emocio nal, co a excepci ón de Arlette Mayfield e as súas filla s e n Car thage . De feit o, algunhas fillas, coma Maureen en them , sént ense coma se non tivesen nai debido ó abandono emoc ional que sofren por pa rte destas. Neste c aso, ade máis, Loretta provoca na súa fill a Maureen unha confusión de role s ó forz ala a asumir as face tas de na i e e sposa que ela no n desexa exercer, o que á súa vez provoca unha confusión de rol es entre Mauree n e o seu agresivo padrastro que c ulmin a nun ataque físico contra a moza. Observamos ta mén cómo o c onfinamento das na is da fa mili a nucle ar t r adicional á esfera privada dificulta a súa part icipación no merc ado la boral no corpus: historicament e, ás nai s só se lle s permit ía traba llar por un sal ario para manter ás súas fa milias, pe ro non pa ra obter satisfacción pe rsoal. En Expensive People e Litt le Bird of Heaven , Nad a Evere tt e Zoe Krull er desafían estas normas traballando c o ma escritora e c antante, r espectivamente, o que lles ocasiona varios confli tos c oas súas fami lias, que e n xe ral non a proban e stas de cisións. O c aso de Nada é part icularmente complexo, posto que represen ta a relación entre procreación e c reatividade ó int entar i ntegrar e quilibradamen te a súa identi d ade c o mo nai e escritora, facetas que parece considerar compa tibles; ó contrario que o seu fillo Ric hard, qu e desexa que se adique exclusivamente ó seu rol com a nai. Polo ta n to, com o se aprec ia en E xpe nsi ve Peopl e , as re lacións nai- fillo do c orpus caracterízanse pola obsesión dos fillos por cont rolar e posuír ás súas nais. Adem ais, o estudo de E xpensive Pe ople e de A Garden of E arthly Del ights permi tiunos comprobar c ó mo as personaxes femininas da fase te mperá da na rr ati v a de Oates non reclaman pode r e autonomía no seu prop io nome, senón a través dun home, usual mente o ma r ido ou fillo. Esto é parti cularm ente problemático en A Garden of Earthly Delights , onde Swan, o fillo de Clara , sofre as cons ecuencia s desta priv aci ón, posto que se sente c oaccionado a herdar o poder de seu pa i, un pape l que só desexa par cialmente, e qu e , unido á s úa cr i se de iden tidade, culmina no asasinato de seu p adrastro e o seu suicidio . O ca pítulo “Pais,” coma o de “Nai s, ” tamén d istingue entre a experi enci a soci al da paternidad e e a me ramente biolóxica. Non obstante, no ca so dos pais, esta distinció n serviu para outorga r lle s un poder ca se absoluto ós pais dent ro da familia, e non pa ra c onf i na los ás 17 súas capacida d es reprod utivas com a no caso das mu lleres. Este capítu lo pivota sobre a expec tativa de rol pate rno d e que os pais deben manter e dominar ás s úas familias. Coma result ado disto, a meirande pa rte dos pais do c orpus desenvolve n unha con cepción extre madamente rí x ida do seu pape l, s endo incapaces de adaptarse ós ca mbios que os m embros da familia sofren. Isto reflíctese e n We Were t he Mulvaneys , ond e Michae l Mulvaney non logra superar a perda da i maxe da súa perfe cta e virxinal filla Ma rian ne de spois que d e a violen, p olo que a expulsa d a familia. Os pa is de A Garden of Earthly Delights , t hem , Wonderland e Little Bird of Heaven son similarmente inc apac es de adaptarse á e volución das súas fill as ou da s súas estruturas fam ilia res e xeran confl itos que usualmente culminan en a ctos de violencia (ou risco de violencia) contra as súas fil las, o que se contrapón á suposta protección dos fillos dentro do núc leo fa miliar. A re lac ión pai s-fillos do corpus é ta mén convulsa, e de mostra que incluso unha perfecta execución do pa pel de prove dor da fa mili a non sempre resul ta e n satisfacción persoal, coma no c aso de El wood Everett en E xpensive P eople . Curiosamente, ne ste c aso, o seu fi llo Richa rd, que se adscribe a unha conc epción totalmente patri arcal da fa mili a, desexa un pai mái s tradic ional e a utorit ario. O caso c ontrario apréciase en th em , onde Jules We ndall de sexaría t er un m od elo de pai m áis positivo c o a Howard, o seu agresivo pai bi olóxic o, enormemente frustrado pola súa inca pacid ade de ma n ter á súa f amilia. Amb as novela s refli cten a enorme carga emocional que produce unha adherencia total ás esixencias dos roles da fa mili a nuclear clásica. Por úl timo, e n “Fillos/as,” analízase a aparición relativament e rece nte da e tapa da adolescencia, así coma o pro ce so de formación de identi d ade que atopa o seu punt o álxido en dita et apa, n a que resulta esencial a relación c o Outro. Estes proces os de form aci ón ilústranse coas expe riencias de Cre ssida de Cartaghe e Jesse de Wonderland . E n Cressida com prób ase c o mo unh a adherencia excesiva da propia identi d ade a r eferentes f amiliares pode re sultar nociva na c reación d a individualida d e, e specialment e unha ve z que Cre ssida vai á universidade e se at opa fóra da área de influenza do seu fam oso apelido, polo que debe c onfrontar a súa identid ade nos seus p ropios termos. O confli to que isto produce fai que desapare za da súa casa dura nte varios 24 the fundamental notions that sha ll be de velope d in the PhD: family, famil y roles, and vio lence. The main body of the PhD oc cupi es chapters t wo, t hree, four a nd five, e ntitl ed “Pare nts,” “M others,” “ Fa thers” a nd “Children.” The name s of the cha pters re flect our decisi on to focus t he study of the corpus on the relations be tween p arents and c hildren. However, we have a lso considered the rela tionships mother -father and the bond betwee n siblings, represented by t he r elationships of Helene -Jesse in Wonderland and Maureen-Jules in them . These four chapters have a paral lel stru cture: they b egin by p resenting , defini ng and d e scribing the ma in traits of the rol es of these family members, as well the tra dition al restrictions and e xpectations linked to them, dra wing e xampl es from the corpus as an illustration of th e theory. Afterward, the c h apte rs focus on the re lations between the member s of t he m ain subsystems associate d with their roles, that is, in “ Parents,” wife -husband rela tionships ; in “Mothers,” mo ther - daughte r and mother -son rela tionships ; in “Fathers,” father - daughte r and father-son rela tionships ; a nd in “Chil dr en,” sib lings’ relation ships . T h is analysis will re vea l problems of possessiveness and control , viol ence and role distortion a nd r evers al, among others. In the se cond cha pter, “Par ents,” w e anal yze a c ouple’s transition to pare n thood using the case of Helene and Jesse from Wonde rland as an e xample, a nd explaini ng their e volution from being an engaged couple into m arria g e a nd the n parentin g, analyzing t he m ain changes that th ese proce sses bring i nto their relationship. At t he same time, the study of the ir relationship allows us t o introduce the themes of t h e body, control and possess ivene ss. These l ast t wo topic s are deter mina n t i n Oates, bec ause the y are related to one of her c entral ideas, t he tra gedy of the self -ce ntered e go, tha t is, t he c atastr ophic consequences of trying to impose on others the will of an ego that be lieves itself om nipotent. The re fusal to perceive the Other is indeed presente d as dreadful in her fict ion. S ubsequently, we presen t a g e neral classification of t he differe nt type s of m arria g es and examine the ir pr e sence in the corpus. The c hapter conc ludes with a discussion of t he di fferent parenting style s that fa thers and mothe rs may exert when educating their c h ildren: the authori tarian style, the democrati c style, the indi fferent or uninvolved 25 style, the p ermi ssive or indulgent style, and the mixed styl e. Furthermore , thi s cha pter in troduces al l the nov els and t h eir main theme s, along with the con cept s of roles and family subs ystems tha t shall be studied in more detail in the next chapters, such as t h e patri archal obli g ati ons of the nu clear family that subordinate women and em power men. The thi rd chapter, “Mothe rs,” expl or es th e subordinate d position into w hich mothers have bee n forced within th e traditional family circ le. T he c hapter’s de parture point is the di vision be tween motherhood a s a natural, indi v idual e xperi ence l inked t o the body, a nd motherhood as a social ins titution med iat ed by patriarchy, w hich expec ts an exclusive dedica tion of mother s t o their children , a nd th eir submission within the family circ le. T his is fol lowed by the study of how the bond betwee n t h ese two e nactments of motherhood is di storted in the corpus, especiall y in Wonderland , with terri b le consequ ences for the s ense of identi ty of the characte rs i nv olved in these relat ionships, which in t h is ca se are c omplicated by th e exertion of psycho logical violence in th e w ife -husband subsystem. The disto rtions affe cting the role of m others are experience d fro m pregnancy int o chil db irth, a s t h e discussion of Wonde rland and Garden proves. Besides, the se alte rations have a n e ffect ove r t he way i n which society pe rceiv es childre n’s legitimacy, as seen in Gard en . T he discussion of this nove l also insists on a c entra l issue in the corpus, the characters’ fight for autonomy and c ontrol. In t his sense, the an alysis of the a ccess to pow er of t he female characters shows an e volution i n Oates’s fict ion. In he r earl y novel s, women did not, or coul d not, cla im power for t hemselves but only indi rectly, often by mea ns of a male family member suc h as a husband or a s on. This t endency is diluted as these w omen increasingly start to claim power in a d irect m anner in la ter no ve ls. T his claim for power and cont rol i s immediately related to t he female characters’ parti cipation in th e labor m arket, thus th e next s ection of the ch apter deal s with t h is aspec t, and offers, first, a brie f a ccount of th e major change s r elated t o women ’s i nvolvement in the labor mark et, and afte rward, it foc uses on t he confl u ence of the productive and reproduct ive univ erses fo r wom en. This i s exem plified in the light of Bird and Expensive , whic h fur ther ill ustrate the of ten -conflictiv e 26 interpretation of the dichotom y between c reat ivity and procreativity resulting in t h e confine ment of m o thers i nto t he procreative realm, while th e cr eative re alm is either vetoed or restricted for them. Next, we introduce the quest ion of abortion along wit h the histor ical evolution that it underwent in the Uni ted States. Si nce none of the c haracters of our corpus has an abortion performed, but onl y consider having one (Nada i n Expensive and Helene in Wond erland ), we resort to Oates’s novel Son of the Morning (1978) to c o mpl ete t he discussion and t o prove how patriar chy h as tried to appropriate women’s cont rol over their bodies i n t his sense. T he fi nal sec tions de al with m other -child rela tions. Speci fically, mother -daughter relati onships in Mu l vaneys and Carthage a re used to describe positive bala nced bonds, while the novels Garden , them , Wonderland a nd Bird serve as examples of more disturbed bonds. In gene ral, the section hi ghlight s the destructiv e effec ts t hat the d istortions i n the enactment of motherhood have over the da ughters, who s eem to inh erit their mo thers’ tra u mas and insecurities a bout their bodi es, the ir futures and t heir rela tions to ot hers. In the c ourse of this study, i t i s noticed th at i n Oate s ’s fi ction, daughters have gra dually come to revalue t heir pre v ious ly unnotic ed or bla tantly despised mot h ers. In contrast, in t h e section de voted to m o ther -son rela tionships , we detect a patent wish on the part of the sons to possess and c ontrol their mothers, as seen, partic ularl y, in Exp ensive , a novel which is compare d to G arden due to the presence of a particular type of Oedipal bond i n both of them. Besides, both novels end with a suicide (in Ex pensive , t h e prota gonis t expre sses his intention of k illing himself), an event t h at shall be examine d too. In Expe nsive we als o fi nd exam ples of role reversal, in this case cau sed by a controlling son who trie s to b ehave as a parent instead of a ch ild . Role reversal is a common phenome non in th e corpus. Similar to the evolut ion of mo ther -da ugh ter rela tions, Oates’s fict ion show s a devel op ment by which sons see m to gradual ly lea rn to respect their mothers’ id entit y and independence. The fourth cha p ter, “Fa thers,” is i naugurat ed by presenting par allel theore tical conside r ati ons t o the previous chapte r on mothers, na mely, the dist inction of fathe rhood as a biologic al and a s a social e xperience. In Oate s, we find f athe rs who are obsess ed with m aintaining t heir traditional role a s the h eads, protectors, and brea dwinners of t h e fa mily, 27 within an a bsolutely rigid family structure that leave s no room for transformation. T hus, when t he circumst ances around t h ese m en are alte red due to changes in the family structure or within the status of the individual membe rs of th e family, they a re utterl y unable to assume them, a nd usually re sort to psychological or physical vi olence. This is complemented by presenti ng the role of the good provider, tha t is, the breadwinne r, whi ch is pe rvasive in th e ent ire corpus. Next, the analysis of the father -daughter subsys tem reveals that t h e corpus places a gr eat empha sis on t he r elation of these men to their adolescent daughters, beca use adolescence is a phase of tr ansformat ion t o which t hese fath ers are unable to adapt , as see n in Garden , them , Mulvaneys , B ird and Wonderland . These relations are most of the t imes ini tially pre sen ted as plac id and affective: in fact, the intensity of the bond is at t im es even exce ssive to the ex tent that it seems to ver ge on ince st, as in the case of Bird , in whi ch th ere is an und eniable role confusion. In these novels, the f at hers, enraged a bou t the inc reasing de mand for ind epende n ce of their daughters, or by t h eir s hifting c on ditions (exemplified by the daughte r’s rape in Mulvaneys ), eve ntual ly react in a violent manner: in Garden and the m , the fa ther fi gures physically assaul t their daughters; in Mulv aneys , the daughter is e xpelled fr om the house; in B ird , she is briefl y abducted by her fa ther; and in Wonde rland , the daughter dies as an indi rect result of her fa ther’s control over her. Besides, the discussion of Mulv aneys a lso ra ises questions of l oss and the ove rcomi ng of t rauma which are profound ly examined . Subsequ ently, the father-sons relation is ana lyzed focusing on the fat h er’s e motional di stance in them and Expe nsive . The f a thers fro m these nov els are at th e opposit e en ds of th e breadwinne r ro le: while in the m , the fa ther is unemployed, in Expe nsive , he is a succ essful businessman. But in any c ase, their rela tionship wit h the ir sons is simi larl y cool and detached. Finally, Mulvane ys i s highli ghted as a t urning poi nt in O ate s’s fi cti on bec ause i t depic ts th e beg inning of t h e de cay of fathers’ authority ov er the f amily. The fifth chapter, “Children,” de als with the adolescen t per iod of the da ugh ters and sons of the fa mily, which is one of the phases of life that has m ore i n tensely appealed to Oates . Be sides, it is a period of enormous t ransformations that are usu ally challenging for t h e rigid structure of t he pa triarchal nucl ear f amily. T he chapter a n alyzes the 28 supposedly nurturing relations which a re a imed at facilitating chil dr en’s identity development at th e core of families, i n this c ase, pa triarchal nucle ar f amilies. This c hapter i s divide d int o t hree main sec tions. In the first one, a dolescen ce i s de f ined a s a some what rece n t concept derived from t he tra nsform ati on of t he li fe sta ges in Ame rica. Next, adolescence is analyzed as a devel op mental proc ess as well as a lim inal st age of life betwee n childhood and a dulthood, in which the fa mil y’s adjustment and communication with t h e teenag er are ce n tral . Th ere is also a sec ti on dedic ated to those O atesian ch aracters wh o run away from home due to their d iscordant vision with the world of t heir pa r ents. All these questions are exemplified by using the ent ire corpus. T he sec ond section o f t h is cha p ter goes on to explore how ident ity is developed within the context of the family, fo cusing thus on the form ation of the self and its relation to t h e Oth er, whic h are analyzed i n Carthage and Wonderland . Carthage , ap art from foc usi ng on the sis ters’ subs ystem and t he i nfluence of ps ychol ogical violence over it, presents a young chara cter who i s e xtremely influenced by her fam il y and who needs to negotiate h er sense of self and agency in or der to attain a mor e balanced identity. Be sid es, loss is analyzed a s one of the ma in conseque n ces of the girl’s di sappearance for her and he r fa mil y. In Wonderland , we exam ine t h e c omplicated process by whic h the protagonist conforms his identity by im itating a series of fat her figures from which he i nherits a self-absorbed ego and a thi rst for control th at become det rimen tal for both hi s and his own fam ily’s fut ure . The thi rd sec tion deals with siblings and examines thi s subs ystem by focusing on questions such as compe tition and coop eration, which are ex empli fied by resorting to the sibling s ubsystem in t h em . This pa rt includ es t he analys is of the De troit riots from 1967, which have a definitive impact i n the lives of the two siblings, Maureen a nd Jul es. Finally, the si xth c hapter, “ Conclusions,” is composed by a fi n a l refle ction on t he re sul ts of this stu dy. T he PhD c oncludes with a n appendi x which includ es a s ummar y of the plots of the nov els from the corpus. An interdi sciplinary theoretical framework has bee n considere d the most a ppropriate approach to a nalyze fa mily relations i n the seve n novels tha t c onstit u te the main corpus of study. T aking into account that 29 the family a nd family ro les c onstitute the focus of our a n alysis , the insights provide d by gender studies ha v e been especially inspiring, includi ng both studies on women and on masculinities. The works on gender most frequently consulted for this study are Adrienne Rich’s Of Woman Born. Mot herhood as E xperience and Institution (1991), which has provided the bases for our approach to motherhood by means of its cla ssific ati on of moth erhood as experi ence and the mot h erhood as institution; Brannon’s Gender. P syc hological Pe rspec tives (2005), which presents a review of ge nder expectations a nd a critical r evision of tra ditional Freud ian postu lates such as “penis e nvy,” whi le at the same time offe ring a lte rnative perspectiv es such a s Karen Horney’s “womb envy,” or Kare n Kaschak’s int erpre tation of t he Oedipal comple x; Madres autónomas, mujeres aut omáticas (2004) by María Loza no Estivalis, which focuses on t he new t echnologies of reproduct ion a nd their eff e ct s, and pr ovides an account of how patri archy i s establi shed ; Elizabeth Badinter’s XY. La ident idad masculina (1993), which suggests model s of m ale id entity which are more constructive than the pa triarchal on es, a nd offers a definition of the Law of the Father; the ar ticle “Men, Fa thers and the State: Nat ional and Global Relations” (2002) by Jeff Hearn, whic h considers hegem onic m asculini ty; Vivie n Burr’s G ender and Social P sychology (1998), which off ers a defini tion for misogyny and pa triar chy; a nd final ly, two works by R. W. Connell , who offers an ins ight on men and violence, hegemony and ge nder practices in Masculinities (2005), and who reflects about m en, w ork and t h e bod y in his article “Mascu linities and Men’s Health” (2001). Withi n the theoretical c o ntext prov ided by gender s tudies, we h ave focused more spe cifica lly on kinship studies, which have provided us with inte r esting not ions on general concep ts about the f amily, the types of fam ilies and the nu clear fa mily. In combination with rol e theory, kinship studi es have c on tributed t o the cla s sification a nd a n alysis of the differe nt fa mily roles (pa rents, mo thers, fathers and adolescen ts). Next, studies on violenc e h ave be en used to examine physical ch ild abuse, psychological violence, emotional ne g lec t, bullying and sexual violence. Traum a studies ha ve also b een e mployed as the framework to approac h to the experien ce of l oss. Studies on i dentity were 30 subsequently employ ed along with a s eries of works of reference in the fiel ds of philosophy, socia l sci enc e, l anguage ac quisition t heories , history a nd cri ticism on Oat es. Finall y, Oate s’s own w orks of fi cti on and non- fict ion, along with some inte rviews , were a u seful s ource of informa tion. Kinship studie s ha ve provided definitions of fam ilie s, e specially David Whi te and Anne W oollett’s F amilie s. A Cont ext for Deve lopment (1992), which u ses the framework of developmental psychology to study indivi dual developments within the fam ily and t h eir bio logical, social, emotional and cognitive process es. The book ide ntifies the diverse fam ily forms wh ic h have cont ributed to our definit ion of the term . Besid es, it de als with the s truct u re of contemporary family rela tionships , and proves how each member influences the e volution of the re st of the members of the fami ly, th at is, it e x ami n es how pa rents in fluence ch ildre n, and how ch ildren infl uence p arent s’ b ehavior a nd their v iew of themselves. The book a lso p resents a det ailed account of how m otherhood, fatherhood a nd adoles cenc e a re a ppro ached and enac ted. White and Woollett’s theories have bee n valuabl e for t he ela boration of a ll t h e c h apters of our study. Other de finit ions of family were ta ken from Brenda K. Bryant and Kristine A. DeMorris’s “ Beyond Parent-Chi ld Rela tionships: Potential Li nks Be tween Family Environm ents and Peer Rel ations” (1992) , Magg i e Wykes and Kirsty Wel sh’s V iolence, Gende r and Justice (2009), Mark Hutter’s “Multic u ltural Perspec tives” (1997), José Antonio Ríos Gonzále z’s Crisis famili ares: Causas y repercusiones (1983), Charles F. Figl ey’s introduc tion to his edited volume Burnout in Fami lie s. The S ystemic Costs of Caring (1998), Carl Solomon’s Lejos del árbol. His torias de padres e hi jos que han aprendido a que rerse ( 2014), Jesús Palac ios Gonzále z’s La familia como contexto de desarrollo humano (19 90), Gonzalo Musitu and Juan Herre ro’s “ La familia: Formas y func iones” (1994), Sharon Hays’s La s contradicc iones c ulturales de la maternidad (1998), and N. Ray H iner’s “‘Look into Families’: The New History of Children and the Family and It s Implicatio ns for Educa tiona l Re se arc h” (1989). The historical evo lution of t he fam ily ha s be en analyzed, a mong others, by David Whi te and Anne Woollet t; Steve Mintz’s “T h e F ami ly 31 as Educ ator: Historical Trends in Socializ ation and the Transmission of Content W ithin Ho me” (1989) and “Ne w Rul es: P ostwar Fami lies (1955 -Present)” (1997); Manuel a Ruiz Pardos’s “Repre senting the Nuclea r Family i n the Nuclear Age: Identity and Fath erhood in The Seve n Year It ch ” (2007) ; Barbara Hobson and David Morgan’s Making Men int o Fathers. Me n, Masculiniti es an d the Social Politics of Fathe rhood (2002), whic h is a resea r ch vol ume focused on men a s gendere d subjects, the reevaluat ion of fatherhood, and t he role of men in institut ional settings . Apart from this, the nuc lear family has been describe d by consulting Adrienne Ric h; Christine E veringham’s Maternidad: autonomía y de pendencia (1997), where the au thor vindicates a perspective on m otherhood based on t he inde pendenc e of women; Brannon, who offe rs a de tailed acc ount of how gender and se xua l i d entity a r e e xperi enced from a social, cultural, biol og ical and psychological perspe cti v e that we have a pplied t o il lustrate mo ther’s rela tionships with their bodi es, and with their daughters and sons ; a s well a s Mauric e A. L ee and Carmen Flys Junque ra’s “Famil y Refle ctions” (2007); Ka thleen Gough’s “El origen d e la f amilia” and Claude Lévi -Strauss ’s “ La f amilia” (bo th from 1995) ; ap art fro m Maggie Wyke s and Kirsty Wels h, and Gonzal o Musitu and Juan Herrero. F inally, o ur an alysis on t he t ypes of famili es is ba sed on works by Rich; as well as S. Ri chard S auber, Lu ciano L’Abate, Ger ald Weeks and William L. Buchanan’s The Dictiona ry of Family Psychology and Family Therapy (1993), and W hite a nd Wool lett, apa rt from Davi d Levi nson’s “ Family Violence in Cros s-Cultural Perspective” (1988). Family ro les a re defined by re sorting to S. Richard Saub er, Luciano L’Abate , Gerald We eks and William L. Buchanan ; Mark Hutter’s “Genera l Relationships ;” Jos é Antonio Ríos González; a nd Brenda K. Bryant a nd Kristin e A. DeMorri s. Next, kinship studies have bee n used to anal yze pa rents, mot hers, fathe rs a nd adole sc ents. First, for ex amini ng parents we have selecte d the work by D avid White a nd Anne Woolle tt, which illustrates t h e differe nt kinds of parenting sty les followi ng the theories of B aumri nd, as well a s t h eir e ffects on c hildren an d pare nts; Gary W. Ladd’s “The mes and T heories: Perspectives o n Processes in Family -Pe er Rela tionships ” (1992), which deals with parent ing, pa rticularly, from 32 the pe rspective of the theories of Mac coby and Mart in; Jesús Palacios Gonzále z, who offe rs a psychological perspective to analyze the fami ly, which ha s been applie d t o the study of parent ing style s; France sc a Canci an as presente d in the work by L inda Brannon has provide d a cla ssific ati on of m arriage patterns; Susan Cohen a nd Mary Fainsod Katze nstein’s “T he War ove r the Family Is not over t he Family” (1997), which de als wit h new m odels of parent ing; Mark Hutter’s “Multic u ltural Perspectives,” which offe rs a clear de scription of t h e differe nt models of parenting styl es a nd Jos é Antonio Rí os Gonzá lez, who provides a perspec tive on education and paternal authority. Final ly, Wilma Binda and Franca Cr ippa’s “Parental Self -Efficacy a nd Charac teristics of Mother and Father in the Transition to Pa r enthood” (2000) presents a l ongitudinal study examining how couples deal with the transition to parenthood, expl oring the i nterconnections betwee n belie fs, knowledg e and behavior of parents tow ard the ir children. For the ana lysis of motherhood we have re sorted t o Dav id W h ite and Anne Woolle tt, who describe the experi ence of m otherhood (specifi cally, pregn ancy); a nd S haron Ha ys, who pre sents t h e conc ept of “i ntensive mo thering,” a mode of pa renting tha t de d icates a ll time and resource s to the child, consideri n g t h at the biological mother is the only suitable caretaker for her/ h im a nd that working outsid e the house is detri mental for t he child; Lia Cig arini’s “Gen i a logías femininas, el simbólic o patas arri b a” (sic) (2010), an arti cle ce ntered on working mothers, which also e xplores the bond between mothers and d aughters; and finally, La maternidad hoy : Clav es y enc rucijada (2005) by Con suelo Paterna and Carmen Martínez, which deals with the constructi on of m otherhood a s a rol e a nd which we ha ve used to discuss th e i ssue of mothers and sexua lit y. The feminist approaches to psychoanalysis by Luc e Iri garay, compiled in T he Irigaray Re ader (1997), have been used to addre ss the social c onfiguration of motherhood, the f emale body, and mother -da ughter relationships; and Julia Kristev a’s psychoa n alytic t heories on the configuration of the signifying proce ss of languag e, part icul arly, t he so -called semiotic phase (comp iled in The Kris tev a Reader , 1987) are app lied t o the study of mot herhood i n order to understand t h e role o f the instinct s. The informa tion from Kriste va’s texts h as been co mplemented by the 33 introduction t o the same book writ ten by To ril Moi, a s well as by arti cles by Kelly Oliver (“Kristeva and Feminism,” 2018) a nd Ti na Chante r (“Kristeva and F eminism. Kristev a, Juli a (1941–),” 1998). Additionally, the th eme of aborti on, its h istory in the Uni ted States and its socia l r epercuss ions ar e de alt with in Rich, Kat ha P ollitt’s “Aborti on in American History” (1997) , Jessica Ravitz’s “The S urprising History of Abortion i n the United States” (2016) and in the on line resource “History of Abortion in t h e U.S.” (2016). The theore tical framework fo r fatherhood has been provided by David White and Anne Woollett , who dis cuss fat hers’ relationships to childre n and expe cta tions over f ath erhood; Jesse Berna rd’s “The Good - Provider Role: It s Ri se and Fall” (1997), which int roduces the role of the “good-provider, ” a fat h er/husband and he ad of a family whose main aim is to provi de for hi s fa mily; Shmue l Shulman and Inge S eiffge - Krenke, who in Fa thers and Adolescents. Devel opmental and Clinical Perspectives (1997) , d iscuss a s wel l the role of the breadwinner, along with the question of me n and c hildrearin g, and property in men and women’s rel ati ons that have be en appl ied i n the a nalysis of Garden and Mulvane ys ; Haya Sti er and Mart a Tienda’s “Are Men Marginal to the Family? Insights from Chicago’s Inne r C ity” (2 007), which expl or es the ways in whic h fatherhood has been e n act ed, and t he role of fathers as provide rs for their families; a nd th e i ntroduction t o the ir edited volume Ma king M en into Fathers . Me n, Mascul inities and th e Social Politics of F atherhood , where Barbara Hobson and David Morgan refle ct upon th e biological and socio logical as pects of fatherhood, which serve as the basic de fi nition for our chapte r on th e topic, completed by Jeff Hearn’s arti cle, which explores the c oncept of the institution of fat h erhood as a power infusion mechanism for men and compa res i t to the institution of m otherhood, which subordinates women. Adolescent s have been describe d in the l ight of John W. Sant rock’s Adole scence (2001), whi ch contains a detailed account of this li f e s t age; Eugeni a Scabini’s “ New Aspects of Fami ly Rel ations” (2000), which draws a relational an d intergenerational approach based on analyses of excha nges between t wo generations (parents a nd adult c hildren), asserting the appearance of adolescence, a life stage be tween ch ildhood 40 Jesse from Wonde rland ). Cre ighton’s Joyce Carol Oat es (1979) anal yzes Oat esian novels and short stor ies writ ten befor e 1977, a nd h a s also bee n briefly refe r enced to com plete the analysis of the characters’ devel opment in the c o rpus. Three diff erent vo lumes fro m Greg Johnson, one of Oates’s m ost notorious biographers, hav e been used for thi s study: Understanding Joyc e Carol Oates (1987), Joyc e Carol Oate s. A Study of the Short Fic tion (1994) and In visible Writer. A Bio graphy of Joyce Carol Oates (1998). A Study of Short F ict ion reviews eight of her most representative short story coll ections, and has been refere n ced very specificall y in our study to r einfor ce the ana lysis of our corpus with allusions to Oates’s brilliant short stories. Unders tanding Joy ce Carol Oates me ticulously a nalyz es Oate s’s fiction, emphasizing her representations of gender constrictions , social struggle, materialism, consumeri sm and capitalist com petit ion , the American dream in Garden and Expe nsive , a nd t h e search for control i n E xpensive and Wonderland as wel l as the constru ction of personalit y in th e corpus. Finally, Invisible Writer combines a biographical a pproach to Oates’s life with a detailed analys is of her fiction, from w hich we have dr a wn a theore tical base to i llustrate issues of g end er constr ictions in t h em , and sexual abuse, food, and food -related healt h problem s i n Mulvane ys , as well as t he histor ical background of t he D etroit riots from 1967 in them . Eileen T eper B e nder’s Joyce Carol Oates. A rtist i n R esidence (1987) has served as a strong t heoret ical support for all our chapters. It deal s with issues of f emale self -definit ion a nd sexuality in Wond e rland , the searc h for power i n Expensive , the centrality of food and th e dichotom y fiction versus reality in Ex pe nsive and them , as wel l a s rele vant concepts for Wonder land like homeostasis and equi librium a nd the relationship between the bra in a n d the mind. Beside s, she empha sizes the role of na mes as the origin of the self and the providers of a sense of belonging in Wond erland and Garden , as wel l a s the t heme of spli t p ersonalities in Garden . Gavin C ologne-Brooke s’s Dark E yes on Americ a. The Novels of Jo yce Carol Oates (2005) analyzes social struggle in Garden along with t he pull an d rejec tion of capitali sm and mate rial ism, a nd the c haracters who exhibit a sexually predatory attitude i n Mulvaney s . In “Written Interviews a nd a Conversat ion with 41 Joyce Carol Oates” (2006), the interview e r Cologne -Brookes ma kes a fitti ng interpretation of t he significance of running a way from home in Oate s’s w ork. Fi na lly, Oa tes’s intervi ews, art icl es a nd e ssays ha ve also be en essential to understand her works from a closer a nd m ore a ccurate perspect ive. Some of the most recurrently used ha ve been th e memoir The Los t Landscape (2015), the collection of es says (Woman) Writ er. Occasions and Oppor tunities (1989), apart from the pieces “ New Heaven and E arth” (1972) and “ Why Is Your Writ ing So Violent?” (1981), and the i nterviews “T r ansformatio n of Self: An Interview wit h Joyce Ca rol Oates” (1989), “Conve rsations with Joyce Carol Oates” (2003) and “Focus on Joyce Carol Oate s” (2003). Othe r works by Oate s have be en thoroughly r ead and analyzed in order to provide more solid argume nts to reinforce our proposals. Some of t he most commonly used are the stories from th e c ollections The Whee l of Love and Other St ories (1970) and The Goddess and Other Wome n (1974), and the novels Do with Me What You Will (1973) and Son of the Morning (1978). 43 1 PRELIMINARY INFORMATIO N This chapt er i ntroduces some pre liminary i nform a tion which has be en considered pe r tine n t for the analysis of t he corpus. This introductory informa tion has bee n organized in t wo subsect ions: the fi rst is focused on Joyce C arol Oates’s caree r and m ain ideas, and the second one is cent ered on the fundamen tal c oncepts that we shall use in our study regardi ng family, family roles and violenc e. 1.1 JOY CE C ARO L O AT ES ’ S L ITE RA RY C A REER Joyce Ca rol Oate s 3 was born on June 16 th 1 938 in Lockport, New York . Oates has often stated her a d miration for the harsh live s of he r parents Caroli na and Frederic, who ha d marrie d during the worst years of the Great Depression: “ Difficult not t o fe el unworthy of such parent s, who’d come of age a s young a dults in the Great Depre ssio n. Their l ives were work. Thei r lives wer e depr ivation. Thei r l ives hav e led to you ” ( The Lost Landscape 4 83, empha sis in the original ). As a chil d, she lived with her parents and h er maternal g randpare nts in the latter’s Millersport farm, in Loc kpor t, Erie County. This western New York rural area, alo ng with Loc kpor t and Buffalo, becomes “E d en County” in Oates’s fi ction, as seen, for in sta nce, in A Garden of Earthly Delights . Oates describ es Eden County as “somewhat surreal/lyrically r endered rural Ame r ica” (“Afterword” Garden 200 6, 402). Her family wa s very poor, but Oate s ha d no consciousness of b eing de prived, since it was a 3 Th e b iographical i nformation from Oates’s l ife h as been ext racted fro m the following s ources : Blo om (143 -145), Ben d er (47 ), Cologne -Brookes ( D ark E yes 19, 2 15, 2 18; and “St ra ng e Case” 30 4, 306 -31 2); Creighton (Novels M iddle xii - xv , 2 , 57, 105), Daly (X, 7 3 - 75, 112), Grant (138), Joh ns on ( Invisible xv iii, xix, 6, 24-25, 28 , 30, 32 , 37, 58, 7 1, 81 , 8 4, 87 -90, 97 , 102 -103, 1 35, 13 6, 146-147, 149 , 151, 159, 164, 167, 203, 2 0 6, 209, 21 5, 232, 251 , 272, 277, 285 , 287, 292 - 29 3, 295, 309, 311 -313, 317, 321, 341, 346, 363, 367-368 , 373; U nd ersta nding 4, 1 6 -17, 2 02 and Short Fiction 38 ); O ates ( Lo st 3 1, 62 -65, 81, 1 38 , 160 , 1 63 -165, 184, 188, 196, 21 3, 216, 21 8, 239 -240, 2 60 -262, 27 5, 3 11 an d “W ritten In terv iews” 5 48 , 555); Showalter (“Joyce Port ra it ” 140) a nd Waller ( Dr e aming 2). 4 Hereafter cited in te xt as Lost . 44 common situation in that region. She was ve ry cl ose to her paternal grandmothe r B lanche, who gave Oates her fi rst typewriter, as well as Lewis Ca rroll’s books A lice in Wonderla nd (1865) and Through the Looking-Glass and What A lice Found There (1871), whic h exerted a powerful infl uence ov er her. Although Oat es ha s a five y ears younger brothe r, Fred Junior (nickna med Robin), born in 1943, as c h ildre n they shared very few intere sts, so tha t her chi ldhood was rat her lonely. Oates a lso has a sister, Lynn Ann, born in 19 56, pre cisely on Oates’s e ightee nth birthd ay, J une 16 th . Being severely autistic , she had to admitted in a t herapeutic he alt h faci lity in Buffa lo at fifteen years old when her parents could no longer take care of her due t o her i n creasingly a ggressive behavior. She was event ually placed in a group home with other pa tients. Lynn Ann has contri buted to Oates’s fa scination with twins and doub les: “Tha t Lynn was born on m y bi rt hday, resembles me, a nd ha s neve r spoken a cohere nt sentence while I am blessed/d amned as ‘prolific ’ ha d not escape d my awaren ess and my sense of ir ony,” she commented (qtd. in Johnson Inv isible 89). In the 1980s, she wro te t wo poe ms about Lynn Ann, “Mute Mad Chil d ” and “ Aut istic Chi ld, No Longer Chi ld.” Oat es went on to e xplore he r att ract ion for twins and ot her ma nifestations of divided selves i n short stori es like “Hea t” and “Twins” from the collecti on Heat and Other Stories (1991); a s well as her nove l s written under the pseudonym of Rosamond Smit h, such a s Lives of the Twins (1986), Soul/Mate (1989), and Nemesis (1990). In the corpus, we find several doppelgänger characters. At times, they are two different chara cters, such as Jess e/Monk in Won derland . Other times, they represent two sides of th e sam e character: Jesse/Dr. Vogel from Wonderland ; a nd Aaron/Krull in Little Bird of Heaven. As a child, Oates a tte nd ed a s ingle -room schoolhouse where she suffered constan t bull ying, which was not uncom mon a t t he time: o lder childre n used to torment the younger on es. In time, Oates starte d to avoid the harass ment by runni ng as fast as she c ould. From a n ea rly a ge, then, she learnt about survival skills and coping with trauma, two key ele ments of her f iction: Only by f ocusing upon the stup i dity (and th e inacc uracy) of su ch th ings have I b een able, o ver the yea rs, to d raw o ut 45 the p oison d rop b y d rop; for this w as an underworld, a child’s world of whic h my p are nts kn ew nothing. E ven when I and a few kids were torm ented at sc hoo l, our fea rs were disr egarded by ad ults w ho s imply d idn’t know . (Oates q td. i n Jo hn so n Invis ible 28, empha sis in t he original) The quot ation rev eal s not on ly the d iffic u lti es of experiencing t raum a, but also wh at a solitary experience th is process might be, as s een in the corpus. Oates also suffered sexua l violen ce: a t around nin e or ten ye ars old, she was molested by a group of boys, a n e pisode she de scribed during an i nterview: I was no t raped, bu t it would be considere d se xu al molesta tio n tod ay. A nd I cou ldn’t go to my mot her and say I w as s exually hara ssed at scho ol. I was thre atened and ordered not to te ll. However, I ’ll never f orget i t. [...] There was no con sciousness th en. Molested, batte red children were in a category that was l ike limbo. There w ere n o words, no language. If y ou tried to talk about it, you ’d sai d, “I was picked on.” T hen there was a cert ain amount of hesit ancy, if no t actual shame, to say any thing abo ut y our bo dy, so you wouldn’t want t o say wher e you were haras sed. […] It was extreme ly imp ortant for m e, ret rospectively, to h ave these early experiences of being a helples s victi m, b eca use it allows me to sym pathize—o r compels me to symp athiz e—with victims. I know what it’s like to be a v icti m, but I als o k no w w hat it’s like to g et away and not have been d amaged or sc arred. (Oates “Inte rview” Joyc e. Co nver sations 1 970 -2006 , 158 - 159) This quote account s for her ability to place herself into the position of abused people , and reveals how the unna med na ture of sexua l vio lence at the time ma de its disclosure imposs ible for he r. The silence that surrounds sexual abuse is frequent ly portra yed in t he c orpus, parti cularly in Mulvane ys , set in the 1970s . However, in later works by Oates li ke Daddy Love (2013), settl ed at t he beg inni ng of the twenty - first ce ntury, child sexu al abuse is much more c lear ly alluded to. 46 Joyce Ca rol Oates has a lways been a n avid rea d er. Among her multi p le l iterary and philosophic influences, she names Ernest Hemingway, Ambrose Bie r ce, Kat h erine Anne Port er, William Faulkner, Eudora Welty, Plato, Carl Gustav Jung, H .P. L ovecra ft, Jonathan Swift, Homer, Ovid, Charles Dicke ns, Em ily Dickinson, Lewis Ca rroll, Fri edric h Nietzsche and Herman Mel ville, whom she parti cularly admires: she consid ers Moby Dick the gre atest Am erican novel ( Lost 234). Apart from t his, Oates holds what Johnson de scribes as a sympa thetic but deta ched relationship with femini st literary culture , asserting that one should not c onfuse propagandistic impulses with the impulses of art . Be si des, she i nsist ed that categorizing a write r acc ording t o gender is to distor t the nature of her achievement, and th at it impli es tha t women should focus on s pecific t h emes. For her, that women m ust write about women’s issues im pl ies an i ronic displacement of t h e ol d dome stic impositions into a ne w restri ction. Oates affirm s th at she is equally symp athe tic to mal e and fe male chara cters, and that “a ‘feminist the me’ doesn’t make a sen timental, weak, c lic h é -ridden work val uable; [j ut s li ke] a non - or e ven a nt i- femini st ‘theme’ doesn’t make a serious work val uele ss, even for women” (Johnson Short Ficti on 38, 40). H owever, her ca reer proves that her interest in female characters ha s incre ased i n time. Oat es novel s up to Unholy Loves (19 79) are mostl y fo cused on male characters; a trait that st arted t o shift during the 1980s, when she started to e xplore women’s private and poli tical lives. Oates has c omplain ed a bout t he ge nder bi as with whic h critics have often c ontemplat ed her work. For insta nce , in her 1981 arti cle “Why Is Your Writ ing so Viol ent? , ” she expresses her exhaustion about being asked why she includes so muc h viol ence in her work: she attribute s this insistent que ry to sheer i gnorance and sexism. In t he same article, she locates the origin of pre conce ptions about what women and men should write in t h e undying influence of p sychoanal ysis: Psycho analysi s maintains that if the Oedipal agg res sions of the male a re a fun cti on merel y of the do me st ic triangle, ari sing inel uctably ou t of the “fa mily r omance,” so too ar e the fema le emotion s—with the added emb arras sment that the fema le is do om ed to t he g rea ter imp erfection o f being 47 bo th non-male a nd presumably r es entful as a consequence of t his condition. Aggre ssi on , disc ontent, re bellio us urges, a sense o f in just ice—these h ave n othing to do w ith the ou ter wo rld, but only with the suffer er; and if th e suffe rer is a wom an, by d efi nition a crea ture char acterized b y envy, ho w is it po ssi ble to take her ser iously? T he terri tory of the fema le ar tist shou ld be the subjective, the dom es tic. She i s all owed to be “c harming,” “amusi ng ,” “delightful.” H er mod els sh ould not be Shakespear e or D ostoyevsky b ut on e or anoth er w oman w rit er. (Oat es “ Why Violent”) In short, Oates vindicates her right to wri te upon whichever subje c t s he wishes to, a nd to choose he r own l iterar y models. Curiously, Oates lite rary heroes were a lmost all men: she identifie s herself with Faulkner, Balz ac or Melville, as Johnson r ecalls ( Invi sible 308). However, as Bender adds, Oates ha s also described he r a ffinit y wi th other Am erican women writ ers: l ike Eudora Welty, she depict s a universe in whic h horror can e rupt out of t h e familiar landsc ape, fe d by som e irre sist ible biological forc e; a nd like Flannery O’ Connor, her s torie s m a y be filte red t hrough a gr ot esque or fr eakily preco cious consc iousness : crippl es, m isfits and fat people crowd he r narrative s, not God -hungry but victimized by their own internal appe tites (2). Oates’s state d wish t o get ri d of labels and preconceptions was perhaps the reason that moved her to write he r famous quotation about being a writer w ithout gender: “A wom an w ho writes is a writer by her own de finit ion, but she is a wom an write r by other’s defi nitions” (qt d. in Showalter “ Introduction” 7 , emphasis in the original ). According t o Showalter, t his assertion has been ta k en a s a de nial of her social ide ntity as a woman wri ter; but in fact, her s ense of being a (w oman) writer has intensified from the 1980s, especial ly with novels as B ellefleur (1980), A Bloodsmoor Romance (1982) an d Myst eries of Wi ntherturn (1984), which m editate on female creativity a nd the fe male c o mmunity (“ Joyce Portrait” 140). In time, Creighton affirms, Oates bec ame more realistic about how she would be ine vitably perceived (as a woman writer), and about how d eeply i n tegrated in our soci ety sexist labelling is. In her fict ion and essays, she pa rtic ipates i n fe minist discourse by accepting 48 to a ssess how wome n are m ade and unmad e by male d efinitions of womanhood ( Nove ls Middle 57). Oates studied Eng lish at Syrac use Univ ersity on a New York S tate Regent s S cholarship. In 1959, she w on the M adem o iselle short story conte st wit h he r story “ In t he Old W or ld,” a contest t hat Sylv ia Pla th had a lso won i n 1950. Aft er getting a B .A. in E nglish in 1960, she atte nded a gradu ate school at th e U niversit y of Wisconsin, where she got an M. A. In October 1960, she met Ra ymond Smith, a PhD student on J onatha n Sw ift born in 1930 in Mil waukee. Oates and S mit h got marri ed i n Janu ary 23, 1961, and moved t o Beaumont, Te xas, wher e they were shocked about t h e overt racism the y witnessed the re. Later on, Oate s accepted an offer to work a t the University of Detroit as instructor of E nglish. T h e c ouple retur ned to the North in 1962 a nd settle d in Detroit, where they would live u ntil 1968. Oa t es professional li terary career began in 1967. It covers m ost genres: novel, short story, novella, poetry, essay, chil dr en’s and young adult’s fiction, thea ter plays and essays. 5 Oa tes’s c aree r may be divi ded into seven pha ses which we sh all briefly descr ibe. 6 The first phase of Oates’s career is co mpo sed by her ear liest work, from around 1964 to 1967, whic h a rose from pe rsonal feelings of alie nation. In these w orks, she presents t he f ictional Ede n Count y, drama tizing the hometown area of wester n New Y ork whic h Oates left but from which s he neve r got fully emoti onall y d etached. During this period, she wrote the nove ls With Shuddering F all (1964) and A Garden of E arthly Del ights (1967) . She al so published t he short story collecti ons B y the North Gate (1963) (w hich was her first published book) and Upon the Swe eping Flood and O ther Stories (1966). 5 Besid es, s ome of Oates’ s most cele brat ed works were adapted to t he c inema: the t wo versions of Foxfi re (L aurent Can tet, 2012; and A nnette Haywood -Carter, 1996), Zombie (Tho ma s Caruso, 2 010), We Were the Mulvaneys (Peter W ern er, 2 002), Blonde ( Joyce Chop ra, 2 001) and Smoo th T alk (Joyce C h opra, 1985, b ased on t he s ho r t s tory “ Where A re Y ou Going, Wh ere Hav e You Bee n”) ( “J oyce Carol Oates. Film og raphy” n. p.). 6 This classification is b ased o n Johnson ( In visible 303, 3 71 -372), D aly (XXIV , 7 1, 112), Col ogne-Bro ok es ( Dark Eyes 175 and “Strange Case” 312) and Anderson (“Review American Ma rty rs ” 2-3). 49 The sec ond phase bec ame a la ndmark i n Oates’s writing c aree r. It exte nds from 1968 to 1972 a nd was shaped by her Detroit expe r ience. She saw Detroit as a microcosm for ma n y proble ms of the Ame r ican society. During t he 1960s, the city had sever e problems of unemployment and racism, whic h would culminate in the riot s of 1967. This peri od com pris es novel s l ike E xp ensive P eople (1968), th em (1969) a nd Wonderland (1971), which, along with the pre vious A Garden of Earthly Delight s , constitute the so-c alled “Wonderland Quartet ,” described i n the a pp endix. Oate s also depicted and satirized the sterile and snobbis h environmen t of Detroit’s we alt hy quarters in novels like Expensive and t h em and short stories li ke “How I Contemplate d the Worl d from the Detro it House of Correction and Began My L ife Over Again,” collected in The Whee l of Love and Othe r Stories (1970), which is one of he r most significa n t collections, a long with Mar riages and Infidelities (1972). Despite living in a wealthy neighborhood, Oates was aware of the state of the city slums (port r ayed in them ), so tha t as Johnson notice s, most of Oates’s short s torie s of the 1960s deal with t he e xtreme e motions from which h er carefully structured life shielded h er from ( Invisible 167). Moving to Det roit also infl uenc ed Oate s’s subje ct matters. Her first novels, Wi th Shuddering Fall and A Gard en of Earthly De light s , were settle d in the countryside of t he fictional Eden Count y; but from 1963 to 1976, as s he ass erts, much of her fi ction was emotionally inspir ed by Detroit (Oates Lost 272). Indeed, the cit y a ppears, m ost nota b ly, i n Expe nsive , the m , a nd Do wi th Me What You Wil l (1973). Thus, the setting of her novels be came less rural a n d more urban, a s she herself acknowle dged (O ates Lost 272). Oates start ed wri ting poetry in t h e spring of 1967. Some of her poem collections ar e Women in Lov e (1968), A nonymous Si ns (1969), Love and It s Derangements (1970), Angel Fi re (1973), Dr eaming America (1973), Women Whose Lives Ar e Food, Men Whose Li ves Are Money (1978), and Tendern ess (1996). In 1968, Oates began rev iewing for T he New York Times B ook Review an d the Washington Post Book World . The s ame year, she rec eived t he Richard and Hilda Rosenthal Award of the Nationa l Instit u te of Arts and Le tters for Garden , as well as a National Endowment for the Humanit ies Grant. 56 had started t o exa mine in We Were the Mulvaneys : F oxfire: Confess ions of a Girl Gang , F irst Love (1996); Man Cr azy (1997); Blonde ; Beasts (2002); I’ll Tak e You There (2002); The Tattooed Girl (2003); Rape: A Love St ory (2003), and The Gravedigger ’s Daughter (2007). At this time , Oa tes’s int erest in the Gothic fashi on becomes patent again, as seen in her exploration of the p henome non of the doppelgänge r in he r thriller novels writte n unde r t h e ps eudonyms L auren Kelly ( Blood Mask , 2006) and Rosamond Smith ( St arr B right Will B e with You Soon , 1999; and The B arrens , 2001). In the seventh stage, from 2008 onwards, Oates has focused on the most signi fi cant poli tical de bates in the United Stat es of the la st deca des, highlighting the inte rse cti ons of cl ass, politic s, religion, law, and t he media. A nd thus, My Sister, My Love (200 8) fi ct ionalizes the media frenzy around JonBenét Ra msey’s murder case and the world of childhood stardom; Carthage (2014) features the Iraq War and t he propaganda supporting the conflict, a s well a s t he Ameri can penite ntiary system and t he death row; The Sac rifi ce (2015) fi ctionalize s t h e case of Tawana Brawley, a n African -American adole scent w ho falsely clai med to have be en rape d by a group of white men in the 1980s; A Book of American Martyrs (2017) i s centered around a bortion clinics a nd their detractors ; The Man Without a Shadow (2016), also based on a r eal cas e, ra ises questions of th e m echanism s of memory and sexual misconduct at w ork. Oates’s short stories from this period a r e mostly focused on the ge nres o f horror and f antasy, as seen in the c oll ection s The Corn Maiden and Other Ni ghtmares (2011), The Doll-Master and Other Tales of Terror (2016) and DIS MEM BER (2017). During this period, she also wrote her two memoirs A Wi dow’ s Story: A Memoir (2011) and The Lost Lands cape (2015). In February 2008, Ray mond Smith was s uddenly di agnosed with pneumonia a nd died in about a wee k. Thi s traum atic e xperience is refle cted by Oate s in A Widow’s Story . In 2009, Oat es marrie d Charles Gross . In March 2010, President Ba rack Obam a awar de d the Nat ional Humanities Medal to Joyce Carol Oates for a lifetime of contributions to American literature. Oates, a s she admi ts ( Whe re I’ve B een 373), has writt en m ost of her w ork in a realistic styl e . The exception i s found in the Gothi c of h e r 57 postmoderni st nov els an d the sc ience -fiction of some short stories and the 2018 novel Hazar ds of T ime Travel . Through her realistic mode, Oates has trie d to dissect and e xplore past and present Americ an real ities in te rms of the d istribution of power am ong insti t u tions such as medicine, law, poli tics, ps ychiatry, reli gion, education, business, th e military -industrial c omplex, and, especi all y, the family. As Wall er comme nts , for Oates, “Amer ica is an experience , not a pl ace; it is wha t our personali ties create as well as w hat we a re thrown i nto” ( Dreaming 29). The refore , Oates’s world entails para d ox, irony and suggestion. As several c ritics have e xpressed, it i s a bov e al l commun al, not b eca us e it encoura ges a group mindset , but rat her because it e ncourages individ uals to revise th eir own perspective s. In the next se cti on, we i ntroduce the main t heoretical con cepts that have served a s a ba s is for our study. The vita l e xperien ce of Joyce Carol Oates, along wit h ma ny of t he i deas t hat cons tit ute her l iterary uni v ers e , have effec ts i n the manne r in which fami lies and fami ly mem b ers are presented i n h er fict ion: for insta n ce, he r chil dhood as th e daughter of parent s who grew up duri ng the Great D epression, whom s he gre atly admire d, a nd the contemplation of th e country’ s destitu te state at th e time , are reflected i n nu merous of Oa tes’s pl ots; or the def inite e ffect that her myst ical experien ce had in her b eli ef of the relevan ce of th e communalit y of human experience, which i nfluenced h er d ecision to change the ending of Wonderland . Be fore we focus in the analys is of these aspects, it is pertin ent t o ou tline som e essential concepts. 1.2 E SSEN TIAL T H EO RET IC AL C O NCEPT S When defi ning what a family is, the most com monly used crit erion i s the biol ogical one, by m eans of which many author s have re duced t he conce pt of family to t he union of a hete ros exual c ouple. But biological and/or heterosexual relationships are not always pre sent in fa mili es: numerous families are composed by non -blood related members; while others are forme d by a homosexual couple , or a couple without chil dr en, etc. Thus, a biological or heterosexua l def initi on of fami ly is defini tely incomplete , as observed by numerous authors. Bryant and DeMorris , for instance , provid e a more in clusive d efinition, describi ng fam ilies as 58 “typicall y biolog ically d efin ed groups of individuals w ho s hare a common househol d un less difficulties p re clude su ch arrangements. Very pra ctically, a fa mily consists of a t least one adul t, g e nerally referre d to a s ‘pare n t’ and at le ast one ch ild” (159) . It is important to notice their use of the a dv erb “typically,” whic h indicates t h at biology is not the onl y bond among t hese persons, nor is it stric tly e ssential t o the term . The authors a re a lso ca reful not to me ntion any spec ific sexual in clination, o r gende r, in their definition, but still, they forget t o mention that a childless couple, for i nstance, also constitutes a family. We thus concl ude that f amilies are only at times l inked by biological ties. Families are soci al groups tha t func ti on b oth as priva te a nd public units, dimensions that are explored by Figle y, and Brya nt a nd DeMorris, respect ively. First, Figley e mphasizes the a rticulation of famil y relationships by rema rk ing that fa milies are compo sed of membe rs who ha ve ongoing a nd interdependent rela tionships with one anothe r. He st ates that as a psychos ocial sys tem , the family e xhibits, firstly, a c ertain structure which com pris es the arrangem ent of roles, rules, a nd expectations for its m embers; and secondl y, processes of acqui ring and di ssem inating social su pportiveness. Famili es are changi ng psychosocial sys tems w hich und ergo s elf -correcting and s elf- sustaining activities in order to respond to changing demands (Figley 6). This process of trans formation is widely portrayed i n the corpus. Another common aspect of families is th at they are of ten th e sit e where identities are de veloped. In this respect, Carl Sal omon’s Lejos del árbol (2012) provides a c rucial distinction betwe en ve rtic al and horizont al iden tities. According to him, t he majority of children inherit some traits from t heir p arents: these a re th e so -c alled vert ical identi tie s, the traits and values tha t a re t ransmit ted from pa rents to children not only through DN A, but also through s har e d cultura l norms (e .g., ethnic ident ity). Langu age is also vert ica l, and reli gion is somehow vertical beca use pa r ents t end to transmit their belie fs to children, but t h en childre n may be irreligi ous or conve r t to other re ligi on. N ationality is verti cal ex ce p t i n the ca se of i mmigr ants. T her e are also t r aits t h at cannot be traced b ack t o the pa rents becaus e they a re strange to them. They are acquired from a group of people who also share that trait : this is a horiz ontal identity. They can be the expression of rece ssive genes, 59 strange mut ations, prena tal influenc es, or value s and preferences that a child doe s not share with her/his pare nts (e.g., being a gay child from hete rosexual parents; and usually, physical disabilities, psychopathy, genius, etc .) (Solom on 14). Ide ally, there should be a b alanc e be tween these two iden tities, but very of ten, ther e is a clash between them, as in the c ase of Wonderland . Second, Bryant and DeMorris focus on the functions of fam ilies, arguing t hat [w]hen they a re working as they “a re su pp osed to ,” fami lies share re sources to secure food , clothin g, ho useh old good s, tra nspo rta tion to pla ce s of work, sc hool, and enter tai nment. In other wo rds, familie s are [… ] designed to work a nd play toget her . (1 59 ) Finally, it is obvi ous that fam ilies do not function in isolat ion. Bryant and D eMorris assert that th ey work withi n a l arger social c ontext consisting of formal a nd inform al social struct ures, such as par ental work place, schools, n eighbors, and pe er r ela tions (159) . The influen ce of the soci al e nvironment is cl early pe rcei v ed, for i nstance , in Expe nsive and them , which a re placed in Detroit , in an uppe r -cla ss suburb with i ts social gatherings and in m argi na lized neighborhoods where viole nce is common, respectively. Having poi n ted ou t t he t raits that are not deemed u seful when defini ng t he famil y, and some traits that are much more accurate, we shall now try t o find a m ore accura te and inclusive defi nition . The descripti on of the family provi d ed by Palacios González is partially restrictive, but a lso offers some compr ehe n sive insight s. Thus, although he a rgues that initially, a family is formed by two a dults who ha ve affec tive, sexu al and r elational bonds; he a lso admit s th at a family does not nece ssari ly imply a ma rriage, or th e c ontinuous presence of both parent s, or having biological children (26-27). His most i llustrating contri bution, however, is asser ting that a family is la u nión d e pers on as que comp a rte n u n proy ec to vital de ex istencia en comú n que se q uiere du rader o, en el que se generan fuer tes s entimie ntos d e pertenencia a d ich o 60 grupo, ex iste un compromiso pers onal entre su s miembros y se e stablecen inte nsas relacion es d e intimida d, reciprocidad y d ependenci a . (27, emphasi s in the original) In this respect, families may resemble the definition that Musitu and Herrero provi de of ce rtain groups (such as c ommune s, coopera tive groups, cohabi tation, etc.) whi ch share characteristics with families. These groups can be defi ned as not being ti ed by blood and sharing a long hi story toge ther as well as i ntimate expe ri enc es. Besides, their behavi ors are driven by m utual benefit, and the y show proce sses of problem -solving whic h are similar t o those of the fami lies. They exhibit trait s such a s harmony and love , a nd the y a re c haracterized by individual self -as sertion whi ch is discip lined by me ans of a co mmon spirit, a nd constructed upon solidarity amo ng it s members instead of the excha nge of sp eci f ic services or benefits ( Musitu and Herrero 20). In summary, ta king into account the p revious reflections, we concl ude that the family is a group of pe o ple not necessarily rela ted by blood, or eit her, a c oup le of pe rsons who have a n ongoing, interde pendent relationship, a nd who share a sense of belonging t o their famil y unit. Ideally, the relationships in a family a r e l asting, a nd chara cter ized by bonds of mut ual affection, intima cy, reciprocity, conce rn, c ooperat ion, compromise and /o r solidari ty. F amilies often share a c o mmon household. It is a lso usual for fa milies to exhibit a set of role s, rule s, and expectations for its memb er s; and to be the site where indiv idual and gend ered identities are dev eloped. Finally, families function within the large r soc ial context of society, along wit h other structures such as the work place, school s, neighborhoods, communitie s, govern ments, et c. In short, the c oncept of the fa mily is a construct ion. Accordi ng to Hays, socia l construc tions are neither the result of i ndividual thinki ng, nor are the y static. Our understanding of the world depends on the interacti on with peopl e along time, in a hi st oric al pro cess by whi ch our culture is constantly adjuste d and transfor med. T h e social construction of culture usua lly i mplies unba lanced relationships of power. But although th e ruling class has more power t o i nstituti on alize cu lture than other groups, th ey are not a lways abl e, or willing, to impose their idea s. 61 Besides, less powerful p eople m ight be capabl e of resisting imposed notions, transformi ng culture or creating t heir own subculture s (37). As Hiner points out, the existence of t he family has bee n continuous; but its precise shape, composi tion, purposes, fun ctions and effec ts have been subjected to c h ange. In t his sense, the “ family” doe s not e xist. Variations i n its characteristics ha ve be en e normous , and continuitie s are more apparent than r eal wh en parti cular fa milies a re exam ined. E thnicity, c lass , gender, region, nationalism, relig ion, ideology, economic events, and “ the tim es” ha ve l eft their ma rk on Americ an families. Family hi storians have identif ied certain basic trends and pa tte rns t hat s ee m t o have a n impa ct on American families, such as t he househol d structure, ki nsh ip, the relationship of t he household and ki n group to la rg er social structure s and processes , life - course a nalysis, and the internal dynamics and the quality of family rela t io ns hips (Hiner 17-18). When c onsidering how fam ilies are formed, we have resorted t o a series of useful working c oncept s proposed by Rí os Gonzále z (19), who conce ives families as dynamic groups t h at are progress ively formed. They a r e not on ly composed by their curr e nt members (mother, father, childre n, etc.), bu t al so by the Family Syst em of Origin of t h e family’s ance stors (“Sistemas F amil iares de Origen”). Such a sys tem compri ses the va lues, myths, rites and customs, resistance t o cha ng e, old traditions, and even the obs essions that h ave been rei nfor ced through the yea rs. Practically a ll t he novels of the c orpus depict a nd stress the rele vance of the Family Systems of Origin. From the Fam ily System of Origin, a couple (or, i n our understanding of t h e te r m fa mily, a person) consensually constructs its “Self- Created Family Sys tem” (“Sistema Familiar Creado y Propio”) when t hey start a family (Ríos Gonzál ez 19) . All t he novels from the corpus describe this proc ess of creat ion, except for Carthage and B ird. This system i s e stablished through ne gotiations, communication, defense of val ues that are c onsid ered important a nd e ven e ssential, reduct ion of those values considered to be obsolete , e tc. Some tim es, the consensus (in c ases where the r e is a coupl e, a s in t he ca se of the c orpus) is reache d through a n op en negot iation process ; and ot her times, in an occul t or hidden way. 62 Ríos Gonzále z defines t he “Desired Fam ily System” a s arising from a family’s wish for i mprovement a n d growth (“ Sist ema Familiar Querido o Deseado”). It searc hes for a nd adapts to new situa tions. The re are m u ltiple factors at w ork in this sys tem, such as how a person wants to be, how she or he pa ys a ttention to wh a t his or her pa rtner wants t o be; w hat som eone w ants t o be a s father/mother/ son/daughter; how childre n develop a s they grow , etc. A ll th ese role s wi ll change acc ording to the life cycle of t h e famil y, w hich is modified by b iological and em otional changes, tra nsformati ons of t he envi r onment, appea rance of new ne eds, j obs and val ues; a s well as t he specific devel opment stages of each of the mem bers of the family (20) . In Wonderland , Jess e is ob sessed with hi s Desired Fami ly System: he plans every detail of i t to th e exte n t that he is mo re focused on his ideal than on his actual f amily. Since th e c orpus covers a wide te mporal setting ext ending from t he 1920s to 2012, i t is ne cessary t o c onsider t he di ffere n ces t hat th e fa mily has undergone through all the se decades; and i n doing so, e x amine some of the soci al and histor ical forces an d infl uences that h ave a ltered it. The following paragraphs t hus de scribe t he evolution of the family along with the sociohi storica l t ransforma tions that have a prominent presence in the corpus. As G arrat y expl ains, during the 1920s, more tha n nineteen million people moved from f arms to cities in the Unit ed S tate s. Living in a city influe nced a spe cts such as family structure, e ducation al opportunities, etc . Women were taking jobs a ttracted by the growing de m and for cle rks, typ ists, salespeop le, r eceptionists, tel ephone operators e tc. Mos t jobs were sti ll menial, nonetheless; and their sal ary was sm aller th an that of men. Besides , less th an 10% o f all married women wer e working, as we see in Garden , where the f ema le protagonist l eaves her job when she gets pregna nt . Middle-class married women who worked were nea r ly all childless or highl y paid professionals who were a ble t o employ servants at home. Most male skilled work ers earned enough money to support a fami ly in modest c omfort as long a s they could work steadil y; but an unskilled laborer could not. W ives i n such famil ies helpe d out doing occ asional work as laund ry or sewing. 63 Young pe ople at the time p erceived t he narrowness and conservati sm of their e lder s a s ol d-fashioned a nd ridiculous. Some of their models a nd l eaders were the pre war Greenwich Vil lage bohemia ns. These young people were eage r to understand the world and make their way in it. T h ey were mor e unconventional tha n their e lders beca use they ha d to adjust t o profound and rapi d change s. During t his deca de, the c onception of sex also started to change. Conservatives regret ted what the y conside r ed t o be a bre akdown of t he m oral standards, the fragm entation of the family , and the decline of pa rental authori ty. Divorce laws were modifi ed i n ma ny states. Re la xation of the rigid sexual morality did not completely change the com mon morality, though: the double sta ndard still existed. I n addition, couples c ontinue to m arry m ore be cause of l ove a nd physica l attraction than due to soci al position or economic advant age, or follow ing thei r parents’ wishes. In eac h n ew decade, p eople married sligh tly later in life a nd had fe wer childre n (Garraty 665, 692-696). During the next d ecade, the 1930s, the Great Depres sion (1929- 1939) had deep ps ychologi cal im p lications. W he n pe ople (most ly m en) lost their jobs, they frantical ly looked for new ones, but if the y wer e unemploye d for more than a few months, t hey gradually became apat hetic and ashamed, as seen in G arden , where m any m ale characters insist on providing constant e xp lanations for their being unem ployed, since they feel th ey m ust justify thei r situation. This fe eling explains, i n part, why pe op le did not r e act more rad ically to the economic si tuation, although th ere were protest ma rches and strikes. The D epression also produced a drop i n t h e birthrat e, which be came th e lowest rate in Americ an history. In some c ases, the Depr ession increa sed family ties: some unempl oyed men spend more ti me with their children and h e lped their wives w ith the housework. O thers became i mpat ient, r efused to help a t home, sulke d or turned t o drinking. The biologi cal father of the protagoni st from Wonderland i s found a mong the latter group: he becom es an a ngered, frustrated and v iole n t m a n. The influence of wives in families increased; and so w omen e x perie nced less psychological suffering: they were too busy t o turn to apathy. Th e Great Depression also left an indelible mark on th e lives of t he young. It would influence their attitudes tow ard the f amily and esp eci ally their attitude t oward 64 econom ic sec ur ity. Along with t his, autho rity declined when t here was less money available for the children’s needs , as seen in Ga rden . Some adole scents found p art -time jobs to h elp out, while oth ers refu sed to go to school (Garrat y 732 -734, “Human Mea ning” n. p.). According to Garrat y, W orld War Two (1939 -1945) c aused dra stic change s in the configuration of families. Thousands of families moved to the centers of war production such as Detroit ( as seen in them ) or Southern California, where housing wa s ins uffic ie nt. Th e cramped quarte rs and unsta b le circ u mstances cause d a r ise in crime, de linquency and prosti tution. During t he war, marriages a nd births increased sharply. Many young coupl es decided to m arry be for e the bridegroom /husband w ent off to war, but the i ncrease of hasty marri ages followed by long sepa r ati ons a lso inc r eased th e rate of divorce s. When m en went to war, a ne ed for wom en workers a ppeared, so many of the m (married a nd single) joined the work-force , where as thousands of them were serving in th e a r my. At the beginning, there was considerable m ale resistance to this inc orporation, but these attitudes lost force as the demand for labor e scalated. W omen took these jobs for differ ent re asons, a part from th e e conomic ones: pa triotism, the possibility of ent ering a n ew world, th e desire for independence, etc. African- American women, e xp erie n cing double discrimination due to their race and ge nd er, had a particularly di fficult time. Few day -care faci lities exi st ed, a lthough the government tried t o esta bli sh them (Garraty 773, 777 -778). When the war fi nished in 1945, women were forced to surrende r the jobs the y had t aken and to return to their traditional roles of housewives and m o thers. Some wom en ad opted t hese role s, as indicated by the sharp rise in marr iage rat es ; but m any ot hers c ontinue d to work. The count ry faced t h e postwar re conversion peri od with outstanding ease. New suburbs were bui lt on the edge s of cities, th e middle cl ass expande d, and t he de mand fo r labor was l arge, a lthough in the per iod betwee n 1945 and 1947 th e i n flati on a nd food prices rose, and t here was a wave of strik es. T he t r end for ea rly m arriage seen during the war continued, and th e birthrat e notably in creased as well, causing a baby boom. Many servic eme n ha d i deal ized domesticity 65 while being a broad, and people sought s ecurity a f ter the s train of t he war. The y fac ed the future with hope, encoura ged by the booming econom y. The divorce r ate w as slackened. Peopl e tended to b e conformi sts, maybe due to the omnipresent material progress. Thus, domesticity was re affirmed, a nd bei ng chi ldless was conside red de viant and selfish: ha ving a l arge fa mily b ecame a kind of national obj ective (Garraty 794 -795, 853, 872). However, thi s a rrange ment was fa r from being generally satis fact ory. As Rui z P ardos notic es, t he widespread domestic revival was fostered by a wide range of discourses. This famil y ideology posted the ho me as the ultimate shelt er i n a n incre asing ly hostile world and the most s ui table place t o indulge in the comfort s t h at c apitalism afforded (28). Su ch ideology is a t t h e core of the c onception of the nuclear family. However, [b]oth in real life and in fict ional r epresentat ions, the po stwa r US fa mily ideal w as surroun ded by a d ee p sense of su ffoca ting restlessness and barel y contain e d anxiety which see med to be d ee ply rela ted n ot just to the i nner fra gmentation of households b ut als o to t he p osi tion of the nu cle ar un it in societ y at large. (Ru iz Pardos 29 ) The best example of t he anxiety th at grew in fa milies after the war is probably seen in Oat es’s nove l You Must Re member This . 8 Ruiz Pardos cla ims that the nuclear f amily co mpensated this anxiety by means of consumerism: Evolving along with the industria l society, the mod ern nu cle ar f amily derived its socia l stand ing in th e community p reci se ly from its consum ing powe r. Stripped of its h istori cal con tinuity by th e corporat e demand s of mob ilit y, t he isolat ed n uclea r family rea dily c lung t o th e ideal of affluence and spen ding as a mea ns t o e sca pe the growing fe eli ng s of r oo tles sness p laguing it in the postwar years . (Ruiz Pardos 2 9) 8 Hereafter cited in te xt as Must . 72 Nuclea r families are the most common type of families i n the corpus. They are present in Expensive , where Richard lives with his parent s Elwood a nd Nada Everett; in Cart hage , where Ze no a nd Arlette live with the ir da ugh ters Julie t a nd Cressid a; i n t hem , where Loret ta first marri es Howard a nd gives birth to Jules, Maureen a nd Betty; and t he n forms a new nucl ear family for a bri e f period with Furlong a nd the ir son Randolph; in Mulvan eys , the couple Michael and Corinne have four childre n: Mi ke , Pat r ick, Mari anne a nd Judd; in Garden , th e protagoni st’s family of b irth, the Walpoles , is made up of Carleton and Pearl and their children Sharleen, Mike, C lara, Rodwel l and Roosevelt. Revere ’s fi rst marria ge to Margu erite co nstitute s a nu clear fa mily a s well w ith th eir children C lark, J onatha n and Robert. After M arguerite’s deat h, Reve re forms a new nuclear family with Clara and Swan , a s we ll as hi s othe r sons. At t he beginning of W onderland, Jesse’s biologi cal famil y, th e Harte s, i s a lso nuclear: its members are the parents Nancy and Wi llard and Jesse’s s iblings Jean, Shirle y and Bob. Two of Jesse’s adoptive families are nucle ar: the one fo rmed by his unnam ed unc le a nd aunt, who have a son, Fri tz; and the Peders ens, Karl and Mary and t heir childre n Friedrich and Hilda. Late r on, Jesse will form his own famil y, the Vogels, by ma rrying Hele n e and ha ving t wo daughters; Jeanne and Shelley. The nuclear fa mily is a subtype of family f ormed by a he terosexual couple a nd i ts c hildren. In this work, we shall examin e a traditional enac tment of the nuc lea r families which has developed w ithin the patri archa l soci ety (formed by the breadwinner father, the mother/ housewif e a nd the c h ildren), alt h ough not all nuclear families nece ssarily follow this mod el. Kathlee n Gough and C laude Lévi -Straus provide a general descripti on of the fa mil y t hat corresponds rather accurately to our understanding of th e tradit ion a l nuclea r f ami ly. Acc ord ing to Gough, “[t]he family ca n be defined as a m arried couple or a group of adult rela tives who cooperate both economically and in the raising of chil dren and who generally li ve in the same house ” (115). For he r, families a re arti culated a round a set of four main rule s . First, the banni ng of incest and ma rriage between close re lativ es. The e xtension of t his rule va ries dependi ng on t he society. Se cond, t h e cooperation between men and 73 women wit hin a family i s based on a ge nd ered div i sion of work: women take care of the c hildren and the house, wherea s me n work outside t he domestic realm. T he s trictness of th is division also v aries de pending on the cu ltur e. Th ird, marriage is a s ocia lly re cogniz ed relationship betwee n me n a nd women. It is usually lasting (although it does not nece ssarily last indefinitely). This re latio nship is t h e origin of social fathe rhood, a special bond bet ween a man and the chil dren of his wife. Although t his ma n a nd chi ldren are not necessarily biologica lly re lat e d, the general e xpectation is tha t t h ey a re indeed related by blood (of course, Gough refers here to the le gitimac y over the ch ildren). Fourth, men generally ha ve a hi gher status than women a nd hol d a great er degre e of aut hority upon t heir fe male rel ative s. At ti mes, however, ol d women may hav e s ome influence or a uthority upon young men. G ough then admits the e xistence of mat riarch al societ ies, like the hopi in Arizona, but although she r ecognizes that in such matri l ineal societ ies, property, s ocial pos iti on, and belong ing to t he group are inherited through the maternal line, Gough still attr ibutes the ultimate source of power in these matrilin eal soc ieties to men, asserting t hat women simply have more ind ependence t han w omen in patrilineal societies. In sh ort, she de nies that these soci eties a re truly mat r iarc h al (Gough 115 - 117). Lévi -Strauss defi nes the fam ily as be ing originated in a marriage and com posed by husband, wife and their childre n, and sometimes other rela tives as well (17). The mem bers of the f amil y are bond by legal t ies; econom ic, religious and some other type s of rights and obliga tions and a net of sexua l righ ts a nd prohibitions, as well as a certain nu mber of psychological feelings such as l ove, affec t ion, fe ar, respect, e tc. The only e ssentia l re quis ite to create a family so is t he previous existenc e of two fam ilies who will provide a man and a w oman to start th eir ow n famil y, which would const itute the third one, and subs equent ly repeat the proc ess (36). Musitu a nd Herre ro offer a clear de finitio n of the nuclear f amily, arguing t hat i t explicitly assumes that the ba sic and uni versal bonds of the fam ily hav e a biolog ical basis a nd are int egrated into the cultural and soci al levels. They involve the so cially approved satisfaction of sexual and economic nee ds. Nuclear fami lies consti tute a c ooperative 74 unit which is in charge of the survival, c are and education of the childre n (19). In C. P. Stone’s words, t his kind of fa mily is bound togethe r by tight em oti on al bonds and a hi gh degree of domest ic privac y. I t is also concerned by th e raising of chil dren (qt d. in Musitu and Herrero 19). The contemporary concept of nuclear f amily is often at tribut ed to the Victorian p eriod, alt hough ac tually, i t was typical of t he middle - cla ss. E ven a s such, it c o nst ituted m or e a façade than a substantial truth. The ide al Victorian middle -class family consolidate d male power and wealth. It was de signed to c on tain and protect the cap ital of the bourgeois fa milies, with th e su pport of the law. T his was not only justifi ed on moral grounds, but al so romanticized and promoted as desirable for everyone. The growth of l ite racy, media and the librari es contri buted t o pub licize a hi ghly idealisti c notion of ma rriage (Wyk es and We lsh 92-93). As Giddens argues, ro mance s wer e t he f irst form of lite rature t o reach a ma ss popul ation. The idea ls of roman tic l ove disentangled t h e marital bond from wid er ki ndship ties and ga ve it special signific ance . The home a lso s tart ed to be perce ived as a distinct environm ent diffe renti ate d from work, and bec ame a place where individuals could e xp ect emotional s u pport, in c ontrast w ith the instrumental character of the work sett ing (qt d. in Wykes and We lsh 93). The focus on hom e a nd the nuclear famil y serv e d to consolidate patri archa l power over wive s and childre n withi n the pri vacy of t he famil y’s four walls (Wykes and Welsh 93) . Foucault (qt d. in Wyke s and Wel sh 94) argued that the fa mily and sexual discourse was barely prominent prior to t h e eighteenth ce n tury, but t hen be came a pivot al factor in the reorgani zation of popular life that w as necessary for n ineteent h century capi talism. A workforce was neede d to serve th e eme rging e conomy of the nineteenth century, and at t h e same t ime, law and orde r should b e mai ntained. Besides, the use that each indi vidual ma d e of sex was a nother important issue to be considered (W ykes and Welsh 94). Social reproduction was k ey to weal th gene ration, and sexual reprodu ction k ey to produce the next gener ation of weal th produ cer s. Se x had to be re gulated and managed i n ways con du cive to th e needs o f state and capital. Th is 75 invo lve d a dual p roject o f suppo rting app r op ri a te sexu alit y and closi ng down undesir able sexuality. Ce ntral to this was the p romu lgation of the b ourgeois m odel o f marr iage and famil y, as these se rved both capital and patri archy, whilst simultaneously cri minalising, medicalising, imprisoning o r c on cea ling other fo rms o f sexuality. [...] Familia l morality w as s een as essential to a st ron g nation and educati n g t he wo rki ng class es w as a k ey part o f constructi ng that fam ily . (Wykes and Wel sh 9 4, emph asi s in the original) Wome n were k ey to this, as their reprod uctive ro le was empha si zed. There wer e contradictions between the pr evailing moral discourse and the o cc urr ence of practices such a s prostitution and incest. The se contra dictions wer e built up on deep clas s divides around pa tria r chal power. A t the beginning of the twentieth century, f eminists both promote d a more spir itu al love in contr ast with m ale’s sex obsession, and they also struggle d for suffrage (Wykes a nd We lsh 94 -95). In Dangerous Se xualities (1987), F. Mort d iscusses t he male n ess of power in social and sexual stru ctures: Disc ou rse s of sex h ave const ructe d men and women in ter ms o f d iff ere nc e, d ifference shot through w ith pow er rel ation s. Th at insi gh t must p ut t he i ssue of male sexu alit y fir mly on t he polit ical agenda. N ot, l et it be c lea r, men a nd their d esi res as the un ifie d, monolithic op pres sor, the source of a ll power, b ut me n as t hey appear in this hist ory. Men w hose construct ed sexualities, ide ntitie s and pleas ures have b ee n complexl y writte n in to many of t he str uctures of s ocial and poli tical d ominati on . (qtd. i n Wyk es a nd Welsh 95 ) As m entione d, traditional nuclear famil ies origi nated in sid e a patri archa l soci ety. As Ri ch e xplains, patriarchy is a familial -social, ideological , politic al system in whic h men –by forc e, di r ect press ure, ritua l, l aw, l anguage, customs, etiquette, e ducation a nd di v ision of labor– determine what part women must or must not play; a nd in which the femal e i s everywhere subsumed under the mal e. It does not 76 nece ssarily imply that a ll women are powerless , or a di rect tra nsm ission of the fa ther’s pow er into the son ( 57). The nuclear family is presented by patriarc hy a s the most beneficial and harmon ious arr angement for its memb ers. This i s p art of th e reason why “[a ]ny challenge to the tr aditional fa mily struc ture is not us uall y well received, at le ast by m ainstream ideology” (Lee a nd Flys Junquera 15). In this ma nner, strong family units occ upy a key discursive space as the me ans to an orde rly publi c society, whereas fam ily di sfunction, famil y collaps e or single parenting are readily li nk ed to criminalized childre n in popular di scourses ( Wykes a n d We lsh 96). In conclus ion, the fa mily has b een and remai ns a centra l tenet of exp lan ati on for all manner of social p roblems as wi th its ass ump tion that th e ideal n uclear f amily is the solution. [...] Wh at is t aken for granted is the p remis e that id eal nu cle ar family rel ation ships produ ce n ormal girl s and bo ys and consequently m en and wom en , so deviance m ust indicate dy sfunctional fa mily life . (Wyk es a nd Welsh 10 5) However, resea rch de veloped in the United Kingdom has show n tha t much a buse is perp etrated by a male relati ve, an d that most victi ms are little g irls (W yk es and Welsh 106). T h is is de monstrated i n Oate s’s fict ion, as we shall see: the m ost “norma lized,” heterosexual, functional, middle or high cla ss familie s often hide e xp erie n ces of violence, as seen i n E xpensive , where th e protagonist fant asize s with killi ng his mot h er; or in Zombie , which presents an affectionate acc ommodated fa mily whose son is a viol ent sexual predator. This is why Wykes and Welsh warn that [t] he con cept of the n uclea r family remains a p ow erf u l mod el of rom antic comm itment, happy chi ldhood and welc omin g heart hs, even th ough the p erfe ct n uclear family is certainly a my th for m any of us in the twenty -first ce ntury . Indeed, it h as arguably alway s been lit tle more than an id eal , althou gh, non ethel ess, an ideal t hat informs much of We ste rn mora lity, its s ense of stability and value - syste m. What is perhaps most intere sti ng abo ut the conce pt 77 of the model family is h ow per sis tent and pervasive it is, despite th e rea l ity, and how it b ec ame such a do mi nan t aspec t of social and sexual organisati on . (92 ) In this work, the tradition al nuclear f amily shall be interpreted as being formed by three main rol es: t he breadw inner father/husband, the mother/ housewife, and t he c hildren. This he terosexual couple shou ld be marri ed, a nd the chi ldren should be legitimately born inside the marri age. In othe r words, this family has genera lly a biologic al origi n which becomes socially integrated and l egitimized by means o f marri age a nd pro creation. T h is family exhibits a g end ered division of work in which women a re r estricted to t he pri vate space in ord er to assume chil drearing and household re sponsibilities , and i n which m en work in th e public space for a salary. Besides , the father/husband is considered t he head of the f a mily, and a s such, he holds a great degree of aut hority upon his wive and chil dr en. This division according to gender i s justified on the bases of certain discourses that construc t men and women in terms of diffe rence. Theref ore, the se traditional nuclear families orig inate inside a patriarchal society, whi ch presents them as the most bene fici al and harm on ious arrangement (as opposed to other famil y arrangements such a s single pare nting), and as t he gua ra ntee of the safet y and well -being of all its me mbers In summa ry, the patria r chal conc eption of t he fa mily is founded, as we shall s e e i n the corpus, around four bas ic not ions: priv acy, property, protec tion, and gender in equality. Concerni ng the first of these not ions, pri vacy, Parsons def ends a traditional c onception of nuclear f amilie s, which he describes as a n isolate d self-sufficient subs ystem in which t he fath er a nd m other do not depend on ot h er famil ial or external support (qtd. in E veringham 37). Parson’s views are shared by Habe rmas. Femi nist i ntellect uals have chal lenged this conception of a famil y as a s elf -suffic ient system , sin ce they f eel that Parsons’s vision ignores the reality th at the raising of a child takes plac e i n a social sphere ; a nd a ss umes a s normal what is act ually pathological: that so me parents are i solated from the community. Th is criticism focus es on t wo mai n points. First, i t is cent ered a round the c onsideration that t h e aut onomous family unit is a political and economi c construct ion which requ ires a c ontinuous 78 institutional support to maintain this app arent a utonomous status. In contra st, Habermas perceives the intervention of the state as a restriction to t he aut onomy of indi viduals withi n a fa mily. Sec ond, the nucle ar fa mily has a strong bond to rel atives, fri ends, and ot her commu nal forms of social organizatio n, and it is sti ll women’s responsibility to keep t hese bonds, whose e xistenc e has bee n dimini shed a nd e ven qu e stioned by Ha berma s (Eve r ingham 37 -38, 158). Thus, the total isolation of the nuc lea r family has been quest ioned, but actually, it remains one of i ts central ideals. O’Driscoll makes a fundame ntal observation regarding t he relative isolated status of families. Accord ing to her, th e fact that families ar e priva te an d autonomous institutions considerably l ibe rates them fro m the scruti ny of those who are not part of the rela tionship. W ithi n broad limits, parent s a re at liber ty to decide what is go od for thei r child re n and how to obt ain it. Family a ctivities are legitim at ely removed from pub lic view, knowledge and cont rol (85). This privac y, as suggested, sometimes conceals familial violen ce from the public view, a s B arnett et a l. explain in t h e introduction t o their b ook Family V iolenc e Ac ross the Lifespan (xi x). In W ykes a nd We lsh’s view, “[f]amil y ideals include privac y a nd sanctity, r eal and metaphoric, inhi biting effort s, real or represente d, t o ac cess a nd cha ng e famil y, l et alone deal with men’s violences the rein ” (162 -163). This i s p erceived in t he c orpus in the in cestual rape of a child i n Garden and in t he hidden psychological violence in Wonderland . This privacy thus hin ders a possible interve ntion to pro tect the victims. The sec ond central not ion related to the n uclea r patri archal family is property. Property is understood in two senses: the lit eral one (wealth) a nd a metaphorical one (possess ing ot her people.) First, as Irigara y affi rms in an intervi ew c ompiled i n “W omen -Mothers: T he Silent Subsystem,” t he family i s t he origi n of privat e property, and the law of the propert y owner (50). Rich agree s with this state ment: s he considers that the i dea of prope rty a nd the de sire to see on e’s property transmitted to one’s biologi cal descendants i s pl ace d in the individual famil y unit within a p atriarchal stru cture ( 60). P roperty is t hen c entered around the father /husband, as Rich argues: 79 At this crossroad of sexual po sse ss io n , prop ert y own ers hip, and the desir e to transce nd d eat h, developed the institution we kno w: th e present-day patri archal family with i ts supernatura lizing of the p enis, its divis io n of labor by g ender , its emotional, phy sic al, and materi al po sse ss iveness, its ideal of th e monogamous marr iage un til deat h (and its se vere penalti es for adu lte ry by the wife) , the “illegitimacy” o f a child bo rn o utside wedlock, the ec on omic dependency of w omen, the unpaid do mestic ser vices of the wife, t he obedience of women and c hildren to male a utho rity, the im printing and com bination of heter osexual roles. (60 -61) The questions of propert y a nd poss ession a re prevalent in t he corpus, where fa thers a nd sons yea rn to dominate their wive s and mothers, especially in the early nove ls. The later works, such as B ird , show a more de mocra tic bond within the family circle. The third f actor th at defin es the nuclear f amily is their s upposed adhere nce t o the protection of its members , a c haracteristic n oticed by Musitu and Herrero (19). Nis bet argues tha t kinship was for a ve ry long time human’s only form of social organization, and the only ne xus betwee n the indi vidual and nature. I t was the indis pensable protection agai nst the uncertainties of lif e (xi x-xx). T hus, one of th e basic reas ons why human beings a re incli ned t o unite and form groups is gaining protec tion from extern al dangers and viole nce. As S ofsky puts it, [l] a sociedad no se fun da ni en un impulso irre sistible de socia bilidad ni en necesidade s labo rale s. Es la experi encia de la v iolencia la q ue une a los hombres. La so ci edad es u n apara to de p rotección mutu a. Ella pon e fin a la libertad absoluta. En adela nte, n o todo est ará p ermit ido. [... ] L a ocasi ón y el motivo de la sociali zación es el miedo que sie nten los ho mbre s unos de otros. [...] Esta con fianza en qu e la prop ia i ntegridad no se verá a menaza da e s uno de los pilares insustituibles de la v ida soci al. En ella se suste nta l a c apaci dad de cambiar de perspectiv a, la f e e n el futuro d el m undo y el inter cambio de palabras y g est os. Sólo la re nuncia a la violencia, sólo el c on tra to que ob liga 80 al respeto recípro co cre a la con dición de posibili dad de la vida social . (8 - 9) Although Sosfky re fers to society, hi s a ppreci ation c ould be extended to one of the basic groups that compose our socia l structur es, the family, which a s c ommented, often exhibits h igh degrees of violence. Thus, paradoxi cally, families a r e born to ga in protection from th e experi ence of viole nce; but, despite this origin, violence al so c ommonly explodes within families, a s see n in the c orpus. As Straus a nd Steinmetz a rgue , “the family is the most physically violent group or institution that a typical citizen is l ikely t o e n counter” (qtd. i n Stark and Flitcra f t 297). According to Margol in e t a l., t he family is the tra ining ground for violence, since i t i s the setting where many people first experien ce physical vi olence. There are value s of l ove and ha rmony re lated to the fami ly, but a lso norms that permit some o f i ts members to be violent towards others (for instance, for the sake o f raising a child) (98). As A mme rman e t al. , a nd Fontes and McCloskey suggest, it i s not easy t o ide ntify f amily viol ence, first of all, be cause i t i s a priva te issue. According t o Fonte s and McCloskey, t he cul tural imperative in Western industrialize d n ati ons is oft en to s tay out o f a family’s private bus iness; there fore, the violence against women during marria g e is heavi ly influe nced by the nu c lea r fa mily a rr angement of th e m ale/fema le hete rosexual dyad in one relatively isola ted household. T his viole nce becom es visible onl y if it spill s out into t he wide r family or c o mmunity. A wea lthy fa mily is l ikely t o have even greater priv acy, a nd this is th e reason why violenc e in l ower soc ioec onomic st atus comes to th e atte ntion of authorities more easily: wealt h buys privacy . And so, the common beli ef that violence doe s not oc cur in upper class fa milies is not a ccurate (158). Secondly, according to Amme rma n et al., most victims do not disclose the abuse bec ause they fe ar retribution, dissolution of the fami ly, the negat ive e ffects of t he abuser l eaving the house (e.g., financ ial loss), e tc. Th is f ear is especially sensed by childre n or elder peopl e, who mig ht b e afraid of losing the economic su pport a nd care tha t they receive, des pi te the f act that i t can be insufficie n t. Th irdly, t he effects of violenc e are not a lways visibl e (as i t is the c ase with psychol ogical maltreatm ent). Besides, th e abuses are rarel y di rectly witnessed (4 -5). T he three diffic ulties of i denti fy ing 81 famil y violence are paten t i n the psycholog ical violence i n Wonderland , for instance . Finally, the traditional nuclear family exhibits a blatant gende r inequa lity among its members, by which the mother/wife and the childre n a r e subjec t t o the father/husband. Besides, the mot her a nd fathe r have social roles clearly def ined a nd prescri bed by soci ety. As Parsons asserts, the mot h er’s role is “ expressive,” that is, highl y personali zed and emotional, focused on ma intaining t h e famil y’ s internal re lationships. The father’s role is the i nstrumental axis, focused on his bre adwinning functi on and functioning a s a link between the famil y and the society (qtd. in E v eringham 37). Mor eover, the wife is expec ted not onl y to b ear children, but a l so to serve h er husband’s sexual nee ds, indep endently of her opinion. From this, w e may infe r that, as Wykes and W elsh argue , the family is a te chno logy of power wit h sex at its centre. It op er ates to support and legitimat e hegemo nic masculi nity by appro priat ely plac ing wo men and children i n re lation to that and cal ling al l men t o co mply. That pro ce ss is un derwrit ten b y the stat e because the family is a lso a mechanis m o f socia l control and o rder ing . ( 162-1 63) Indeed, as Wykes and W elsh poi nt out, th e te rm family com es from the Lat in famulus ( “servant”), and in fact wom en us ed t o be subje ct to their husbands not only lega lly a nd economically, but also physical ly, since they were gr ante d sexual intercourse at an y time (32) . As s uggested, the traditional n ucl ear family has an extrem ely ri g id role division ba sed on gender. Accordi ng to Eve r ingham , Wright, a nd Brannon, c urrent g ender st ereotypes c an b e traced ba ck t o the Vict orian conce ptualizations of th e nineteenth ce ntury. T he Indus trial R e volution change d the lives of peop le in Europ e and N orth Ameri ca: men l eft t h e house to e arn mon ey and wom en sta y ed a t home with the chil dr en. Men and women ha d to a dapt to this unpreced ented situ ation i n hi story by crea ting new patterns of be havior. These c hanges produc e d t wo beliefs: the Doctrin e of the Two Spheres and th e Cult of T rue Wo manhood. O n the one h and, the Doc trine of the Two Spheres asserts that me n and women ha ve s eparate areas of influence and inte rests: for wom en, t hese 88 instead of i nterest or c ompetence as i n othe r social gr oups. Sec ond, there are c onflictive normativ e expectat ions within a family about violence, but there are long -st anding implied ri ghts or obli g ati ons to use force on family members by, usually, husbands. Third, c ommitment to famil y makes it difficult to aba ndon a situation of viole nce at home, especially i n the c ase of legal, moral, financial a nd affective commitme n ts. Fourth, most families are characterized by emotional involvements which c omplic ate even further the experience of viole nce . Fifth, fam ily vi olence has tra ditiona lly bee n considered a private matter. Sixth, the fa mily is a highly stressful unit due to its inhe rently unstable nature (qtd. in O’Le a ry 36). A notabl e characteristic of violence is that, de spite the multiple forms it may adopt , it is usual for several types of violence to occ ur simulta n eously, especially in ca ses of i ntrafamilial violence. Barnett et al. h ighlight the blurred limits of family violence: “ v iolent families rarel y ‘specializ e’ i n one form of violence. Husbands who physica lly assault their wives, for exa mple, are likely t o psychologic ally mistrea t and eve n rape them” (276). Similarly, c oup les who are viole nt wit h each other tend to be violent towards thei r children, and t hese c hildren would commonl y b e aggre ssive among them too (Barnett et a l. 276). Since th ere are considerable differences be tween these typ es of conduct , they sh all be conside red individ ually i n th eir c orresponding section, which focus es on the ir particular causes and c onsequ ence s a s well as the pr ecise chara cteristics of aggressors and survivors. However, violence has a ser ies of general consequences. Ther e are two basic consequen ces of vi olence for i t s s urvivors, who may (particularly in ca ses of rape) tend to suffer from guilt, es peci ally self -blam e, and t o identi fy themselve s as objects to be used and abused. Janoff -Bulman (qtd. in De Z ulueta 207) distinguishes two t ypes of guilt . The first type of guilt , “behavioural self-blame,” implies th at survivors blame themsel v es for their own behavior lead ing up to the a ssault. T his restores a sense of control ove r their fut u re l ives, since t h ey fe el that they can take mea sures to protect the mselves better if they are attacked agai n. The second type of guilt is called “char acterological self -blame,” and involves attr ibutions t o one’s enduring personal ity c haracteristics. 89 It is ma ladaptive, t h at i s, t he survivor focu ses on the past, ponderi ng if she/he deserved the attack. Th is reaction affect s the survivor’s self of sense, a nd oft en implies th e id entificatio n with t h e a ggr essor, as, for instance , in cases of c hild sexua l abuse. The second effe ct of violence is that i t ofte n causes survivors to feel a s obj ect s t o be used or a bused (De Zulue ta 17). This ha s negative e ff ect s ove r the ir sense of self -worth. More specifi call y, acc o rding t o Straus, one of the unintended consequenc es of experiencing vi olenc e in t he family i s t he association of love with viole nce. T h e ab used person learns that those who love her/hi m t he most are a lso those w ho harm her/hi m a nd have the r i ght to do i t. Anoth er unintended conseque nc e i s the lesson tha t w hen something is really important, it justifies t he use of physical v iole n ce (qtd. in Ma rgolin et al. 98). Joyce Ca rol O ates has cons tantly faced ac cusations of writi ng fict ion tha t is e x cessively vi o lent. She has always refused to adm it this, and she asserts that in descri b ing such events, she i s just reflecting t he real ity tha t we experie nce everyday: I don’t acce pt charges that I am un duly viole nt in my writi ng . Mo st of my novels a nd storie s ar e explorations of the con temporary wo rld inte rpret ed i n a rea list mo de, from what mig ht b e call ed a tragic and humanistic viewpo int. Tragedy alway s upholds the human spirit b eca use it i s an exploration of human nature in ter ms of its st reng ths. On e simply canno t know st rengths unless suffe ring, misfort un e, and violence a re e xp lored quite f rank ly by the write r. [... ] Sin ce a pp roxima tely 1965 I h ave s et my self th e tas k, in bot h novels and s hort storie s, of exploring contemporary societ y on many level s. My fo c us has b een a cl ose examinati on of the sou rce s of po wer. The politic al and economic m ilie u; professions like medicine, the law, and most recentl y educati on and re ligion; a nd, to some extent, th e p redic ament o f the young and of women —all these h ave fascinat ed me. (Oate s “Interview. b ” Con ver sations with Joyce 1 06) There for e, she d efends t h e pre sen ce of vi olence in he r fiction by describing it as a re flection of a n external re ality. As she ha s a ffirme d, 90 “[w]hen people say there is too much vio lence in Oates , what they are saying is there is too much reality in li f e” (“ Eme rg ence” 90). 91 2 PARENTS This chapt er introduc es the discussion of family role s by taking as a depart ing point the transition to parenthood as w ell a s parenti ng styles. At the s ame time , i t s erves t o introduce some of th e m ain qu e stions that will be dealt with in the following c h a pters, such a s the roles of m others, fathe rs and children and their correspondi ng subsys tem s; rol e conflicts and obl igations; iss ues of poss essiveness and contr o l, loss, violence , food and langua ge; the search for ide ntity; the dichot o my be tween body and m ind; gender and patriarchy, e tc. The theoretical fra mework is composed by works by the philosophers Mikhail Bakhtin a nd Luce Irigara y, t h e psychiatrist Carl Solom o n, and the resea rchers on devel opmental ps ychology White and Woollet, among oth ers. The t ransition to parenthood is a key trans ition for the family tha t shall be ana lyzed by t aking into account the ca se of Jess e a nd Hel ene in Wonderland , since they offe r the most de tailed account of this process in t he c orpus. Additionally, we shall me nti on some other works in order to provide a more exhaustive analysis. According t o Binda a nd Cr ippa, t h e relati onship betwee n a couple becom es more defi n ed with the birt h of a c hild than it was at the moment of th e formation of the coupl e. A perm anent bond is formed among them, and the y become a par ental couple (117 -118). In Carthage , we lea rn that Z eno loves h is wife even more after the birth of the ir da ughters; and i n Won de rland , ha ving c h ildren was one of Jesse’s mos t im portant life goals. Becom ing a parent, Palacios Gonzále z ref lect s (78-79, 81-83), i s a differe nt expe rience for every person. In ge neral , it ma rks the be ginning of a period of uneven l ength whic h c arries c hanges that a ffect diverse area s. Above al l, i t i mplies the adaptation to a situa tion that arise s importa nt demands and requires t he adoption of new roles. It al so brings change s to da ily h abits, and impacts on both self -concept and self - esteem . Most of the changes caused b y the arri v al of a baby are 92 experi mented in a negative ma nner, such a s a lte r at ions of sleep hours, free time, sexual habits, time for the couple or fr iends, a nd mone y expenses; but t here a re al so positi v e traits associat ed to ha v ing a bab y: crea tion of emotion al bonds de rived from the con tact with the baby, feel ings of personal fulf illm ent, fe elings of fa mily cohesion, the social worth of childre n, as well as feeling like a true adult, maturing, providing sense to one’s life, etc. The bi r t h of a child im plies t hat t he only dyad woman - man of t he nucle ar fami ly bec o mes a t riadic rela tionship: mother-fa ther-child. There might be other combinations i n other types of famil ies involv ing, for instance, s ame -sex p arents, single parent s or othe r c aregive rs. In a ny c ase, t h e family, ind ependently of its configura tion, is amp lified by the additi on of a child. The b irth of a child consti tutes t h en an im portant step towards adulthood, a s Bi nda and Crippa concl ud e (124), but the corpus show s that not a ll pare nts m ature by havi ng offspring. For instance, Loretta, in them , re mains a rather ch ildish and non c hala nt person despite having childre n. Pare n thood doe s not only a ffect the pare nts but the whole exte nded fam ily: it can enhance the qual ity of the coup l e’s rela tionship and lead to closer ties to o ther family m e mbers. C hildren help to create new s ocia l networks, and new interests and activities. They m ay validate t h eir pa rents’ status and ensure p arent s’ a cceptanc e withi n the famil y and as responsible me m b ers of the com munity. At the same time, childre n are contemplate d as costl y : they can be fina n cially, soc ially and e moti on all y draining. T hey a lso re strict pare nts’ activities a nd the ir time together, as well as disrupti ng estab lished rout ines and reduci ng parent s’ opportunities to pursue their own int erests. They can al so be a source of anxiety for par ents. Moreover, chi ldren i ncrease th e amount of work that nee ds to be done, and this may generate conflicts, as a study by J. Bus fiel d has proved (White and Woollett 16 -17, 24, 25). A recurrent ep isode in Oates’s work is the children’s f ascination with the ir paren ts’ past a s a childless unma rried coup le. Children are possibly astonished to realize t hat t h eir par ents had t h eir own indepe ndent li fe and relat ionship be fore they were born, a s i f it were a kind of secre t life t hey do not know much a bout. But i n f act , this bond can often explain the ki nd of rel ationship the y ho ld later a s a m arried 93 couple a nd as pa rents. Th is fa scination w i th parental life is sha red by Oates herself: No romance is so profound and so enduring as the romance of e arl y chil dh ood. The year ning we f ee l through o ur li ves for o ur young, att ractive, and my ste riou s p are nts —who were so p hy sic all y close to u s and y et, apart from u s, inacc ess ible and unknowable. Is th is t he v e ry origin o f “romance ,” coloring and det ermining all th at is to follow in ou r life times ? ( Lost 8) She asserts t hat h er writing i s i n part an at tempt to memorialize her parent ’s vanished world: “sometimes di rectly, somet ime s in metaphor.” For i nstance , she mentions t hat t h e novel Marya: A Life 10 is a m ixture of her mothe r’s e arly life and her own adolescence a nd young adult experi ence (Oa tes “ Conversations” 178). The yearning of c hildren for their young p arent s i s materia lized in Oates’s work i n a recurre nt scene of a child finding a phot ograph of her/hi s pare nts and staring at it in fascination. Ther e ar e several instance s of th is in the corpus. In the revis ed version of Garden , Swan, who is terribly troubled about hi s re al origi ns, fi nds a photograph of h is mother Clara w ith his ste pf athe r Revere on thei r wedding d ay. Swan was a s mal l c hild when Cl ara and Rev ere g ot married, s o he is intrigued about what Rev ere’s f amily knows a bout hi s mo ther’s p ast. Furthermore , after Z oe’s murder in Bird , h er son Aaron finds a s tack of photographs in her room he hadn ’t wante d to see , yes but he’d looked, there wa s Delra y K rulle r seated on h is Harle y -Davidson l ooking yo ung as [Aar on ] had n ever seen him, long str aggly dark hair and dark-tinted gla sses and a ci garette i n h is mo uth […] and i n the croo k of h is ar m a blo nd gir l, had to b e Zoe look ing y oung as a high school girl which was possibly what she’ d been i n that long -ago ti me before Krull was bo rn. ( Bird 314) 10 Hereaft er cited in te xt as Marya . 94 Aaron is gl impsing a wor ld that e x isted befor e he was born, a nd this capt ivates him: he ba rely rec ognizes his m other in the ima g e. For Aaron, who ne eds to com e to terms with Z oe’s deat h, the discove ry of the photogra ph adds m isery to his troubled sta te of mind, bec ause the young girl from th e image has been brut ally murd ered. Aaron h as an ambiguous relati onship wi th h is mo ther due to his ne ed to i n tegrate hi s intimate f amilial bond to he r with her public pe rsona as the singe r of a music band, a s th e next chapter describes. Perhaps one of the reasons for this fascina tion of children is trying to fi nd out how t hey have altered their pa rents’ l ives a nd how important they are to them. The fear of not being loved by one ’s parents, or not loved enough, is present throughout the corpus , m a inly in Exp ensive , where Richard i s morti f ied by his m o ther’s abandonme n ts; and in Mulvane ys , where the fa mily disintegrates after t he daughter is ra ped. In Expensiv e , t h e narrat or’s obsess ion about findi ng out if he is loved by his par ents leads hi m to c onstantly spy on them . As we sha ll see, Richa rd’s memoir attempts to discover his mothe r’s t rue nat ure a nd to come to terms with her me mory. In Mulvaneys , Patric k Mulvaney is also anguished a bou t this: The te rrifying poss ibility c ame to Pat rick: our live s are no t ou r own but in th e posses sion o f ot hers, o ur p are nts. Ou r lives a re defined b y the wh ims, capric es, cruel ties of others. Th at genetic web, the tie s of blood. It was the o ldest curse , o lder than God. A m I loved? Am I wa nted? Who will want me, if m y parents don’t? ( Mu lv aneys 233, emphasis in th e original) Patrick i s consc iously addressing here a primal fear: re jection, a nd the possibility of loneliness and loss derived from it. Families were initially crea ted as a form of protec tion a g ainst ha r m, and thus it i s terrif ying t o be excl ud ed from tha t protec tion; as wel l a s to be deprive d from the feel ing of belonging to the group. Furthe r more, t h e “b lood ties” bond people in differen t di rections, and so, if children are conditioned by their parents’ choi ces, pa rents are simil arly conditione d by t he de cisions their c hildren m ake. The quo te r efers as w ell to th e quest ion of possess iveness bet ween pare n ts and childr en, whic h will be an alyzed i n 95 the following ch apte rs. Patrick Mulv aney’s feeli ngs in t he pre vi ous quotati on recall Jesse’s a nxiety in Wonderland : he is c onstantly r ejected by his pare ntal figures (spec ifically, father figures), whic h bring s a grea t distress to him. He is absolutely dedicat ed to the kind of ide n tity tha t Solomon describes as verti cal, that is, to the t raits that he has directl y adopte d from his parent s, and this has tragi c conseque nces, because he event ually develops a poss e ssive attitude tha t provok es a n enor mous dama ge to hi s own rel ationship wit h his wife and hi s c hildren. In fa c t, all these examples prove how the na ture and qua lit y of the parents’ rela tionship within the mot h er -father subsys tem does not only have an impact on their sa tisfaction with one ano ther a s part n ers and parents; but it i s also significan t for chil dren, si nce a good rela tionship betwe en parent s provides a se cure base for them ( White and Woollett 5). Finding these photographs, then, might have diverse effects . In the case of Swan, the phot ograph i s a symbol of his questioning of hi s mother’s pa st, whic h in t ime wil l lead to hi s wonderi ng about hi mself; while for Aaron, i t is a painful remai nd er of the unexpected l oss of his mother. Bu t it is in Wonderland that the impact of the pare nts ’ rela tionship on their children can be e xplored with special intensity since the nov e l offers a mos t complete p anorama of t h e differ ent stag es lea ding to parenthood : it foll ows Jesse’s progress from c hildhood, when he was ma inly a son in sea rch of a father, to adul thood, when he becom es a possessive f a ther in se arch of a lost da ugh ter. Thi s devel opment is possible thanks to his rel ationship wit h Helene first as a dat ing couple, then as a married one. 2.1 D ATING C O UPLE S : H ELE NE AND J ESS E I N W ON DERLA ND The development of a stabl e relation wit h a nother adult oft en im plies intimac y and mut u ality, which usually requires an e motiona l comprom ise as we ll as a good communic ation . F rom an e volutionary point of vie w, the identity that has been constructe d in adolescen ce make s an alli ance with anot h er ide ntity, and they bot h shar e not on ly a daily -based relationship, but al so a project for the ir future in c ommon. And so, t hese adults hav e now comm on b iographies instead of separ ate ones. A new evolutionary ph ase begins. In deed, the access to the status of “adult” is def ined by a series of psychological and soc ial t raits t hat 96 act as an indication, such as the intimacy of relationships defin ed by affec tive com pro mise, mutu ality and s ta bi lity (Pal acios Gonzá lez 75 - 76). Juliet and Br ett fro m Carthage ar e a good e xample, at f irst, of how a couple p lans the ir fu ture tog ether, beca use th ey e xhibit good communication s kills and a high level of compromi se. They also spend qualit y time togeth er a nd confide their feelings to each o ther. Besides, they know each other’s families. T h eir adol escent id ent ities hav e mature d and solidified int o a c ommon project for th e future: they plan to get ma rried and hav e chil dr en. In this m anner, the y are creati ng a common biography. However, t heir pla ns ne ver come true because Brett, influenced by George W. Bush gove r nme nt’s c ampaign of propaganda in favor of attack ing Iraq in 2 003, voluntarily enlists in the army a nd is sent to the war. This decision does not o nly alt er his whole life, but also eve n tually destroys his future pl ans with Juliet , and eve n their relations hip. Additionally, it has an impa ct as well on the subsequent disappea rance of Juliet’s sister, Cre ssida, and results in his being a ccused of her m anslaughter and im prisoned. 2.1.1 Control and Possessiveness In contra st with Juliet and Brett’s relati ons hi p, w hich fails because of the i n terfe renc e of violence i n i t as a consequence of Brett’s experi ences in t he war, Hel ene a nd Jesse in Wonde rland deve lop from a dating couple to m arriage and then to parenthood in a relations hip always ma rked by Jesse’s obsession w ith control and possess ivene ss. In fa ct, Jesse s tart s t o show sympt oms of t his possessiveness with his first fianc ée, Anne-Marie: he s uspects th at she ha s an affai r with one of his frie nds, “Trick” Monk, and is t erribl y je alous a bout t his highl y impl ausible poss ibility. They eventually b reak up their engagement. As we shall e xplain in more detail in the cha pter “Children,” Jesse’s pe rsonal relat ionships are i nfluenced by his obsession with achi eving s peci fic lif e -goa ls in order to compensate for his l ack of a perma nent parental figure in his l ife, as well as by th e t raum atic violence he has witness ed during the mur der -suicide of his biological famil y. As a consequence, Jess e is extremely individua listic: he possess es an isolate d ego (he avily criticiz ed in the nove l) who believes 97 itself omnipotent and i s de af to t he v oices of t hose around him (especially h is daughter a nd wife) and to other r ealities that are not rela ted to hi s inte rests (basically, his scie ntific profe ssion). This tende ncy, linke d to his obsession with cont rol, ma k es Jesse’s personal rela tionships ex t reme ly di sturbed. He can only ta ke his own personal goals i nto c onsideration : opening a private clinic, c reating hi s own famil y and having a son. When he m eet s Helene Cady, Jes se consi ders t h a t she c an b e t he perfec t mot h er for h is Self -Created Family System. Helene is t he daughte r of one of Jesse’s te achers, an acc laimed and Nobel -pri ze winner doctor, Dr. Cady, whom Jes se greatly admires. Upon meet ing her, Jesse feels att r acted by “he r still, i ntelligent, l istening body” ( Wonderland 245). T h is ref erence to her listening and still body hint s at he r submissiveness t oward him: in fact, she will ha ve c hildren upon Jesse’s insistence . From the be ginning, Jess e’s a ttitude toward h er is tinged with possessiveness: signi f ica n tly, when he t akes h er ha nd, his finger s move restlessly around the engagement ring he has given h er. Above all, Hel ene represents the be g inning of a new life for Jesse, the most r eal poss ibility of sta bility that he has ever fou nd. However, the communication betwe en t hem is strained: Hele n e is reserved t oward him; and Jesse never ment ions his violent past to her, but only explains that his fami ly has di ed i n a n ac cident instead of admitting t hat they h ad been killed in a murder-suicide. Jess e li es to her effortless ly, and this is anothe r sympt om of the separation a nd la ck of comm un ication th at exists between the couple from the very be ginning. As Daly argues, Jesse is ce nsoring the me mory of his biological fa mily’s death, and refusing to recognize its communal and tragic im plications. Similarl y, Jesse wants to block the realities of fl esh, as we shall soon de scr ibe (57 - 58). Helene ’s a nd Jesse’s reserve does not mean t hat the y do not apprec iat e a nd love each ot her, but t heir relatio nship is construct ed more upon an abstract image of what t h ey im agine a spouse t o be (based on the ir ge nder pre judic es and pa tria rc hal assumptions a bout t he nucle ar family) than upon the r eal knowl edge of their p artner. T hus, when they vi si t an e xperimenta l fa rm where bl oody studies with sheep are c arried out, Jesse tr ie s t o shelte r Helene from the cruel images that 104 not dar e to do so because “ it would not look right” in his stepf ather’s eyes ( Garden 328). As D. B. Lynn c laims, boys le arn to b e men prima rily through learning not t o be wome n , whereas girls ca n learn direc tly how to be women by observing readil y available female role models (qtd. in Herek 76). This does not mea n that women c an ea si ly find the se mod els, as we shall see in the n ext cha p ter. As S nider a dds, [t] he h ea vy misogyny f ound in m ale identity formation is too w idespre ad, cultural ly and h ist orica lly, to be wholly ac cid ental . Blatant rejection of femininity and an exaggerat ion of male-female d iffere nces is a primary component of virtuall y every known male subculture (including tho se am ong g ay men) […] B ut there is n o reason to su ppose that the nee d to cre ate identities that ar e distinct ively d iffere nt from wo men’s implies a need to hate, d evalue, or d ominat e wom en. The latter a re nece ssary comp on e nts o f patria rchy, n ot mas culinity. (Snider 167) The corpus prove s t hat mi sogyny is l earnt both at ho me and in l arger social groups , wher e as Rich argues, boys are t aught t o hate and scorn the places in thems elve s wher e they iden tify with wom en (xxxvi). As a tee nager, J esse witne sses misogynistic c omments and behaviors at home from, for insta n ce, his stepfather Dr . Pedersen: “W omen ca nnot conce ntrat e. Eve n gifted women, even wome n singled out for exce ptional histories, c annot concentrate. Is thi s why they are so charm ing?” ( Wonderland 107). When his daughte r Hilda protests alle ging t hat she ca n concent rate, he answers that even he r, wi th her enormous talent, m ust be disciplined. This paternalistic attitude is exte nded t ow ards his wife, t o whom he is bot h pat ronizing and psychologic ally abusive. There for e, Jess e is t aught that women are inferior to men, often inca pable of an intellectua l capacity that m easures up to that of men; and that th ey are essentially ch armi ng cr eatures that must be adm ired for thei r beauty: 105 The females s eemed to Jesse me re lov ely ani mal li fe [… ] and h e, Jes se P edersen, a po i nt o f scr utiny ins ide the fie ld of th eir mo v ement, an in tel ligence to g ive direct ion to their energy, shar ing in t he i n cidenta l touch of t heir fl esh by t he men. Their skin was so te nd er, so sweet, i t mi gh t be str etched ou t sea ml essly for hu nd reds of yards, lacking identity, b elo ng ing to any o f them… ( Wonder land 164 - 165) He ass ocia tes women t o animals, a com parison that also rend ers the inequa lity b etween men and women: if women are l ike animals, t hey are inferior a nd wild beings t hat ha ve to be t amed, t aught, a nd ev en owned by a ma le. But as Snider concludes, [i] t shou ld, it must be possible to find ways o f being m anly that are n ot m isogynou s and do not require the repr ession of every human emotio n except anger. It sh ou ld no t be nece ssary to d enigrate male sexuality or insist that it b e de nied to address mi sogyny or as sa ult, but it i s es sential to diffe rentiate the sex drive from the need to do minate. To un derst and th e limit s as well as the p otential f or chang e it is useful to exami ne t he dec line and fall of tr ad itional male spheres of actio n. (165, e mph asis in the o rigin al) Jesse inde ed associate s his sex drive to hi s ne ed to dom inate women, especially, when he lusts for Reva Denk but at the same time often visualizes himself hurting her. His wis h to separa te from women makes him perc e ive them as the Other: “women were always surprises, anything could come out of the ir bodies…” ( Wonderland 316). Ac cording to Daly (57), Jesse fears women bec ause he i s a fraid of l osing his power inside of t heir bodies, which he pe rceives as “ a socke t of p ure power that would suck him into it and charge him with its stre ngth —asking nothing of him but the surrender and c ollapse of all of his bone s, the bl acking -out of his consciousness” ( Wonde rland 229). As anti cipated, Jesse do es not li st en t o the voic es of o thers, parti cularly, of women. T h is refu sal i s conveyed in Wond erland by 106 mea ns of two picture s that Jesse sees scribbled on publ ic toilets. The first drawing, s een at th e beginning of th e nove l, has be en m ade by two persons with different mark ers. The fi rst a rtist has drawn a woman’s body seen from the bo ttom up, with s pread legs and a he ad as “ small as a pea” ( Wond erland 35-36). T he second a rtist has superi mposed a closed box th at rese mbles a bu i lding ov er the body of a woman and has shaded t he s pace bet ween t he l egs in th e form of a re ctangle resembling a door. In Daly’s opinion, i n the fi rst pict ur e, the size of the hea d is a sort of revenge upon the power of woman’s wombs. It portrays the body from outside, aggressive ly, distorting it: the body b ecome s males’ building m ate r ial , and it is de nie d a v oice. Th e second artis t, by superimposing a buil ding over the wo man, establishes himself as woman’s archit ect; and (as in the c ase of the first artist) her body as his building material, hi s propert y. Jesse c onsiders the pictures nightma ris h, and thi nks tha t one coul d become lost int o tha t black space betwee n the woman’s l egs, whic h acc ord ing to Daly ind icates Jesse’s fear of wome n. In time , Jesse will master this fear, l ike t he artist of the superimposed pict ure (51). Besides, the second picture i ncl ud es a door in the pla ce of th e womb that appears to gran t acc ess to a new dimension, as we shall soon e xplain. The second picture fro m the toi let, seen by an a dult Jesse, i s a womb dra wn wit h a t iny ey e a t i ts cen ter. According to Daly, the artist has placed the “I” wi thin th e womb, which may be in terpreted a s Jess e seeking c ontr ol over the womb, a s many other fathe rs of this nove l do (66). Indee d, Jesse trie s to i nscribe himself in the bodies of the wome n h e relate s with : Helene , R eva and Shelley. As Dal y e xplai ns, Jesse eventually learn s to ma ster hi s fear of women’s bodie s: the first toilet p icture distorts the f emale body and make s a prop erty claim ov er it; similarly, J esse transforms his fear into entitlement by considering himself superior to wome n. As a result , Jesse’s re lati onship wi th Helene c an be s umma rized in the fo llowing words, which e voke his m edical profess ion: for him, his wife h as “[c]ool , smooth flesh. It was subordinate to him, and yet separate f rom him” ( Wonderland 420). Jesse will live with her as her husband and even h ave two daughters with her, but a s w e shall see he neve r considers 107 Helene his equal: he shares t h e t radition al association of women t o nature that r educes them to their b iological capacity for giving birth. There for e, Jesse c annot form a deep bond to his wife, despite the fact that he initially tries to do so. Part o f thi s wi sh for conne ction is rathe r egoi stical, a nd stem s from h is need for a ssistance in i nfusing mea ning int o hi s l ife. As we wil l re p eat edly not ice, Jesse finds enormous diffic u lties when constructing his pe rsonalit y and when trying to assume his pa st traumatic e xpe riences. Considering that he cannot confront th ese issues on his own, h e relies on ot hers to help him to overc o me hi s traumas and c onstru ct his ide ntity. This contrast s with his future attitude of autonom y from others: we coul d a ssert that he take s ad vantage of the m in times of ne ed. In this pa rtic ular case, he searche s in other pe ople the language t hat h e ne eds t o ma ke sense of his tragic past. Parti cularly, Jesse e xp ect s t o f ind in his wife (and lat er on, in Reva ) the exac t words that wo uld explain h is lif e. But h e did not kn ow them. He use d words s hyly, c rudely. It r emained f or someone el se—a wo man, p erhaps—to draw th es e sa cred words o ut of him, to j ustif y him, re deem him a s Jesse—h e could no t crea te them h imsel f. N ot al on e. ( Wonderland 370) However, Jesse’s verbal communication with Hele n e is so poor that this strategy fails. He c oncludes that he ha s ma rried “a kind of silence” ( Wonderland 370), not realizing tha t he also has a role in that silen ce, beca use h is communicative skills a r e very l imite d too. In any ca se, the only me ans that he finds of connecti ng with he r is a t a physic al lev el by mea ns of sex: he feels that Helene’s body hides “the secret of t h e world” ( Wonderland 312). T his bri ngs to mind the first toilet picture t hat depic ted a door in th e place of the womb, which represen ts Jesse’s hope of accessing a new dimension in the bodie s of wome n tha t coul d bring langua ge, and subs equently, meaning, to his life. Neverthe less , Jesse is unabl e to find tha t m eani ng in marital sexua l rela tionships; poss ibly because he is unab le to establish a true dialogue to ot hers but always tries to impose his wil l : he regards Helene a s inferi or to him , simp ly as a being wit h the c apac ity of e ngendering his 108 childre n. B esides, Helene has an e xtremely t roubled re lationship with her body whi ch doe s not c ertainly facilitate t his communication. There for e, J esse’s hope of fi nding in wom en the l anguage he yearns for seems e xtreme ly mis guided and wishful be cause she considers them inferi or to him. The e xplanati on for Jess e’s attempt t o find meaning a nd words to express himself i n the bodies of wom en may be found in Shapi ro, who expla ins t hat sinc e fee lings are considere d to bel ong within t he fem ale sphere, the y must be re jected by me n, wh o are e xpected to be h a ve in a stereotypical m anner to feel more confi dent of their own mascu linity. Since men are exp ected to be in cha rg e a nd control and thus deal with any ki nd of problem, they avoid b e ing emoti onally op en, j ust in case they need t o p lace their emotions asid e in order to solve specific problem s that require this attitude. As a result, they function in a ma nner that protects them from their own vulne rabil ity by not lett ing t h eir emoti ons free flow int erfere. Due to t h is, many m en ha ve not learnt how to dea l wit h thei r f eelings, how to identi fy , share, understand a nd work with the m. In c ontrast, men are a uthorized to have sex, and t his becom es the onl y te rrain i n which fre e em otion al e xpression i s c onsidered appropria te, because culturally, sex is men’s a rena (S h api ro 148 -150, 152-154). Summarizing, on th e one h and, we c an a ssert that Jesse’s monologic attitude, li nk ed t o his m isogynistic view of women, hi s aloof rela tionship wit h the body, and h is me ssian ic a ttitude a s a doctor, makes him generally c old and de tac hed in his relationships to othe rs, most parti cularly women. On th e other hand, Helene a lso has a dista n t rela tionship with her body, whic h shal l be exp lored in the chapter “Mothers.” Hele n e’s bond with her l ate mother was not too cl ose, and she has not learnt from her how to have a natural conn ection with h er body, so she feel s revulsion for h er femal e body, as if it we re a lie n to her. At the same time , she contemplates her destiny as a woman as closely linked t o her reproductive c apacit y, fe eli ng forced t o be come a wife and a mother. According to Deborah Clarke, the real function for women unde r patriarchy is “ to b ecome a womb to bri ng fort h me n childre n” (qtd. in Porter 193). In short, “[t]he experience of ma ternity and t he experience of sexua lity have bo th be en channeled to serve ma le 109 intere sts; beha v ior whic h threatens t h e i nst ituti ons, such as il legi timacy, aborti on, lesbianism, is considere d d eviant or criminal” (Rich 42). Thus, despit e strongly re senting her sub ordination, Helene lets society, particul arly i n the form of men like he r husband or her father, define her, to the al arming extent tha t she is reduc ed to be a m other/wife with little a lte rn ative identity traits. As we shall show , w hen Helene cannot c ontinue to be a fully dedicat ed mother, she f eel s tha t she has lost her ide n tit y. 2.1.3 The Found ations of Hele ne and Jess e’s Marri age We shall now analyz e how Helene and Jesse’s intimate relationship evolve s into marriag e. Hel ene and Jess e decide t o ma rry be fore the planne d date after a disturbing i ncident with their mut u al friend Monk. The importance of Monk in the live s of the cha racters and in t he c ontext of t he novel deserves its ow n a n alysis: h e is Jesse’s double, and as s uch, he highli gh ts certain traits of his personali ty. Tal bot Waller Monk, known as “Tr ick,” i s a doctor as well as an instructor in Dr. Ca dy’s c ourse of ne uro chem istry at Jesse’s medical sc hool . Besides, he writes poetry and in ti me will ab andon his care er in medicine a nd b ecome a famous counterculture poet. Monk is spontaneous, irre v erent , honest a nd obs ervant . Besides, he f eel s sexually attracted by Jesse although he never d irectly acknowl edge s this: instead, he pretends to love Hel ene. Monk warns Helene about Jesse’s voracious na ture and sel fish incli n ati ons, i nforming her t hat Jesse has “a bstract a nd criminal” plans for the fut u re ( Wonderland 274); and t hat he wants her to bear several ch ildren for hi m. Th at is, Monk is warni n g Helene that J esse pl ans t o use he r as a tool to fulf ill hi s plans of having a p erfect f am ily, and of his potentiality for v i olence (which wil l eventually be m anifested in his fixat ion for his daughte r She lley). Monk functi ons in th e novel a s Jesse’s doppelgänge r or double. Beckson a nd Ganz (66 -67) define t he do uble a s a literary device by which a characte r is self -duplic ate d (the Doppelgänger, “mirror i mage” or “alter ego” ) ; or divide d i nto two dis tinc t and often a ntithetic al personalities, which intensifie s t h e inne r s truggle of good a gainst e vil. Masao Miyoshi, in The Div ided S elf: A Perspect ive on the Li terature o f 110 the Victorians (1969), di vides t he double i nto t hree categories: the formal (or the aut hor’s consc ious use of the devi ce to express t he t h eme of a work), the the matic or ideo logical (a philosophical view of self - alie nation argue d t hrough divided characters) , and the biographical (which reveals the a uthor’s own uncons cious divisions). The se cat egories a r e formal, and not m u tually e xclusive. The double w as widely used i n ni neteenth and twentie th c entury literature, sugges ting the increasing awareness that the se lf is actually composed by many selves. Oate s’s doppelgänge rs are pla ced betwee n Miyoshi’s form al and themat ic cat egorie s, because the y consciously ex press c ertain conce rns of each of the characters (m ainl y related to unresolved i nner contra dictions or trau mas), where as in ma ny othe r occasions t hey express t he alienation of t hese characters (qt d. in Bec kson and Ganz 67). In Wonderland , Monk and Jesse a re antithe tical in seve r al manners: Monk represents ro mantic poetry, wher eas Jesse e mbodie s scien ce (Daly 50). Moreover, a ccording to Creighton, M onk counte rs Jes se’s dedic ation t o life with a death wis h: Jesse a dulates health while Monk adula tes ca ncer in one of his poe ms ( Nov els Mi ddle 70). Bot h Monk and Jesse have a c omplex rela tionship with th e body, especi ally wome n’s bodies. Jes se keeps his distance from the fem ale body out of f ear and despise of women, a nd Monk out of sexu al dislike of them. Monk plays a ce ntral role in the couple’s decision to a n ticipate their wedding. W hen he l earns t hat the y a re moving to anot her st ate, he becom es desperate and sends the m am biguous le tte rs in w hich he appea rs t o confe ss his love for Helene, bu t which can be i nterpr eted a s referri ng to Jesse, his re al love int erest. A fter sending the letters, Monk asks Hele ne and J esse to have dinn er w ith him, and reveals his desolati on upon their dep arture , r eading some of hi s p oetry to the m. One of the poems cont ains an e xcerpt wh i c h seems to for eshadow the fate of Helene and Jesse’s union: we are helples s as the meeting of two blank ho t walls of a ir or two lover s pres sed together in perpet ua l daylight. ( Wond er land 271, em p hasis in th e original) 111 Like these helpl ess l overs, Jes se and Helene cannot find meaning and fulfil ment in th e apparent bliss of their intimate r elationship. At the same ti me, t hese li n es insinuate that there is no room for a nybody else (in thi s c ase, for Monk himself) wit hin the inti macy of a coupl e that i s “pressed toget h er.” Thus, now that Helene and Jesse are going to marry, Monk feels that t here shall b e no spac e for him i n their liv es, because, a s he says, “[p]eopl e in l ove do not need anyone else t o compl ete them […] They only acquiesce to the ir fri en ds out of charit y ” ( Wonderland 270, empha sis in th e origin al). In fact, as we shall s ee, J esse and H elene w ill grow i ncrea singly isolated, not only from othe rs, but also within thei r own marri age . This is yet anothe r i nstance of the rigidi ty of their subsys tem : they ha ve close bound aries wit h the rest of t h e world. Jesse is unabl e to m ake a ny sense of the poems, since art is tota lly alie n to him : he ha s a monologic mind, i n his case t otally grounded in scienti fic, objective and m easurable r ealities. After t he dinner, the couple has an argument w ith Monk when he confesses t hat he has eate n a broile d piece of a hu man womb from a corpse of the c adaver room, adding that he has done so while thinking of Hele ne. This has several implications. First, a long wi th food (a topic soon to be analyzed), de vouring is one of the ce ntral tropes of the nove l. In this case, it is li nked to instinctive basic fears of bei ng ea ten and repre sents a pow erful meta phor of appropriation, d issatisfaction , frustrati on, jealousness and possess ivene ss. T he image of cha racters c onsuming one a nother is common in Wonderland , as Johnson perc eive s ( Understanding 134). Both H ilda Pedersen and S helle y Vogel ac cuse their fathers of wanting to ea t them . Indeed, Dr. Pede rsen is one o f the most vorac i ous figures of the book, both l ite rally and m eta phor ically, along with Willard Hart e: they both c laim total control over their fam ilies, in t he most bruta l expression of patriar chal pr erogatives as t h e ma le he ads of th eir nuclea r families. Jess e, on hi s pa rt, is horri fied to discover at the end of the novel that he h as inhe rited this vora cious trait in hi mself, repre sen ted by his obsession with Shelley. Apart fro m the se metaphorical images of de vouring, M onk’s eati ng a womb is t he mos t literal image of 112 consumption of the novel, which brings to mind male’s pat riarchal control of female’s reproduc tive capacitie s. Second, Monk’s reve lation i s highly sig nific ant since it may be argued that this identificat ion of He lene with the womb is an act of resentme n t for her relationship to Jesse ; or that, by e ati ng female reproduct ive org ans that remind h im of Hel ene, he mi ght be putting himself i n her place by acqui ring her ge nitals, and thus gaining, indirectly, access to J e sse. In sum, t he scene reduces Helene to h er reproduct ive capacity, repr esente d by h er being con templated as a womb; and this is precisely how Jesse perceives h er most of the t ime. As Daly c omme nts on, Monk’s confess ion of cannibalism causes Jesse’s ra ge, but Monk is merely voi cin g Jesse’s vi ew of wome n’s bodies; and a s Helene soon lea rns (and Monk ha s alrea dy warned her), marryi ng Jesse implies fee ling reduced to her reproductive organs, beca use he do e s not think th at s he has a c o nsciousness of her own (5 9). As we shall see, Oat es frequently empha siz es the impor tance of constantl y contempla ting and pe rceiving the beloved p erson: that is, perce iving all he r /his sides a nd accepting t he c h anges t hat she/he undergoes. But Jesse, like Dr. Cady, does not really see He lene: “[s]he float ed be tween them, her father a nd her husband. T hey see med t o ha ve no re al c onsciousness of her except a s a point of contact, a n ob je ct, a belove d ob ject” ( Wond erland 281). For the se men, s he i s not an individual pe rson with a certai n unique personality but simply a daughte r, a wif e, a mo ther: an abstract ro le that she fu lfil s. They look at her through t he lenses of th eir own prejudi ces. This is proved by t h e physical fight t hat ensues be tween Jesse and Monk afte r his revel ation of ca nnibalism . The confrontation (mostly prompte d by M onk, who ke eps taunting Jes se to fight hi m) s hakes both Jesse and Hel ene, and makes t hem see e ach other und er a new light: Helene takes pi ty upon Jesse’s pani c and worry; and J esse marvels at her new “docil ity” and physica l proximity to him in public. H el ene is final ly ful filling Jesse’s e xpectations of submiss ivene ss and sensi tivity, whose absence had of ten worri ed him. He de finitely we lcomes this new perce ption of hi s fi ancée. On her pa rt, Hele ne seems to be voicing the guideli n es she has learnt, as a wif e- to -be, about becom ing an unconditi on al support for her ma le par tner. Therefore, ma rriage i s 113 presented here as the culmination of a process of role -a cquisition as membe rs of the tr aditional nuclear family, a situation tha t l eads th em to move the date of the wedding forw ard. The fight between Monk and Jesse becomes a turning point for the couple , a s wel l as for Jesse, whom, according to Grant , after alm ost killi ng Monk, is shatte r ed by the power of one pers on over l ife a nd death (57). This episode, thus, gives th e couple a new s ense of underst anding and de pendence; a nd brings t hem so clos e that they decide to move th eir wedding date forward. But thi s is just a fleeting understanding, since it is based on pre judices and abstractions instead of an accurate vision of eac h other. 2.2 W IFE -H U SB AND R EL ATIO N SH IPS In order to i n troduce the discussion of H e lene and Jesse as a married couple , we shal l fi rst present some t heoretical concepts in order to cla ssify the differ ent tra its of marriages. Afterward, we sh all see their incide nce in t he c orpus; and finally, we shall cont inue wi th the exam ination of He lene and Jesse’s bond. 2.2.1 Marr iage Patt erns Despite the inc reased predominance of cohabitation, most research in com mitment relat ionships is centered on marriage. Francesca Canci an (qtd. in Bra nnon 230) sets several patte rns of marria ge, which she calls the co mpanionship, independ ence, and i nterdepe nden ce bluepri nts. T he com panionship blue print was the m odel for most marri ages in the United St ate s fro m t h e 1920s to the 1960s. The se partne rs often hav e well- defined and separ ate gende r-roles, and women are held responsible for maintaining t h e l ove rela tionship. Nowadays, this type of marriage is c onsidered tradition a l bec ause i t re sists women’s self-de v elopment. The independence blueprin t appeared during t he 1960s, a period which emphas ize d pe rsona l freedom and change . The women’s mov eme n t, a long with i n creases i n p aid employment for women, led t o an exa min ation of t h e ground rules for rela tionships , and so both wome n and men came to believe that marri age should b e a partnership of e quals. T his model empha sizes self - devel opment over commitmen t a nd obli g a ti ons, beca us e i t hol ds the 120 Significa n tly, Jesse considers his whole family a poss ession, alike to furniture or the ve ry house the y inha bit. Being the father /husband, Jesse is the head of the f amily and his decisions should be considered a ki nd of law for the other (fe male) m embers of t he Vogel fa mily , something that Helene and Shelley are well aware of. Helene and Jesse a re pre sented h ere a s a c lear exa m p le of the empty abstraction that nu clear families may turn into, in w hich every me mber is dilige n tly performing their rol e obligati ons and expect ations w ithout being able to find any meaning or satisfaction to it: Helene does not enjoy being a mother; Je sse vainly uses h is fa mily as a means of self - assurance and t o ove rcome his p ast traumas; Jeanne i s perpetually frustrated and jealous of Jesse’s pre ference for her younge r sister; a nd Shelley feels smothe red by J esse’s oppressive c ontrol of her. Shell ey will be the one t o rebel against the role of submiss ive daughte r into which Jess e tr ies to forc e her, and the on e t o i nvesti gate a nd question Jesse’s pas t and he r parents’ relationship. Meanwhile, Jesse becomes obsessed with ce rtain deaths, especiall y that of one of his ment ors, Dr. Perrault. Moreover, Jesse’s despise for the body is ma nifested in the sca rce in timate relationsh ips he has with his wife. Hel ene’s a nd Jesse’s at titude s to their bodies re f lect Susie Orbach’s cla im th at [o]ur b od ies are m ade in o ur c ulture, in relation ships, in fanta sy and even in the am bience of the ca re - giver-infa nt rel ation ship every b it as our minds are. Th e bod y like the mind is pre-wired to be a set o f p ossibili tie s bu t th es e po ssi biliti es develop wit hin the relationship and within t he culture in a nuance d way as our personalit ies d o. .. Our bo dies are created no t simply b y their b iology, but b y the conscious and unconsci ou s ideas we h old a bo ut babies’ bo dies depe nd ing on their gender , their cl ass and their ethnicit y and by the em otional ambiance in which they develop. ( qtd. i n De Zulueta 274) This mea ns, Shore a nd Panksepp explain, that our bo dies are psychological as well as physi cal stru ctures. Our at tachment structures (that is, the degr ee of sec urity we find in ot hers), the losses w e have 121 experi enced, the tr auma s we ha v e been through will determin e what we feel oursel ves to be (qt d. in De Z ulueta 274). In particul ar, Jess e will find it difficult to co mbine al l t hese conc epts and establish a he althy rela tionship between his mind a nd his body, as well a s wit h the people around him . As the years go by and Helene and Jess e have chil dren, they st a rt to analyze th eir c onflictive re lationships with their bodi es, as we ll a s their role within th e family a nd the obligations and exp ectations associate d to it . Now, the y are pa rents, so they ha ve fulfilled the main obligation e xpected i n nuc lear fam ilies: procre ation. However, their bonds wit h their bod ies are still dee p ly troubled, and the y try to fi nd a bala nce with t h em. In time, bo th Helen e and Jesse consider having extra -marital relationships as a way to solve t heir m u tual l ack of satisfaction, which they have never d iscussed. Jesse’s Self -Crea ted Family System is far from reaching his Desired Family Sys tem. He does not hav e a son , and he i s fixated on and a nxious about his daughter Shelley’ s rebel lious stre ak, whic h is act ually a reacti on against his oppression. One day, Jesse casuall y mee ts Reva, a woma n for whom he will feel deeply sexually attracted. His desire for her is descr ibe d as be ing “loa ded with blood” ( Wonde rland 348), a description which sharpl y contra st s wit h Jesse’s prefe r ence for bloodle ssness , and his de tachment from t h e body. Unti l he meets Reva, Jesse tri es to avoi d an int imate proxi mity to bodies with t he exc ept ion of ma rital relations and his job as a doctor, and to deny the body’s impulses. M eeting Reva see ms to promise an upcomin g t ransformation for Jesse, which is not totally fulfilled in the end. Jesse’s i mage of Rev a is associated with airiness , flowers, g low; unlike his im age of his wife, which i s limi ted to a n objective and asepti c physical description. Re v a, then, and no t H el ene, embodies Jesse’s carna l fantasies, opening new possibilities of sexual satisfact ion a nd fulfil ment tha t he had n ever contempla ted be fore, as well as a n ew possibility of finding in her the words to express hi mself. His vision evide nces his fe eli ngs of superiority toward women: he see s Reva in t he colors of a fa ntasy bec ause he l usts a fter he r; and he perceives Hele n e more a septically du e to he r po tential qu alities as a mother and wife. 122 Reva strikes J esse as the im age of wholeness he never had i n his adult l ife. This is re presente d by her name , which suggests bot h physicality a nd thought , ide ali sm a nd reality (Waller Dr eaming 148). Her physicality and reality are conve yed by m eans of the imag e that Jesse has of her as a sensua l woman, an d her idealism is se en in her name : “Reva” recalls reve rie , a nd “Denk ” brings to mind the German verb “ denke n,” “to think.” “Re va” is not th e real name of this c haracter, but one she invents, and this transforms her into an illusion that Jesse pursues for some t ime and e vent ually aba ndons, feeli ng morally revulsed by the thought of adultery. In Daly’s words, he does not act upon his impulse beca use for him lust equals evil (61). When Reva asks Jesse to perform an abortion upon he r, Jesse refuses sca ndalized, and r eflects tha t h e only be lieves i n lif e. Perhaps this originates in Jesse’s e normous will t o survive despite the m u ltiple ordeal s he ha s to endur e sinc e h is biol og ical f amily was d estroyed by his fat her. Anothe r possible r eason is J esse ’s unea siness upon death a nd his unrea listic wish to save the whole world, along w ith his rigid traditional morality. Jesse eventually considers t h at h e can marry Re va, but tha t she must have the baby: for him, the a bortio n i s out of the question. He thinks that Reva’s ba by can become his. Thus, he c annot t ranscend his vision of w omen as obj ect s of his possessi on, as the bearers of children for him: “She could hav e his babies,” h e re flects ( Wonderland 373). This proves tha t he i s just substituting Reva for Helene, and suggests that despite the op ening of li mits that Reva appears to repr esent a t first, Jesse would probably be e ventually unable to ove rcome hi s reductive and misogynist views of women. Reva (who appare n tly ha s decid ed t o have the b aby) acce p ts Jesse’s proposal of starting a rel ati onship with hi m. Be fore meeting her to ha v e sexual intercourse for t he fi rst time and thus consumma te t he adul tery, Jesse, honoring his obsess ion w ith cleanne ss, z eal ously soaps his body. This is m ainly caused by his re pulsion for the body, but may b e also due t o his i nternal re vulsion a t t h e thou ght of comm itting a du ltery. Afterward, whil e he is shavi ng, Jesse accide n ta lly c u ts him se lf a nd becom es fa scinat ed by the sight of his o wn blood. H e then purposely cuts his face, his stomach, and his pubic a r ea a nd watches the blood 123 streami ng “so l ightl y, expe r ime n tally, giddily….” ( Wonderland 400). As m entione d earlier, bl ood is unstoppable: its fl ow is not controlled by the mi nd. Thus, when Jesse c uts himself i nstead of ha ving a da te with Reva, he might b e a cknowledging the evidence that b lood runs through the veins of his body, while paradoxical ly, he i s also attempting to get rid of it . Jesse is then, for a short whi le, liberatin g himself from his own mania of control: the fre e fl ow of blood is the exact op posi te to hi s rigidit y, which com es as a mome ntary satis fact ion for him. During this brief moment, J esse is assuming h is ow n corporei ty no t as something disgusting, but as natural and a cce p table. In a sense, then, cutting h i s face seems to re present the ac ceptance of his own ident ity, and cutting his pubic a rea sta nds for t he ac ceptance o f his sexual dri ves. He might be even tra nscending the limits of sex and gender by conte mplat ing the blood associated with women : for onc e, he is pla cing himself i n the plac e of t he Other. Another interpretation for the scene i s pe rceiving it as Jesse’s wish to e mpty himself of blood, that is, a symbol of hi s continui ng reje cti on of the body drives. Thus, he substitutes t his ac t i n whic h violence and sex become enta ngled for the i mminent sexual rela tionship with Re va: th is is significa n t because J esse tends to associate viol ence and s ex. The concl usion of Jess e’s affair on ly brings a brief sens e of relief, a momentary l iberation instead of a per mane nt one. As Creight on highli ghts, Oates’s characters who succe ed in l iberating themselves do so by openi ng up to their instinc tual selv es, often throug h violenc e or sexual love ( J oyce 80). T he libe ration by mea ns of vi o lence or sex is a recurre nt Oa tesian scen e. In t he case of Jesse, it is only a momentary liberation; and al so perceived in Jules from t hem , or in El ena from Do with Me What You Will . 14 Creight on a lso exa mine s the a lternative possibility: she suggests that b y accidentally, and then willfull y, cutting himself with t he ra zo r bl ade i n various bod y part s including his genital s, Jesse is denying his own sexual dri v es, first unconsciously and t hen willingl y ( Joyce 80). At t he same time, cutting him se lf al so a ppears to be a punis hment for almost c ommitting adulte ry, or for having a lmost falle n to the tempta tion of lust, whi ch he c onsiders morally repugn ant 14 Hereafter cited in te xt as Do With Me . 124 as well. Jesse’s reject ion of adul tery may b e also ca used by his need to keep every thing under control. Specifical ly, a dultery would re present for him the m oment in whic h the mi nd would lose control over hi s body; while at the same time impl y ing a violation of the c ontrol th at arb itrates the social orde r (marriage) and possibly, the moral order. There for e, t h e e p isode ha s two main interpretati ons. The first readi ng is li b erating for J esse, bec ause h e is able to assume his own physicality by listening to his body urges re presente d by his running blood, whic h esca pes his m ental cont ro l; and t he sec ond one is a n oppressive interpretation, in which Jesse i s s til l trying to d eny his b ody processes by getti ng r id of his blood. This scene cl oses the second book of the novel , entitle d “The Finite Passing of an Infinit e Passion.” Accordi n g to Friedm an, the title re f ers to the inf inite pas sion Jesse suffers, t he one that ass erts that th e se l f can control reality or go beyond i t or tha t t he self is reality; which submit s to a finite passing, represented by Jess e ’s re nunciation to hav e an affair with Re va ( Joyce 108). In fac t, for most of the book, Jesse hol ds the fanta sy that h e is able to do minate his s urroundings as well as other people . In thi s sec ond part, h e momentarily surrenders this passion in the episode with Reva when h e m o mentarily assumes his corporeity and relishes hi s iron dom inanc e. In th e last part of the novel, Waller rema rks, J esse’s fai lure with Reva stil l haunts Jesse, now obs essively drawn to his daught er Shelley (“Joyce” 43). Daly also suggests tha t Jesse’s repre ssion with Reva lea ds him to sexualiz e his daughter Shelley (61). Besides, H ele ne wonders, like he r husband, abo ut the role of t h e body in personal relationships: “What was love : Was it the c on tact betwee n p eople? T he touching of peop le? She did not understand. Why this pushing, this fa lli ng into an abyss, a sac red abyss?” ( Wonderland 432). Like Jesse, Helene f ails to find a ny transce nd ence or deep connec tion through sexual relationships, beca use she fe els re vulsion for sex. She is sca red of having intimate mo ments with h er husband, but she “had loved [Jesse] and had opened hers elf to him, had a llowed him to plunge i nto her, drown int o h er, reshap ing himself inside her. Th en he had wit hdrawn” ( Wonderland 432). Thus, Hel ene t ries to e njoy sex out of love for Jesse, but she feels him growing i ndifferent toward her. 125 This quote also reveals that she senses that Jesse is s omehow marki ng her, which i s in fact true: Jesse t ries to write his ego a nd life goals into her, just as the p ict ur e from the toilet s howed. Helene f eels that J esse had l oved her more when she was pregn ant, but she ha s never wanted to be come a m other: she bec o mes one because she i nterpre ts it as an unavo idable female de stiny. Helene fulfills thi s role be lieving that marr iage would be t he beginni ng of her lif e; she had had a long life as a d augh ter, a famous m an’s d aughter , and she had been eager to begin h er rea l life. S he wou ld be a woman, womanly and fulfil led. A wife. But this h ad not come abou t... And then, puzzle d, she had beli ev ed t hat the birth of h er first child wou ld fu lfi ll her. [.. .] Bu t the birth had le ft her e xh auste d and a t a distance from h ersel f, from her body . Her baby h ad over whelmed h er. She was ashame d of herself and it o ccurred to her that she mu st have ano ther baby , ano t her baby to make her normal, a rea l woman. Bu t aft er the se cond baby n othing was different. She fel t a final, terrible certainty about her stra ngeness: she wou ld never become a re al woman. ( Wonderl an d 436) First, i t is inte resting t o notice how Helen e does not me ntion being her mother’s daughter, only h er fat her’s; which fit s the pattern of fem ale chara cters from the n ovel i nsisting on being born of me n, along with Sh el ley a nd Hilda. T his is the re sult of a m isogynistic society denyi ng the m o ther’s voice and a g ency, a s we shal l explain i n the ne x t chapter, “Mothers.” Sec ond, having al ways l ived s ubordinat ed to a man, wh e n Helene tries to find he r own ide ntity and her own goal s, she ca n only resort to what she h as been encouraged t o do: being a mot her a nd a wif e. However, to he r shame , this doe s not satisfy her, and so she i s convinc ed that she c annot be a real woman if s he does not conform t o the patri archa l expectati ons for a woman. She become s a gentl e and caring mother, but never shows too much enthusi asm about her condition. Helene is particu larly distr essed when she fi nds out tha t s he cannot have m ore children: “ She had wept. She ha d becom e hysterical, hating herself, accusing h erself: A fail ure as a woman ...” ( Wonderland 371, empha sis in the origina l). Helene had deci ded that she would submi t to 126 the i dea that a woman’s ful film ent i s achieved by havi ng chil dr en, and when she c annot have any more of them, she fe e ls tha t she has not fulfil led hersel f, she has not even fulfille d this goa l she ne ver reall y wanted. In other words, Helene has reduced her whole c omplex identi ty to the functions of mot herhood, and now that s he ca nnot ha ve chi ldren, she feels that she h a s lost he r source of i dentity, a nd thi s b ecomes problem atic, especially when her dau ghters grow a nd becom e adole scents who do not need her as they did when they were littl e. At this point, Helene reflects on he r present conditi on and all she can hear is society te lli ng he r that she has become too o ld, which s he interprets as be ing no longer useful for soc iety sinc e she has lost her reproduct ive capacity and her function as a mother is not so prominent now. Hele ne has lost the only i dentity s he had and a s a c onsequence, she feels a vo id. Thus, when a m an called Mannie Breck asks her for a date , she acce p ts out of curiosity t o see what happe ns between the m, and due t o a certain erotic pul l she feels within herself, de spite not having muc h inter est in him as a person. Helene meets Manni e i n t he shopping mall “W onderla nd East.” As Grant ha s argue d, i n Oat es’s short fi cti on, t he s hopping m all is a meta phor of the i mpermanenc e of huma n relations and the vacuity of lives, as seen in “ Ye ars of W onder” and “ S talking” from Marriages and Infide liti es ; and “Where Are You G oing, W here Have You Been ?” 15 from The Wheel of Love and Other Storie s 16 (21). This met aphor is a lso seen in t he ca se of “Wonderland E ast” from Wonde rland , which is not only an e cho of the novel’s title, but constitutes a rampant irony: while “Wonde rland” evokes the image of a l and of drea ming, fantasy and possibility (which re minds of the na me of this last pa rt of the book, “Dream ing America,” a title tha t a ppe a r s to promise some hope for Jesse’s sea rch of identity too ), the a ddition of the bi b lical resonan ces in “Ea st” neg ates the a ccess to s uch land. In the book of the Genesis, God casts a curse upon Ca in when h e learns that he has killed his brother Abel, and orders him to live in “t h e la nd of Nod, on the ea st of Eden” (Gen 4, 16). Thus, the artifi cial te mple of c onsumption t hat the mall is 15 Hereafter cited in text as “ Wh ere.” 16 Hereafter cited in te xt as Wheel . 127 offers, and then denies, t he possibility of transcendence. Th e neighborhoods from Ex p ensive are al so metaphors of fak e pa radises. Helene a nd Mannie’s failed affair presents a simi lar patt ern of the eme rgence of a possibility of fulfilment or pl easure a nd its subsequent frustration. Intere sting ly, Hel ene and Mannie casuall y run i nto one demonstration a gainst the Vietna m W ar ( 1955-1975). As it usuall y occurs in Oates, the history of th e United States reflects the characters’ confli cts. In this c ase, t he youth protests agai nst Viet n am coincid ed with t he stude nts’ revolts of t he 1960s, which de manded im medi ate change s. The counte rculture t hat deve loped from this di scon tent showed its disgust agains t many of their p arents mor e moderat ed vi ews (which c ontrasted with th eir de mand for r adical change s), as well a s the social conditions of t h e time, including racism and poverty. Radical students e xpressed t hemselves in public pr otests. The first great s tudent outburst took p lace at th e University of California at Berk eley in the Fall of 1964. There were revolts i n most of the campuses in the late 1960s. While t h eir parents confronted the s ocial problems of their time with m oderation, the se youths tended t o be intransigent. Along with this, t he ra ise of t he s econd wave of femini sm and the sexua l re volution opened ne w poss ibili ties for women an d the LGBT (l esbian, gay, bisexual, a nd transge nde r) community, whereas the c ivil rights Movement fought to eradi cate racial inequ alities and injustice (Garraty 867-868, 870). Helene contemplates the demonstr ati on , which r epresents the youth’s re bell ion agai nst t h e generation she bel ongs t o, wit h awe and shock. She has mostly lived by the rules of her pa rents and ca nnot compre hend such insubordination. She feels personal ly threatened by the c rowd: “ Hat e. We hate you […] It i s ov er for you , they all seemed to be sayi ng ” ( Wonderland 447, emphasi s in the or iginal). As Bender expla ins, H elene’s frus trated sexu al lon gings seem m ocked by the demonstrat ors (61). Apart from t hat, Helene may feel personally chal lenged by the se youths rebelling again st traditional mode s of livi ng, herself b eing a woma n who ha s co m pli ed with wome n’s traditional destiny of marrying and hav ing children, aga inst her wi ll, only t o feel that she ha s not tota lly fulfille d her “duty, ” or perha ps t hat she c annot 128 fulfil l it any longer; and that now it is too late to do it, or ei ther too lat e to live an alternativ e li f e free of thos e respons ibili ties. Helene notices a particul ar gir l smoking, and they stare at each other with ha tred, utterly una ble of understandi ng the other’s perspect ive: each one of them is focusing excl usively on her indiv idual position a nd ident ifying the other as t he enemy. In Johnson’s opinion, this is one of t he scenes of t h e novel in w hich c h aracters locate evil on the “ Other,” demons trating thus t heir fe ar of communa lity and representi ng once more the tragedy of t he s elf -cent ered ego ( Understanding 138). Indeed, in her resen t ment , Helene only cons iders her own frustrated st atus, and not the crowds vindications; so, enraged, she knocks a cigarette out of t he girl’s mouth and walks away, feeling liberated (a t le ast momen ta r ily) from t he c onstrains of the fl esh and her famil y, as well of t h e possibility of an af fair with Mannie whi ch she now disregards: Sh e had finished everythin g for h erse lf […] Th e erotic glow i n h er loi ns […] h ad spread lig htly through her body no w, […] h armle ss. S he was fulfilled. Sh e w as free of [Mannie], who could n ot love h er now, and s he was fr ee of h er h usband, h er d aughters , the p eople in the p ark, her own y ou th. It wa s o ver: the tyra nny of he r body, t h e yearning for o ther bodies, for talking an d tou ching a nd dreami ng and l oving. ( Wonderl an d 448) In Be nder’s words , Hele ne is dec laring h ere her di vorce from s ocie ty and the self by asserti ng that it is al l over, i ncluding th e tyra nny of her body; but t h is i s j ust a s terile esca pe, the free dom of a c atatonic (61). Bender makes here a va lid argum ent: H elene’s frustra tion s eems too deep a nd long -termed to be solve d by suc h a fleeti ng act of liberation, just as in the c ase of Jesse’s cutting h ims elf with a b lade; bu t in any case, it comes as a welcome d r elief. There fore, Helene renounces to try to find an y erotic connection with a man: she knows that Mannie was horrifie d by her confrontati on with the g irl, a nd would not want to see her a gain, but does not care. Most cruc ially, she now fa vors the appare n t peac e of mind of not having t o comply anymore with h er female destiny as a mothe r. 129 2.3 P ARE NT ING S TY LES Parenting styles have a n undeniable e ffect over the children’s devel opment, since, ac cording to Hut ter, t he fam ily “transmits the traditional ways of a culture to e ach ne w generation” (“Multicultur al” 5). This sec tion a nalyzes this i mpact within the fra mework of devel opmental psychol ogy, through the w orks of experts s uch as Davi d White and Anne Woo llett, among ot hers. Parenting styles reflect the p arents’ wish for t heir c hildren to devel op the ir capacities to the maxim um, not on ly the phys ical capa cities , but also the mental ones: En rea lidad, la educac ión, la cultura , el cultiv o del arte, la cie ncia o el p ensamie nto, n o s on sin o h erra mienta s para esa mejor a intelectual q ue contribuy e a u n fin n o sólo personal sino colec tivo , produciendo n uevos d esa rroll o s qu e m ejora rán la vi da de las per sonas [ ...] las mod ific ac iones qu e vamos in troduci endo tienen un a di me nsión pro spect iva y lanzada h acia el futur o : q ueremos qu e nuestros h ijos, qu e la sociedad futura, sea n “mejores ” y te ngan más capac idades y posibilidades d e las q ue tuvimo s noso tros. (Feito Gra nde 2 15) This i s at tained, i n pa rt, through t h e kind of ed uc ati on offe red by parent s. Mothers and fa thers ha ve di fferent approa ches t o this e du cative function, and whil e some appear t o overlo ok i t, others take i t t o ext reme lengths. For instanc e, Nada from Expensive generally a ims for a life of indepe ndence fro m he r p arental functions as an educator. On th e contra ry, Dr. Pedersen in Wonde rland i s perhaps t he m ost ext reme exam ple of a conscious at tempt to shape a chil d: after he adopts Jesse, he proclaims his hopes that the boy wi ll follow hi s steps and be come a doctor: I have b een p lan ning, imagining how y o u will grow up int o my place , into my very being . It is a challeng e to me, this shaping of you, Jes se, because you do not have my g enes, my fles h has n ot contributed to your fle sh. An d yet I belie ve I will succ eed with you... Correc tin g defec ts of 136 strict m anner and do not r e ceive mu ch love from their father, and at the same time they pla inly re ject the l ove the y re cei ve from their mother. Second, they a r e educated at home , where they develop their extra ordinary aptitudes for mathematics and music, but no t thei r social skills. Neithe r of t hem a ttends college de spite t heir capacities: Frederich refuses to do so and Hil d a is preve n ted from doing so due to unnam ed heal th problems. A s they rarely leave the house, they are not usua lly in compa ny of their p eers. Their mother notices the roots of this proble m, which ta kes the form of a loop: “ [Hilda is] always t ea sing me [...] That’s beca use sh e spends t oo much time a lone... she sh oul d get outsid e with other gi rls...she’s always teasing me beca use we’re al one here together all day long, eve ry da y...” ( Wonderland 155). Thi rd, the ir pe rsonal disposition is shy a nd fi e rce, and so t hey a re thus rather awkward in their social i n teraction s, and little inclined to lea ve the house at all. Hilda likes Jess e (it is unclear if h er f eeli ngs are fraternal or romant ic) and wants him to be proud of her, but she is not able to devel op a friendly relationship wit h h im. She just merel y watches him fro m a dista n ce, poss ibly due t o he r shynes s and low se lf -esteem, which is aggravated by her shame abou t her obes e body, to th e extent tha t she “neve r went out by herself, never. [...] how t errible i t m ust be for ordinary people to see [her and her father] ” ( Wonderland 140). And s o, Hilda ke eps her distanc e from Jesse to t he e xtent that, al though he holds warm brotherly feelings for her and ins tinctivel y realizes t h at “her brittle m o ckery [...] had been a kind of camaraderie” ( Wonderland 171), he e ventually feels unea se with h er and t he di st ance bet we en t h em grows irreparably. Consequently, Dr. Pedersen’s bi ological childre n are wit hdr awn and lac k spont aneity. T h ey cha nn el the st ress ca used b y the excess ive domination of the ir fath er through th eir co mpulsive ea ting h abits. They are exce ssive ly de pendent on the ir c losed surroundings a nd de spite having enormous ta lents, their gift s have b ecome a burden to them; that is, they a re ma d e slave s t o t heir ta lent, and thi s re duces the ir degree of motivation. As Jesse pe r cei v es, Hil da “al ways [had] t h e corr ect answers. She was ne ver wrong. But it gave her no joy […] She was l ike an i nstrument to prov ide a nswers to questions ” ( Wonderland 154). This is ma inly ca used by t heir f ather’s hi gh demands on the m and by t h e fa ct 137 that t hey are not a llowed to have hobbies. This re str iction of new act iviti es could ha ve shielded the Pedersen chi ldren from stress, but in fact in the novel i t c ontributes to ke eping them e ntrapp ed a nd m akes them less resourceful. In contra st, Jess e does not see m to ha ve so many diffi culties when expressing his f eelings of a ff ection, neither does h e a pp ear to be a s withdrawn, insecure or anxious as his sib lings. Thi s m ay be due to his personali ty and to the fact t hat he has l ived l ess t ime within this strict environm ent; or perhaps because he is trea ted more warmly than hi s siblings: he appe ars to be Dr. Pederse n’s favori te c hild, possibly beca use he hope s that Jesse will ful fil the expectati ons t hat his biological c hildren have not sat isfied according t o his standards. Jesse has le ss dependency on the household th an his siblings. In fact, he is given a car by their father, which grant s hi m m or e freedom. B esides, his fa ther’s plans for him inc lude movin g away from their Lockport (New York) home in order to stud y a t the University of Michigan. Consequently, Jesse’s wider r ange of movement grants him a highe r degree of a bility t o cont ro l hi s environ ment th an th at of Hilda and Frederic h. Jesse’s m ot ivat ion is not as a mbiguous as his s iblings’: he is dete rmined to become a doctor like his stepfather, and he eventually does. However, like his stepsiblings, Jesse is not com p letely protected from anxiety despit e being allowed more fre edom: on the contr a ry, his fathe r always puts pressure on hi m to achieve the goals he e xpects from him. The stru cture of the Pedersen family is reflected in t he family’s mea l a rr angements. In fact, food plays a pre domina n t rol e i n Oate s’s fict ion, where it i s a recurre n t trope : her descri ptions of meals a re not only a mong her most viv id pa ssages, but a lso among her most meta phorica l. As she ha s expressed i n the art icle “‘Food’ as Poetry,” food “seems sca rcely to exist in itself bu t rather as an expression of meta phor. [...] No on e eats merely to —ea t” ( Woman 310). Oates a lso considers that , in affluent soc ieties, thinking about food in abstr act and codifie d terms can come vir tually t o repla ce eating it sel f a s a symb olic ac tivity. Not what one eats b ut how it is p repare d; n ot w hat food is b ut what it mean s ; wh o h as p repar ed it for yo u, or 138 for wh om you have p repar ed it. ( Wo ma n 311, e mph asi s in the original) Oatesian characte rs, then, are rarely i ndifferent t o food. Commonly, their relat ion to food adop ts t wo main rad ical and unh ealthy forms: one of e xtreme addiction and a nother one of obsess ive rejection. Both are equal ly compul siv e behaviors, a s t he writ er says: “ one ca n become as addic ted to t he sys tem atic de nial of foo d as t o i ts more celebratory consumpti on” (O ates Woman 311). These obs essive beha v iors hide th e subtleties and complexities of th e personalities of the ch aracters who display them, which will be exa mined in their corre sponding sections. Broadly speaking, ov ereating in Oates is a symptom of l a ck of c on trol which usually hi d es either a need to be emotionally ful f illed or a wish to possess ot hers; while fasting may be c aus ed by a wish t o exert c on trol over one’s life or to punish oneself, a reje cti on of sex du e to trauma, or an appe al toward d ea th. Thus, on the one hand, Richa rd Eve re tt from Expensive , th e Pedersen fa mily includi ng Jesse while livi ng with t hem and Trick Monk in Wonderland , as wel l as Connie from th e short story “Faithless ” from the collection Faithless. Tales of Trans gression (2 001) (who be comes famished fo r years after her mother’s sudd en di sappearan ce ), i ndulge in overea ting. On the o ther hand, Faye and Nadine Green fro m them , Shelley Vogel from Wonde rland , Mari anne Mulvaney from Mulvaneys , and Cress ida Mayfield fro m Carthage , as wel l as Ele n a How e from Do With Me , Karen Herz from Wit h Shuddering Fall , 17 Marya Knaue r from Marya , Ingrid Boone fro m Man Crazy , 18 Anelia from I’ll Take You There (2002) and the female pro tagonist from the segment “T h e Orange” i n the t heater play I Stand B efore You Nake d. A Coll age Pl ay (1991) tend t o reje ct e ating. Maureen Wendall experie nc es both state s in the m : first obesity and later on a sort of anorexia. T h e fact that m ost of these characters a r e female i s not a coincidence: i t accounts for t he trouble d bond that many women ha ve with their bodie s, which they do not find a pt to fit social conven tions or their own ideals. 17 Hereafter cited in te xt as Shuddering . 18 Hereafter cited in te xt as Crazy . 139 In the case of the Ped ersens, the f athe r is the absolute king of the household, and this is represented by the eating s cene s in the novel and even t h e dining room furnit ur e arrangeme nts: “[t ]h e five chairs a round the ta ble were c ushioned in dee p red velvet, four of them without arms and the fift h, at the head of the tab le, Dr. Pede rsen’s chair, with el egant curved arms that were also cushioned” ( Wonderland 99). His chai r is remini sc ent of a throne from which he governs h is fami ly. As Oate s ha s noticed, when ana lyzing the question of mea ls, it is importa nt to notice who prepares t h e food a nd for w hom ( Woman 311). In t his c ase, me als ar e m eticulously pr epared for the whol e fa mily by Mrs. Pede rsen and Dora, a domestic emplo yee . In th e rigid ge nder division of tasks in t he fa mily, preparing me als is one of Mrs. Pedersen’s obligat ions within the private sphere, i nto which she puts a great effort: the Pedersens’ m ealtimes ar e composed by a great nu mber of de licate and e laborate d dishes t h at are e ate n r avenously. They als o refle ct the household’s preva le nt sexism: men, even adole scents like Jesse and Frederich, are always s erved fi rs t. Dr. Pedersen uses me alt ime s to check the advances of his famil y during tha t particular d ay. A t breakfast, t h e s o-c alled “ Map of the Day” is establ ished, that is, the gene ral structure of the day for e ach of t hem. At lunc heon and dinner, the Map is measured against their a ctual achi evem ents. Therefore, a t th e table, t h e conversation is basically a questioning by Dr. Pedersen that resembles a tria l, making the family’s communication unspontaneous, stilted and artificial: The meal was like a ra ce— everyone ate fas t, skillf ully, as if th ere might n ot be enough food —but it was als o like a race beca us e th ey were b eing qu est ioned closel y, eyed close ly, by Dr. Pedersen. He w ou ld begin cas ually with his wife. Wh at did you accomp lish today, dear? And Mrs. Pederse n will hal tingly li st the things s he had d on e ar ound the hou se [... ] And then Hilda was examined br ief ly. [...] When Frederic h was qu es tioned he re plied at o nce [...] And th en it was Jesse’s turn. ( Wo nd erland 158 - 159, emphasis in th e origin al) 140 The family’s exc essive food intake i s thus associa ted to t h e a nxiety caused by t h e rig id family structure and the father’s authoritarian and control ling attitude: it is a kind of outlet for t he stress generated by t he situati on and by the constrainin g atmosp here t hat they s hould always endure. At the sa me t ime, for Dr. Ped ersen , eati ng works as a metaphor of his d evouring e go whi ch exerts a ruthless and unbound power ov er the family; that i s, Dr. Pede rsen’s voracit y is an adequate reflec tion of his dominating nat ur e. The e xcess of ea ting al so re presents an e x cess of ego in Hilda and Frederic h, who are children pro digies, and , despite having insecurities, are convinced of their superiority in the real ms of mathematics a nd music. This sensati on is reinf orced by the i solation in whi ch they live, which pre vents t hem from de veloping peer bonds tha t could pote ntia lly infuse i nto t hem a more balance self - esteem de rived from possible democ ratizing c ommon a cti v ities. The ca se of Mrs . Pede rsen is s lightl y differe nt, as seen in the next chapter. T h e obe sity of the Pedersens is caused by the e nor mous quantit y of food that she p repa r es for them, which is a reflection of her t o tal dedication to her family. That is, she compe nsates her l ack of self -esteem with her exc lusiv e commitment to her rol e of mother/wife . Thus, thi s e xcess of food represents her “exc essive” ex ertion of her m otherly love. Jesse’s bi ologic al f ather Willard h ad a ls o e ate n in a vi gorously aggressive manner, me taphorically reflecting t he threat t h at he represente d for o thers. As Friedman adds, Dr. Pede rsen is a gro tesque embodiment of Nie tzsche’s Superma n, an ove rre acher like the gluttonous Max fro m Shudde ring , the outrageously wealthy Marvi n Howe from Do with Me , and the power-mad Andrew Petrie in The Assass ins. A Book of H ours . T heir ob esity, wealth a nd spiritual deformi ty imply t h eir ex treme individuali sm. Dr. Pedersen is t he one chara cter who best exemplifies this by ass erting that he corre cts the defec ts of na ture and t hat hi s fa te is to displac e God (Friedm an J oyce 101). Moreover, the fact that th e meal at the Pedersens i s de scribed as a “race” reflects not only th e voracious nat ure of D r. P edersen, but also his capi talist com p etitive tenden cie s: he str ives to be the best in his fie ld and e xpects hi s fami ly t o do the same. This i s the reason why he questions them about their daily acc ompli shments. 141 Jesse adopts the Pede rsens’ compulsion for ea ting a nd abandons it afte r b eing e xpelled from the fami ly. Frie dman summarizes t h ese differe nt ph ases by est ablishing a f itting comparison between Jesse’s change s i n size a nd those of Lewis Carrol l’s character Alice, protagoni st of t h e nove ls A lic e’s A dve ntures in Wonderland a nd Through the Looking-Glass, and What Al i ce Found There . According to Frie dman, Oates’s Wonderland is a novel about proportions, l ike Carroll ’s Alice books. Jesse’s changes in size a re reflected into t he episodic structure of Wonderland ( another notorious t rait fro m Carro l’s Alice books). In Jesse’s c ase, t he alte rations are both physical and psychical: Jesse is physically enlarged when he becomes an obese adole scent and the n get s slim a fter bei ng expe l led from the Pedersen famil y. This corre sponds to hi s acquisit ion of the family’s e go and the subsequent (and m omentary) loss of his confide nc e a fter he is abandone d by Dr. Pedersen. Jesse stops overe ating after he is expelle d from t he family, but he start s to fortify his ego in other ways: by becom ing me ntal ly e nlarged a s a ne ur osurgeon; t hen psychically enla rged a gain as a vampiric father an d husband. At t he e nd, Jesse shrinks from Übermensch 19 into a n ordinary , self-que stioning man. On the oth er h and, S he lley, i n ord er to esc ape from her fath er, tr ies to grow smalle r and smaller (Friedman J oyce 95-96, 106). It would seem that her father’s enormous ego doe s not l et her room to expand her own consciousness and sense of worth. At the same time , Jes se’s physic al form is alt ered as he me ets a s eries of ch ar act ers who represent spec ific aspects of Ame rican culture who pose di verse phi losophical solutions to the problems of exi st ence, a s seen in th e chapter “Children . ” The references to devour ing i nevit ably bring to mi nd psychoanalytic theories whi ch have a lso b een applied to Ca rro ll’s A lice novels. As Cre ighton no tices, ora l i ncorporation is a vehicle for i d entity in bot h Ca rroll’s a nd Oat es’s novels, j ust like an infant i n the oral pha se 19 Th e German w ord Ü b e rmensch (“Superman”) refers to t he superior man who justifies the exist e nce o f t he h u m an race. T he term was signi f icantly u sed b y Fri edrich N iet z sche, esp ecia lly in Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883- 18 85). This superior man would emerge when any man with su peri or pote ntial t ot all y masters himself and s trikes o ff conv e ntional C hristian moralit y in ord er t o create his own value s, which would be co mpl e tely bas e d on li f e on this ear th (“Üb erme ns ch” n . p . ). Jes se certainly feel s this pull t o develop his full p otential an d t o master hi mself. 142 of libi dinal development ca nnot perfectly distingui sh betwee n itsel f and the w orld a nd attempts to take in t he whol e world though his mouth. The changes of siz e of Alice a nd Jesse repre sent c hanges of self and shatter any sense of permanent identity. Many psychologists ha ve noted the recurrence of oral trauma or sadistic tr ends of a canni bali st ic natur e in Ca rroll’s w ork. In both Alice ’s two nove ls and Wonderland , fa ntastic ritua ls of eating are giv en prominent focu s (t he Mad Hatter’s tea party and t he Pedersens’ meals). Beside s, cannibalization is a li tera l a nd figurat ive possibilit y in both works. In the late r oral ph ase, the ch ild i s afrai d of mouths, a nd i n Alice we find m ultiple cr eatures being e aten or eat ing, as well a s in Oates’s Wonderland there are recurrent images of mouths a nd rel ated symbols such as wo mbs, sacs, boxe s, shells a nd cel ls. B esides, Hilda claim s t hat her fa ther wants to e at her ; Dr. Pedersen plot s to a ppropriate and symbolic ally devour Jesse’s selfhood; Monk eat s a human womb; Perrau lt dre ams of transplanti ng brains; and Jesse meta phor ically assimilates bits of his fat hers, daughter, patients and me dical knowledge to preve n t people from goi ng away from him. Both Alice and Jesse ar e successful (A lic e wins th e chess game, and Jesse be comes a n eurosurgeon); but ironically, they bring chaos rather than order t o their worlds: Al ice floods Wonderla nd wi th h er tears, prompts a pack of ca rds to revol t against her and destroys t h e looki ng - glass; while Jesse increases his wife’s disconnecti on by withdrawing from her a nd drives Shelley into a flight for sanity. At the e nd, Alice flee s from that world under th e ground of consciousness and wakes up; and Jesse rej ect s th e a lternate dream -vision t hat Reva represents (Creighton Joyce 83, 85). In conclusion, i n th e ca se of th e Ped ers en fam ily, eating and overea ting ar e partly a man ifestation of th e authoritarian at t itude of the fathe r: his obsession to keep his fa mily un der his control a nd hi s orders transforms him i nto a devouring ego that eventually disturbs the identitie s of the re st of his family, particula rly his wife, whom h e submits to psychological violence . 2.3.2 Democratic Parents Democra tic pare n ts show high degrees o f discipline, but also of warmth: t h ey are demanding, but also resp onsive and nurturing t oward 143 thei r children. They te nd no t t o be intrus ive but are ready to impose restrictions if n ecess ary, and there fore they have a h igh de g ree of control . T hese parents assume that th ey have enough skill and knowledge to cont rol their children, and tha t the c h ildren are m ature and c ompetent, and should accep t respo nsibility for their actions, so these parents make high maturity de mand s . They give reasons for what they e xpect of t hem: they are high in c lari ty of com munica tion. T his is why the ir ch ildre n h ave more advan ced moral conc epts, beca use they have received e xplanations about the norms the y had to foll ow. Children with dem ocrat ic parent s are e xpo sed to stre ssful events of their own maki ng and are expected to cope with the consequences of t h eir act ions. Democratic p arents have childr en who do be tter i n social, emoti on al a nd cognitive measures, apart from showing more self - confide nce. Besides, democ rati c pa renting is l inked t o higher level s of social responsibility and independence bot h in boys and girls. Childr en do not tend to be involv ed in violent b ehavior (Maccoby a nd Martin qtd. in Ladd 8; B aumrind qtd. in Wh ite and Woollett 46 , 48-49 ; and Palaci os Gonzá lez 56 -58). The best example of democratic parents a re Corinne and Mi chael Mulvaney from Mul vaneys . Howeve r, the ir democ ratic parenting style is transformed into a uthoritarian after t he fam ily tra gedy, that is, af ter Marianne ’s rape. The rape i s the turning poi nt that d ivides the nov el into two phases. W e shall initia lly concentrate on the first part, when Cor inne a nd Michael can be classified as democrat ic parents, and subsequently examine t heir i mplem entation of a uthorita rian parenting. As we shall explain, the democr atic styl e was part of the illusion of perfec tion th at the family used to beli eve in. At the begi nning of the nove l, t he na rr ator, the youngest c hild Judd, presents how ideal and flawless his f amily used to be, r epeatedl y describing the close and loving relationsh i ps t hat the fam ily me mbers displayed. The cha rac ters are t hemselves de luded about t heir perfec tion, a nd so i s t he reader. As Judd rec alls, “ [e]verything in t hose days was stark a nd int ense a nd almost hur tful—I mea n, it had t he power to m ake me so happy , so excit ed ” ( Mulvaneys 16, empha sis in the origina l). However, this situation of fami ly bli ss is revealed a s i llusory and sel f-decepti v e when they are unable to dea l wit h the daughter’s 144 rape. They used to be a “perfect” patria rchal f amily i n which each membe r ha d he r /his pe rfect (a nd il lusory) role from which there was no escape : thes e rol e s are so inflexible that thwart any attempt at transformation or adaptation. Particularly, as e xplained in the chapter “Fathers,” Marianne is never forgi ven by her father for, i n his view, cea sing to be an obed ient a nd good daughter, as well a s a virgin, eve n if her i nitia tion i n to sex occurred against h er will. Thus, in t he fi rst part of t he book, the paren ts exhibi t cha racteristics of the democratic style, ma king the ir nurturance toward the ir chi ldren explicit by treati ng the m wit h respect and affe ction , and a pparently valuing t heir individuality, but under the condit ion that they submi t to the stiff nuc lear family struc ture unde r the a uthorit y of the fa ther. T he dominance of t he f ath er is not so explic it a s in the case of Dr. Pedersen, so that for th e f irst p art of the book, the characte rs are d eluded a bout t he democ ratic struct ure of the fa mily, which shows its real nat ure after th e rape. This del usion is m anifest ed through the multiple affectionate nickna mes that each family mem b er ha s: Michael is nick n ame d Curly , Captain , Grouchy a nd Groucho by t h e whole fam ily, and Big Bear , Chick ie and Sugarca ke by Cori nn e; Mike is M ike Jr ., Mikey - Junior , Big Guy , Mule a nd Number Four ; Patrick is P.J. and Pinch ; Mari anne is Button and Chi ckade e ; and Judd is B abe , Dimple and Rang er . Corinne is only nickna med by he r husband, who call s he r Dar ling , Honeylove , Sweet heart , Sugarca ke , or Whistl e . The na rrator pres ents th is extensive list of nicknames as a proo f of affection between the ch aracters. Neverthe less , s ince nickna mes are also a w ay of c ontrolli ng and modelling others, we might i nterpret i t a s an a ttitude of i gnorance or blindness toward the chara cters’ real identities; and, in t his case, toward the ri gidity th at the family stru cture h ides behind the court eous mask it displays on peace ful times. For i nstance, Mari anne’s be ing c alled Button and Chickadee im poses infanti lized, “c harming” a nd submissive trait s upon he r ; whereas Judd i s present ed as a young a nd ine xp erie n ced membe r of the f amily by being r eferred to as Babe . Corinne’s nickna mes, like Mari anne’s, also suggest doc ility, inf antilization and submission; whereas Michael’s nickna mes, Captain and Grouchy, point out to his position of aut hority. The characters are trappe d in these 145 conce ptions, and will find it al most imposs ibl e t o flee from them: only the destruction of the “bliss” of t he pe rfect tra ditional nuclear fam ily will grant them this freedom. In this famil y, as it occ urs with de mocratic par ents, discipline is always ma intained. Cori nn e a nd Michae l consid er tha t the ir children a r e mature e nough to assume re sponsibiliti es , and so the y a ssign them chores a round the farm which include ta king c are of animals and tending to th e orchard. At this stag e, dis cipl ine is exerted in a g entle manne r because the childre n are obedient: it is when they start to disagree or contradict t heir pa r ents that dis cipl ine t akes a domineering and force ful appe arance. At t he beg inning of th e novel, both p aren ts re sort to a n open and honest com munication. Unlike a t the Pedersens’ hou sehold, the Mu lva neys’ meals are infused with spontaneous and live ly conversat ion, sometimes cent ered around educa tional program s they watch on te levision: “ we’d discuss the m during, a nd a fterward —we Mulvaneys were a f amily who talked ” ( Mulvaneys 16, empha sis in t he origina l). The quotation makes an i nteres ting disti n ction by using t he past t ense, i ndicating that the com municati on was only apparent ly ope n in t he past ; that i s, during re laxe d and unpr oblematic times: when tough time s arr ive, t h e communicatio n is proved as highly defective. Both the Pedersens and the Mulvaneys grant a hi gh value to educa tion, but their techniques a re oppos ed: in t he Ped ersen family, it is infused through a rigid code that admits no sponta neity; while the membe rs of the Mulvan ey family anim atedly share knowledge. As a result, th e children communicate with th e ir parents on t heir own will, informing t hem about daily occurren ces without their p arent s’ prompt or imposition t o do so. Corinne, for e x ample, has “always been proud she wasn’t the k ind of moth er to ‘inv estigate’ —on princ iple. I wan t my children to t rust me. To thi nk of me as an equal ” ( Mulvaney s 115, empha sis in the original). This proves, to o, the parents’ non -intrusive nature . All these t raits a re conde nsed in a signi f i cant c onv ersat ion a mong Michael , Mike and Pa trick that Judd overh ears when h e is a small c hild. He is not included in it due to the contents of the conversation: t h e father is discussing with his older s ons a sexual ass ault that has taken pla ce in 248 In the fol lowing sec tion, we shall ex amine how Oat esian daughters deal with t his dichotomy, whil e at the s ame time t h ey relive a nd reinve nt th eir mother’s stories, oscillati ng among symbiosis with, depende nce on, and r ejection of them (Cre ighton and Bi n ette 441). 3.6.1.1 Bala nced Relationships: Cor inne a nd Arlette According to Ri ch, daughters do not only wish to under stand their mothers, but a lso to ac knowl edge t h eir ne ed for t h em. T his is not a regressive wis h, but a token of women’s desire t o create a world in which strong mothers a nd strong d aughte rs are a matter of c ourse. It is import ant then to understa nd this do uble v ision (225). Rich a rgu es that wom en who respect their bodies and feel pride in being female will t ransmit this attitude to their daughters. The most importa nt thi ng a wom an can do for another woman is to broaden th e sense of her ac tual possibil ities . An exa mple of this would be found i n a mother who not only fights against th e r educti v e im ages of wome n in childre n’s books, movi es and school, but who also tries to expand h er own l ife a nd who refuses t o be a victim. D aughters nee d mothe rs who want thei r own freedom as well a s th eir daughters’ freedom (245 -246). In the c o rpus, t he most sel f -nurturing m o thers, who transmi t their self - assuredness t o t heir d aughters, a r e Corinn e from Mulvan eys and Arlette from Carthage . At the opening of the novel, Corinne is always supportive of her childre n while at the same t ime she gives them the necessary free dom to make their own choices: “ Corinne prided herself on ne ver h aving been a mot her who fussed over her c hildren; […] the Mulva ney c hildren were so famously self -reliant and capable of ca ring for themse lves [...] Corinne had a hard time fussing over hers elf” ( Mulvaneys 27). The f act that she is not exce ssively controlling of her chil dren provides them with i ndependence. S he a lso provi des h e r da ughter M arianne wit h autonomy by be ing a nurt ur ing m o ther but not excessively overprote ctiv e. Neverthe less , Corinne ’s att itude change s afte r Mari anne’s ra pe, and this al lows us to exa mine th e tra n sformation of he r balanced attitude. When her husband Michael pro ves his inab ili ty to de al with the event s by stating that he cannot live with hi s da ughter anymore , 249 Corinne chooses t o support hi m i nst ead of Marianne , and th e gi rl i s sent to live with a re lativ e. The full implicatio ns of t he rape and Michael’s abandonm ent of Mari anne a re to be analyzed in th e ne xt ch apter, “Fathers.” Presently, we shal l simply antic ipate h er mot h er’s reaction. After the ra pe, Corinne is fi rst supportive to Maria nne since she feel s ex tremely guilty: “ I’m her mother, it must have b een partly my fault ” ( Mul vaney s 114, empha sis in the ori ginal). Moreover, Corinne is shocked by the effe ct th at M aria nn e’s rape has for t he w hole fam ily, and she is forced to see t hat they w ere not as unit ed a s she t hough t: thei r image as a perfect family has been de f initely sha t tere d. She i s hurt when she le arns tha t not even Patrick knew about the rape, and af terwards s he cannot underst and or accept how the me mbers of the family become incre asing ly distant. Corinne, along with Mar ianne, is the character who most bitte rly and close ly lives the d estruction of t he Mulva neys. Despite the f act tha t Judd na rrate s the fam ily tra gedy yea rs l ater, Corinn e is the only chara cter who is present during t he whole proc ess: the di scovery that Marianne has been raped; Marianne’s banish ment from home; Michael ’s fall int o desper ation, a lcoholis m and disease; the fi n ancial unrecove r able debts c aused by Mi chael’s f utile atte mpts at br inging t he rapist to court; the loss of the family bus iness a nd the s ell ing of t h e farm; the dispersal o f hi s sons; etc. Accordingl y, as eve ry thing shif ts a nd crum bles a round her, Corinne tries to keep e v erythi ng under c o ntrol in the be st mann er she can. She soon finds herself in a difficult pos ition: when her husband finds it im possible to deal with h is dear daughter’s r ape, Corinne f eels divided b etween his needs and t he needs of Mar ianne. Wh en, event ually, she is force d to choose between losing her husband or he r daughte r, she chooses him, consider ing th at by doing s o the fa mily wi ll rema in united. She is thu s, unwilli ng ly, betraying her daughter. Corinne used to be a mo ther th at pr om oted her d a ughter’s indepe ndence, but now it is discovered that Corinne herself was le ss indepe ndent than she appea r ed to be . She was actual ly subjected to t he will of her husban d and to her ro le a s a t r adit ional m other. T hus, in a moment of crisis, s he betrays Marianne by taking sides with the f athe r, a de cision that seems t o suggest he r submission t o t he pa tria rchal order. 250 She make s this c hoice b ecause she beli eves tha t this is the only way to save the famil y, and thi s i mplies t hat for her, the famil y can onl y exist within t h e L aw of t he Father. Once more, the problems of the a pparent ly perfec t tradit ional fa mily are revealed in t he corpus. The fact th at Corinne is the character that re constit u tes the f amily a t the end of t he novel indic ate s t hat she has eventually qu estioned, a nd subver ted, thi s patri archa l order. Marianne reacts to this with patience, forgiveness and meekness , considering that she deserves to be ba nished from ho me due to her behavi or (she feels guilty of her r ape, and thus, of its c onsequence s). In the years that follow, Cor inne’s former affection for Marianne wavers: she is di stant and severe to her, possibly to mask her guilt ove r her abandonm ent. She openly de spises t h e l ife that her daughter a dopts, trave lling from one place to anoth er, and refers to i t as a “ rag quilt l ife.” This coinc ides with he r adopti on of an a uthorita rian pa renting style in substitution of her previous d emocratic style, which can be p art ly caused by her stress, sadne ss and a nguish about the destruction of th e famil y. While he r husband i s dying, Cori nne a po logiz es to M aria n ne for “not [ha ving] bee n a better m other” ( Mul vaneys 426). She is only a ble to recognize this when she is fre ed of h er c hoice of her husband ove r her daught er; but she do es so even before he dies. Although Corinne ’s e xperience as a moth er i s g enerally pos itive , due to the specific traumatic events the family undergo es, she ceases to be a nurturing mothe r to Marianne. In fact, her attitude in creases the girl’s sham e a nd feeling of guilt over her rape (which are common effec ts of s uch a tra uma) because t he b anishment from home appe ars t o be a sort of punishm ent for some m isconduct. Corinne is not he lping her daughter to re cover, but confining he r into t he neg ative eff ect s of the ra p e such as self -blame. Mari anne, th us, i s aware of her n eed for a mother, but eventually los es this figure. Like Marianne, other daughters do not wil lingly separate from their mothers: i t is thei r mothers who s omehow reje ct them. Apart from her, there are several female characters t hat feel unm o there d in the corpus: name ly, Hel ene Vogel, Shel ley Vogel and Maure en We ndall, a s we shall soon describe . 251 In Carthage , Arlette is an understanding mother w ho does no t wish to i nterfere in he r daughters’ pri vate lives : she always re spe cts t h eir intimacy a nd their need t o have some distance at times. Like Corinne, Arlette does not pry in h er da ughters’ lives. As she t ells he r husband upon his w orries that “ hi s” daughter Juli et m ight be ha ving sex with he r boyfriend, “Juli et isn’t ‘yours’ any mor e tha n she is mine. Try to be grate ful that she’s so happy—she’s in lov e ” ( Carthage 40, e mphasis in the original). Like many other fathers from the corpus (although in a much more a ttenuated ma nn er), Zeno holds feeli ngs of pos session toward his daught ers. This issue will be expl ored in th e c hapter “Father s.” As they grow up, th e sisters Jul iet and Cr es sida gai n indepe nd ence from thei r mother Arlet te in opposed manners. C ressida tries to gai n distance from her p arent s, especially her mother, from an early age. Influenc ed by e x ternal fa ctors, as we explain i n the ch apte r “Childr en,” she has formed an image of he rse lf as an inde pendent gir l who scorns sentime n tality a nd affe ction, a nd a s a re sul t us uall y re frains from ta k ing part into family ac tivities; bu t she is also secretly e nvious of them. Although she re spects he r daugh ters’ ind ependence Arle tte is deeply hurt a bout Cressida’s detachment and fierce def ense of her privac y, which at time s i mplies harshly rejecting h er mothe r. On the contrary, Arlette and Juliet ha v e a loving and balanced rela tionship. A rle tte is glad to concede privacy to Juliet but of course is worried about her rel ationship with Brett after he returns fro m Iraq and the signs of physical abuse she see s on he r daughte r. Juliet de nies be ing abused, how ever, and Arlette does not insi st. In th is c ase, the respe ctful distance that Arlett e give s t o her daughter unint entionally c onceals the problem s that the g ir l has in her relations hip. These two mothers, Cor inne and Arle tte, a llow th eir d aughte rs t o make th eir own decisions, a nd do not ask for expla n ati ons whenev er they entail discussing an intimate topic. The attitude of Corinne and Arlette is a breakt hrough for women’s a u tonomy, eve n m ore va luable if we consider tha t at least Corinn e w as not probably given such freedom by her stric t mother. 252 3.6.1.2 Deserting Mothers, Motherless Daughte rs: Clara, Helene , Shelley and Maureen At time s, Ri ch argue s, t he intera cti on bet ween a da ughter a nd her m other become s so strained that some wome n fee l unm othered. The reasons might va ry. On t he one ha nd, s ome mothe rs have literally deserte d t heir daughters due to ma ny reasons (death, drugs , madness, the nee d to work to earn mon ey, etc.). On t he other ha nd, there m ight be m etaphorical desertions, since little girl s growing in a male - control led world ma y feel terribly unm o there d at ti mes. Some other women feel anger toward th eir m others due t o their mother’s victimization a nd p assivity. This pa ssivity mut ilat es the daughter who is looking for cl u es as to what it means to be a woman (225, 243). Daughters may react to this sta te of being unm othere d in two m ain manne rs; n amely, by looking for a mo ther figure or by adop ting motheri ng attitudes toward o thers. W ome n who feel unm othered may look for a mot her a ll t heir li ve s, even look for her in me n. Alternatively, they might deny their own vulnera bili ty and loss, and consequent ly, prove their strength by spending the ir life “mo theri ng ” othe rs; for instance , mot h e ring men whose weaknes s make s them feel strong; or by being te achers, do ctor s, pol itical a ctivis t s, etc. In thi s m anner, t h ey are giving others what t h ey have lacked, but at the same time, they use the depe nd ence that o thers hav e on them i n order to feel s trong. They would perhaps feel uneasy am ong equals, especially women. At times, women reinforce thi s m othering attitude toward men by e qualing men with children. This is infa ntil izing to me n, and it has also i mpli ed a great consumption of wome n’s en ergies (Ric h 2 13, 242-243). As Ric h points out , alt hough the first c ontact that wom en have of warmth, nouri shment a nd securi ty occurs with the ir m o thers, institutionalized heterosexuality (pe r cei v ed by Rich as utterl y differe nt from he terosexuality freely chosen a nd live d) and institutionalized motherhood demand tha t the girl s hould transfer the se f eelings of depende ncy, e rotic ism a nd mut uality t o a ma n. Toward the edge of adole scence, wome n find themselves drawing bac k from t heir nat ur a l mother, since it is towar d men, hencef orth, that their s ensual and emoti on al needs are intended to flow (218, 255). 253 Helene and Clar a are in a nalogous posi tions sinc e they grow up without the pre sence and the support of a m other: both mothers die while the girls are young, a fac t t hat pre vents the m from de veloping a close bond with t hem. T hey are both literally and metaphorically unmothere d. H elene and Clara have different reactions t o these abandonm ents. Helene , una ble to recover the bond with he r la te mothe r (which appears to have be en rather stiff even while she lived), finds many c omplic ations i n accepting her fem ale body. Thus, she infuses a protec tive a nd mothering at titude into her relationship t o her husband Jesse, Clara recov ers the lost mo ther -daughter bond by means of a ne w understanding of he r own body when she is pregnant. Finally, Maure en becomes the most severe case of a n unmothe r ed daughte r from th e corpus: her mother Loretta for ces her to become a sort of m other/ wife withi n the family. Bes ides, Maureen’s physical securit y i s pu t at risk partly due to Loretta’ s lac k of invo lvement t oward her. Rea lizing this, Lore tta changes he r att itude a nd constructs a more nurturing ra pport with Maure en, which is not totally reciprocat ed. Little is known a bout He lene’s m o ther, wh o died when the g irl was twelve years old; but, just as her husband , she i s sai d to have referred to i ntimate questions i n a n obli qu e a nd shame d manner. Of course, when Hele ne was a teenager, around the 1940s, sexua lity was not comm only op enly discussed: the publication of Alfred C. Kinsey’s revoluti on ary study Sexual Behavior i n the Hum an Mal e i n 1948 had caused quit e a social shock (G arraty 871). Probably , her mot h er’s reticence con tributed t o probl ematize Hel ene’s exp erie nce of h er own body and sexua lity. T his, in turn, pre v ented he r from recov ering her rela tionship with he r mother by means of t he shared e xp erie n ce of th e fema le body. Helene reacts by adopting a combinatio n of a mot hering and a wifely comforting att itude toward her husband; in fa ct, she decides to marry him sooner than pl anned when sh e perceives hi s vulnerability afte r h e has a distres sing inci d ent a nd a phys ica l fight with thei r friend Monk: “He had ne eded he r, he ha d b een m ute wit h f ear, needing h er... she had to m arry him, to comfort him...” ( Wonderland 280). Curiously, Helene and Jesse a ppear to nee d t o vis uali ze their partner as a vulnera ble being, as seen both in this scene and in t h e e pis ode of th e 254 sheep fa rm. This c ould indicate a nar cissist ic inclination i n both chara cters, w ho wish to be reminded of t heir own relevance for, and perhaps superiorit y to, other people who a re weake r than t h em. Helene ’s m othering a ttitude a llows h er, first, to tinge her rela tionship with Jess e with certain ase xual tones, a very convenient perce ption gi ven her dislike for sex. At the same tim e, Helene, acting as a mother to her partner, c onfirms Iriga r ay’s rema rk that mothers are expec ted to yield to th e needs of othe rs while disrega rd ing t heir own nece ssiti es. A second eff ec t of her mot hering inclination toward men is the impossibility to attain a fulfilling rel ati ons hip with her daughters, since she is more nurturi ng to her husband t han to them . T he results of this effec t are especially noticeable in Hel ene’s relationship t o Shelley, since Hele ne’s situation seems to be replicat ed in th e girl . In Shelle y’s letters to her father, the girl cl aim s th at s he does not think a bout her mother, and repeatedly assures tha t she does not love her; but her descripti ons of anecdotes from c hildhood reveal th at he r feelings are more complex than a sim ple resentment t h at could perhaps be attributed to a typical adolescent rebellion. Shel ley narrat es several occurrences in which sh e felt that her love for her mo ther was being sh unned: once, she gave her a Christmas present, but he r mother “couldn’t even pr etend that she liked it —her face [was] careful, unresponsive” ( Wonderland 409). Mos t signific antly, when Shelley runs away, Helene tells Jesse that it is be tter to th ink of thei r da ugh ter as de ad. She se ems t o be totall y renounci ng to her role of Shelley’s mother, which she has never fully enjoye d. Shelley i s vi sibly disappointed by her m other’s col dness. At some point, she has a dream about her mot her t hat she descri bes as a nightma re. In it, she see s He lene as having a bl oodless smooth face which is hol lowed out , with slope s in pl ace of the e yes, nose and mouth. This quotation suggests that th e girl per ceives her mother a s shal low, cold a nd indifferen t. Thi s l ack of identity as a mother, a nd subsequent lac k of ra ppor t with her c h ildre n, appears to be consistent with Shel ley’s assertion that it w as not he r mother, bu t her fa ther, the one who gav e birth to her. Poss ibly, Shell ey is a lso resent ful a t h er mother for, as Ric h suggests, being a vict im of her ge nder a nd not giving her clue s as to 255 how to be a woman: she does not c ontribut e to the he alt hy de v elopment of her daughter. Shelle y’s reaction is be coming, in ti me, a sort of mother to he r frie nds from th e counterculture : Noel r efers to her as a m other and a n “a ngel,” which of course immediately bri ngs to m ind re sonances of the Vic torian my th of the “Angel in the H ouse.” On t he contra ry, t he outcome of Cl ara’s unmothered sta te is opposed to that of Hele ne, despite the similariti es of their situatio ns: Clara restores the lost l ink wit h her mother by means of her bodily experi ence as a mot h er. Clara’s mother Pearl never develops a c lose bond to her daughter, perhaps due to a sort of me ntal or e motional disorder tha t s he is i nsinuated to ha v e: she rare l y spea ks as a consequenc e of her illness. In t h e corpus, it i s usually male chara cte rs the ones tha t are qu iet: Pear l is one of t he exce p tions, along with Maureen. The dist ance be tween them is empha sized in th e 2006 revision of the novel, whic h portrays P earl as eithe r severe or unc aring to her c hildren. Pearl dies when Clara is a c h ild, and Cla ra’s f ather start s a rela tionship with a woman called N ancy, who becomes Clara’s stepmot her. After Cl ara runs a way from h e r fami ly, she rem inis cences about he r mother in a mor e profound ma n ner tha n she ever did : At first , after h er mother’s deat h, she hadn ’t h ad time to think o f her at all. It was something b ette r kept bac k; it w as too awful. Then when N ancy ca me alon g it was stra ng e, beca use to somebody from t he o utside, the emptiness where Pea rl had been wasn’t real —Nancy h ad never kn own Pearl. S o wh en you were with Nancy the whole idea of Pearl d id n ot make sens e. Nancy couldn ’t reme mber Pearl so y ou couldn’t tal k with her about P ear l, and anyway there was a lways so mu ch work t o do. Fixin g meal s, taking care of the k ids—it eroded everyth ing away and the mem ory of P ear l was just a small nagging ache. ( Garden 133) First of all, the e xhausting l ifestyle of the f amily do es not provide th em with muc h t ime for re flec t ion. Be sid es , Cla ra doe s not wish t o reme mber the m iserable l ife her mo ther had to endure, nor doe s she have a nyone she can confide in. 256 When Nancy becomes her stepmother, the girl accepts this ne w bond, but she still senses t h e emptiness left by her biolo gi cal m other’s absence . C lara does no t fully reali z e the b ond she has with her m other until she ge ts pregnant. I t is at t his po int when she i s able to s ympathize with her to a grea ter extent: She thought o f h er mother — all those b abies gou ging themse lves o ut of her, cov ere d by blood, slippery and damp as f ish, wit h no more s ense t han fi sh a nd no value to anyone. And how her mother had died! — she knew more abou t that n igh t than she h ad ever let herself think about. ( Garden 214-215) This quote emph asize s Clara’s prev ious reticence to li nger on th e memor y of her m other, as well as her terrible de ath fro m childbirth. Clara h ad not wanted to ac knowledge Pe arl’s impact ove r her because it was too pai nful and obscure for he r to evoke, so she burie d he r mother’ s memory in her mind for all those years. Clara ’s attitude further illustrates Rich ’s idea that within a patri archa l ideological context mothers are not ul timately consid ered worthy of dee p love and loyalty. As a c onsequence , women be come taboo t o women, not just sexua lly, bu t a s comrade s, cocreators, conspirators, et c. Breaking this taboo would allow daught ers to reunite with thei r mothe rs, and v ice versa , thus destroying the taboo (255). Rich’s assertion c ould a pp ear t o b e inc onsistent with t h e supposedly high e steem t hat women receive i f th ey become mothers and pe rform this role according to t he social expectations, but i t i s act ually accurate. Tr aditionally, mothers a re indeed r espected, but only as long as they keep within the prescri b ed li mits of t h ei r role: the y are only gi ven voi ce in some specific qu estions and ta sks relat ed to the privat e sphere, such a s m aintaining t he hous e and ra ising the children. The proc ess of reva luating moth ers, al ong with t hese funct ions, is a l ong one. Clara is a ble t o find a link wi th her mother by expe rienc ing motherhood as a physical experience, whi ch infuses into her a renewed empa thy toward her mo ther. As Clara ’s experie nce shows, when some girls beco me moth ers, they reproduce the e arly relationship with their 257 own mothe rs (Chodorow qtd. i n Brannon 1 14). In he r ca se, this ha s very positive e ff ect s, whi ch are not perceived i n Helene’s case. The best e xample of an unmothered daughter in the corpus i s Maureen from them . In th e fo llowing paragraphs we shall close ly anal yze the relationship between Maureen a nd her mot her Loretta and the infl uence it has over some of the girl’s decisions and e xp eriences. Loret ta’s feelings for her olde st d aughte r are extremely volatile : at time s she is nic e and ge nerous t o he r, but m ost oft en , she mocks Maureen’s quiet personality, so opposed to her ow n carefree attitud e. Perhaps the rea son for t heir inabi lity to understand eac h othe r l ies preci sely in their divergent personali tie s: Loretta l eads a n optimis tic life full of changes that she prom p tly embraces , while Maureen is a serene, sensitive, p assive a nd int roverted chi ld. She describe s herself r athe r acc urate ly a s “a pie ce of wood being c arried al ong i n the wat er, dri fting along, m eeting things a nd p assing by” ( the m 316). It wil l take her y ears to exe rt some ag ency over her life. Maureen unsuc cessfully waits for some pe ace to a rrive. She wishes to fi nd some space of her own, but she cannot fulfill this wish in her Family Syste m of Origin, where she is for ced t o shar e eve rything: she sleeps i n the sam e room a s her sister Bet ty, and her mothe r even kicks her out of her own bed when she fight s with her husband Furlong, forcing the g irl to sl eep in the sofa. Be ing expelled from he r own bed is yet another s ymbol of Maureen’s unstable and precariou s l ife. Maureen spends her early adol escence constantly waiting for a change tha t c an bring ce rtainty and permanence to her life, but it does never arrive. Loret ta often teases Mauree n by a ccusing her of leading a double life in which she secretly me ets bo ys. This is not an innoc uous alle gation, and w ill have an inf luence upon Maure en’s lat er de cision of prostituti ng h erself: with her t aunts about men, as Oate s a ffirms, “he r mother is provoki ng her into promiscuous b ehavior” (“Correspondence” 53). However, Lore tta is not always de r isive toward Maureen. In fact, s he t ries t o instill c onfidence i nto he r da ugh ters by advising them not to let anyone “push them a round” ( t hem 121). And so, even if Loretta does not ha ve b ad i ntent ions when moc king he r olde r daughte r, she is simply not aware of how much t his affects Maureen, 264 incide nt, s he s laps M aureen, affirming that she is “just a w hore. S he s et out to be on e and she succeeded” ( t hem 417). Loretta i s he r e reflecting the patriarchal p erception of women as seductress, and as the “guilty” ones i n cases of adulte ries. Besides, t he novel also suggests Loretta ’s adhere nce to the classical dichotomic life choices for women of becom ing eith er angels or prostitu tes. In the e nd, thus, despite L oretta’s cha ng e of a ttitude, the re is not a recove ry of the mother -daughter bond. Loretta a ppears t o have assumed the expectations of the tradi tional nuclear t raditional family, and this results in the distor tion of t he mother -dau ghter subsystem, because s he does not gi v e Maureen t h e possibility of bec oming lib erated, a nd beca use she forces her to be her substitute in her traditional role as mother/ wife, which exposes the girl to vio lenc e. 3.6.1.3 The Opposite of Deserting . Overprotecting Mothers: Luci lle The c orpus shows t hat i t is not ea sy for d aughte rs t o separate from their mo thers in a healthy or balanced ma nner. In Bird, Krista’s fathe r Edward is s uspected of ha ving murdered his lover Z o e. His wife Luci lle c onsiders that Edward’s behavior on the nigh t of the cr ime is suspicious, but she does not think t hat he is a murde rer. However, she does consider him guilty of infi d elity a nd especi ally resents t he “shame” that he has brought to the family. She fee ls hurt because she real izes that she had not reall y known her husband. It is not ea sy for Luci lle to g et used to her new situation b ecause part of the sense of loss due to a part ners’ unfaithfulness is because of all t ha t we have com mitte d to o ur p art ner. [ ...] Rela tionships are b oth rea lity and illusio n ; th ey in clude what w e have, what we beli eve we h ave and what we h op e we have. (Boekhout et al . 3 60) After Lucille is fa ced to confront the rea l status of h er marriage, s he separate s fro m Edward. When her husband starts to behave threa teningly by stalkin g them, h e receive s a n order of restraint. Be ing now the custodial parent, Lu cille is forced to explain t he complicated event s to the children: at t imes, she reacts by be ing obscure and re fusing 265 to discuss m atters, although in general she does no t withhold informa tion from t h e children and tri es to be obje ctive a bout t h e ev ents. Luci lle, who suddenly fi nds h erself a lone with t he responsibilities of pare nthood, ha s a lways que stioned her own authori ty ove r the childre n, and these doubts i n crea se a fter sh e be c o mes th e on ly custodial parent : s he is aware of th e vulne r ability of her au thority, so th at “to t h e most casual of dema nds she brought a mysteri ous demand tha t seemed never to be fu lly satisfied ” ( Bird 9). In Krista’s words, these d ema nds becom e “insatiable ” afte r the separat ion ( Bird 9). The w ish to protect the children is pos si bly at the c ore of Lucille’s demands, but her daughte r resents these exigencies, which s he deem s unreas onable. Another probl em is t hat Lucille c onsiders t hat her marri age is finished, but Krista is closely attache d to her father a nd st ill needs him (as di scussed i n the chapter “Fathers”), and this ca uses an irrepa rable schism in thei r approa ch to their ne w life. L ucille is worried about Krista’s safet y and beco mes rath er prote ctive of he r: she knows t hat her husband has become de sperate, unpredict able a nd resen tful, a nd as a consequenc e m ay not make very good decisions re garding Krista’s safety. Therefore, Lucille tr ies to c ontrol Krista’s whereabouts and t o prevent her fro m see ing E dward; while t he gi rl, fee ling th at she is being trea ted li ke a little c hild, highly resents thi s and sec retl y meets he r fathe r. T he relationship betwe en m o ther and da ughter is strain ed a s a result of t h is, for their opin ions a re irreconcilable. As a resul t, when Luci lle tr ies to find com fort in her childre n, Kr i sta plai n ly rejects her. Ben, on t he c ontrary, sympathiz es with he r: “ h e hated our father for how our father had hur t our m o ther, thus had to l ove our mo ther b lindly, without judgment a nd wi thout nu a n ce” ( Bird 21). Krista sta nds in a diffi cult positi on t oo becaus e she is trapped in the middle of her pa r ents’ disagreements. Despite the fact t hat she “ sides” with her be loved father, Krista os cillates be tween defying her mother and not wishing to worry or disappoint he r. Krista understands the hur t that h er m other L u cille feels, but still she feel s a stronger alliance with her fat h er tha n with her. This is caused by her predilec tion for him; but may also be partly influ ence d by the a lert a nd overprot ect ive a ttitude of her m other toward he r, whic h Krista compe nsates by preferring her 266 fathe r’s unpre dictabili ty and sponta n eit y, despite realizing a s well that his attitude may be reckless and eve n dangerous. In the e nd, despit e he r suffering, Lucille m anages to acce p t t he event s a nd overcome her grief. Her phil os op hy is that the past is ov er: “We n eed t o pu t thi s behind us [...] This ugline ss. Li ke an earthqua k e, or a flood, you’re in shock but then, you know, you galvanize ” ( Bird 21, empha sis in the original) . This quotation shows that Luc ille is able to lea ve the past behind be cause she has come to te rms with it not by ignoring it , but by confronting it and ha ving learnt from it . The galva nizing image is espe cially signif icant sinc e it implies the protec tion and strength one g ets through learning from experience. The overcoming of t h is tra uma is not so e as y for Krista, who cl ings to t he past and to the loss of he r father. She loves he r mother, and is grate ful for her a ffect ion, but th ere ar e huge di fferenc es i n the ir approac h to life: for instance, L ucille s hows so me rac ist t raits that Krista dislikes a nd r eproaches. Krista is a t eena g er who nee ds to find her own ind epende n t voice, and ge t rid of the constraints that have chai ned her moth er in her gender and r ace prejudices. 3.6.2 Mother -Son R elati onsh ips One of the most salient tr aits of the mother -son relati onships in the corpus is the sons ’ wish to possess and cont ro l their moth ers. Simulta n eously, mo thers a lso exhi bit some possessive in clinations toward thei r s ons. Gar den and Expensiv e a re the perfect example o f this, a s we shall prove by c omparing them. Beside s, the complex fa mily rela tionships of these nove ls give origi n to a particular kind of Oedi pal bond which we shall e xp lore. 3.6.2.1 Ex pensive Pe op le : Description a nd Origin of t he Conflict in the Moth er -Son Subsys tem In Expe nsi ve , the m o ther -son relationship is a c onsequence of the pre v iously described approach that Na da has to her se lf: she cannot reduce her identity to the role of mot h er, and c ons equently, she needs to fl ee from an ex clusive commitment to this role by periodically abandoni ng h er fam ily, whil e at the s ame time she r epresses her ar tistic individuality be cause she consid ers it det r imental for her 267 socioeconomic sta tus. Besides, she has cre ate d a f ake socialite role that is neit her s atisfa cto ry to h er, and to whic h she subordina tes t he other face ts of her iden tity, that is, motherhood and her profe ssion. As Boe senberg not ice s, Nada performs what she considers he r mate rnal duties in a perfunctory ma nner, without committing herse lf emoti on all y (383). In a rev eli ng d ialogue, she tell s Ri chard: I don’t partic ularly care to be called “Mother” b y anyon e. I don’t re spon d to i t. I’m trying to hold my own an d that’s it. No “Mo ther,” no “So n.” No d epe nding on any one els e. [...] You’re n ot going to blam e me for anything. ( Expensiv e 17 4) The quotation prove s that Nada plai nly re jects the adhe rence to the dema nds of Hays’s intensive mothering and does not want to make h er son the sole center of her existence, as Richard would like her to do. In fact , the ideo logy of i ntensive mothering ma ke s women respons ible for the futur e ac tions of their childr en, even if the re are other peop le t aking care of the c h ild such as f athe rs or baby sitters (Hays 169); but Nad a explicitl y refuses to be held responsible for Richard’s future actions. Despite com monly ignori ng him, Nada ca n also be e xtremely dema nding of hi s son. T he most not iceab le example of th is i s see n i n the in cident of Ri chard’s I.Q. test, whic h he ta kes a s part of his e n trance test for his new school. Nada expe cts ex cellent r esults from him, a nd this c auses a feeli ng of anxiety in Richard: “If I fail ed t he exam I would lose [her] fore v er” ( Expensive 39). Upon l earni ng that his I.Q. score is l ower t han hers, Nada forces Richa rd to take the tes t again: “I don’t wa nt you to be less than I am. I want you to be bette r than I am. I c an’t bear the t hought of some ki nd of de generative process setting in. I see myself as le ss than my fat h er was, a nd now you… ” ( Ex pensive 59). As Daly pe rceives, Nada r aises his son to b e a c o mpetitive man, like his fath er (33). She wants both to help Richard to turn into a competitive member of t he capitalis t s ystem they belong to, and to validate her own p osition in t h e co mmun ity by having a son she ca n pub licly be proud of. Thi s ac counts for Nad a’s wish t o dedic ate herse lf to he r public ima ge; i n this case, she i s t rying to ga in social a pproval by proving that as a socia lite m other, s he has 268 encoura ged h e r s on to devel op h is ca pacities to the max imum. B esides, the quotation rev eals that Nad a l acks self -e steem to a certain extent, which is not a surprising revel ati on when conside ring tha t her denial of her writi ng job, apa rt from aiming a t her f itti ng into he r soc ial class, is al so indicative of her lack of self -confi d ence. Richa rd complies and takes th e test again, but when he breaks into the school ’s re cord room a nd learns that t he results of both tests were positive (he scores 153 a nd 161), he be come s furious: “What more could she want? I couldn’t do a ny be tter . I had e v en pushed m yself beyond what I could do, and still it wasn ’t enough for her —I wasn’t enough for he r— and what else could I do ?” ( Expe nsive 99). He senses that his m other will neve r be proud of hi m, and de stroys the room i n a fit of rage. He poss ibly feels tha t the burd en of Nada’s demands is not compe nsated by th e steady emotional support tha t h e crav es for. Johnson describe s t he e pisode a s a cha racteristic Oate si an vi olent climax ca used by Richard’s lack of e mot ional nurturanc e a nd the victimization by th e false va lues of the s uburbs ( Understanding 60). Alternativel y, Walle r propos es th at Rich ard destroys t he roo m a s an attempt t o prove his own autonomy agai nst his mot her’s will ( Dreaming 121). According t o Friedman, Richard i s a good exam ple of the use that Oates m akes of children or adolescents a s dual symbols of human idea lism, and emb lem s of human im pote nce a nd limitations, who a re powerless to realiz e th eir dreams ( Joyce 67). In this novel, Richard fails in his attempt to transform Nada to his liking or to tie h er to him. The m o ther -son conflict ca n be visualized as a s tring t hat Richard pulls i n order to ti e Nada to him, a nd from which she tries to break free. This i rony is pe rceived by Richard: “I loved he r m ore than e ver, of course. Mothe rs who cri nge a nd be g for love get noting, and they deserve not h ing, but m others like Nada who are a lways backing ou t of the driveway draw every drop of lov e out of us” ( Expensive 165). Thi s affirm ation reminds us of Mrs. Pe de rse n despera tely pursuing her biological children’s love but being harshly re jected by the m. T hus, Richa rd would rather have a rigid mother -son subsystem with solid boundarie s, wher eas Nada would be inclined t o have an open subsystem which promotes the sincere self-expre s sion of its me mbers a nd a 269 disposition t o solve pos sible di fferences. Thi s open subsystem would keep t h e bounda r ies between the family and the outside world perme able, which would allow her to avoid assuming a single rol e as a full-t ime mother/wife. Moreover, since Richard onl y wants t o consider Nada as hi s mother, he is unable to p erceive h er a s a woman i n cont rol of her sexualit y and h er sexual d esire. The boy suspects tha t his mother has extra marital affai rs, and appea rs to b e horrified about the perspective of h is mother having, or satis fying, some sort of sexual desire, a wish that acc ording t o Irigaray (51) has bee n denied t o mothers: they are expec ted to sat isfy othe rs (in this case, Ric h ard’s de mands a s a son) and not themsel v es. Upon one occ asion, Richard tries t o ma n ipulate Nada by sending her an anonymous note procl aiming tha t one of her suppos ed lovers is a thief. Rich ard justifies his con trolling actions by claiming to wish to protect his mother and help her maintain her social position beca use the ma n of the note he wrote is not well -li k ed a mong t he community; bu t ev en if this were his act ual in tention, his strategy is devious: the line between prot ecting a n d domi nati ng appe ars to be rathe r thin for him. In Pate rna a nd Martínez’s opi nion, m o thers have be en fitted into an a sexual model, devoid of all wish and force d to devote to their chil dren. E very wom an m ust only be ava ilable t o one man and inac cess ible to the re st. This nega tive pe rcepti on of female s exuality and bodily expe r i ences is tr ansmitted by mothers themselves, who transmit their fe ars and doubts to the ir c hildren: they be come t he mediators of sexual prohi bition. Love is the only e xperience tha t justifie s t he practice of sexuality. Fem ininity is confi rmed by the conditi on of bei ng love d a nd wanted, a fanta sy that is a chieved by idea lizing men and assuming t h at they will fulfi ll their exp ectati ons. The faithfulness and submi ssion to the ne eds of m en is a confirmation of women’s a nd men’s assigned roles. Simultaneously, th e fe ar of an unwanted pregna n cy has been used as a deterrence for the exertion of desire. Th is fear has been d efe ated by t he development of contraception (143 -145). As they conclude, [l] a identidad f emenina debe liber arse del ideal tra dicional definido y esca par de la trampa qu e re tie ne a las mujeres 270 entre sus deseos m aternos, insatisfechos en la mayo ría d e las ocasion es, y las n ecesidades de los hijos qu e no admiten d e l a m adre otra i dentidad que no se a l a prop iame nte mate rna. (Paterna and Martínez 14 5) This is preci se ly what Nada is trying to do in the novel. The di scord of the m other -son subsystem is reflect ed in t h e rat h er complicated ma nner in whic h Nada i s a ddressed in the novel: she tel ls her son to c all h er “Nadia” (t he shorte ned form of Natashy a ), but h e ends up calling her by hi s own version of her name , “Nada.” On the one hand, Nada’s preference for “ Nadia ” instead of other common forms of a ddress such a s “mom” or “mommy” symbolizes not only he r mistrust towards m o therhood, but a lso the pull t oward individuality and uniqueness which she c annot fully conc eal or er ase behind the fict ional ro le she perfor ms as a perfect socia lite. On the other hand, Richard, who yea rns to have an ideal mother, does only on very rare occa sions call her “ mother,” an d ne ver says “mom.” Upon m ost occasions, he calls he r “Nada ,” t he on ly form o f the name that he was able to pro nounce as a chi ld. 24 Somehow this s uggests Richa rd’s disapproval of his mothe r. Since she is not the traditional mother he yearns for, Ric hard ref uses t o recognize her as anythi ng at all: “N ada” is the Spanish w ord “nothi ng.” In othe r words, if she is not a tra ditional moth er, she turns into nothin g for him. As Ri chard grows older, his mother plainly opposes hi s calli ng her “Nada,” arguing that it i s a foolish name. Nada i s possibly disturbed a nd displeased wit h the implications of t he na me, because it underlines the shallowness of he r role as an uppe r middle -class socialite. Richard conce des that “Nada” is a “stupid nic kname” ( Expensiv e 165), but will continue to use it even after she die s , which prove s his lasting resentme n t over her refusal to be a tr aditional mother. Nada ca nno t (and does not wish t o) b e a tradit ional m other due to two main r easons: her yearn for independ ence and her l iterary cre ative capa city. So Rich ard strongly resents thes e two fac tors. 24 There is an al t er nativ e acc ount of the or igin of t his n ickname. Richard as serts that his mo ther taught him to call her “Nada” as a child, but he ap pear s to be mi srememb ering, because h is mot her ne ver approves of this nickname. Thus, it is m ore plausible to assume tha t she told him to call her “Nadia” a nd he came up with “Nada” instead . 271 Nada’s searc h for independ ence is t r anslate d int o he r periodical abandonm ents of her family, which take pla ce when Ri chard is six, nine, and ele v en ye ars old. Richard a sser ts that on t he t hird occasion she is accompanied by a lover; bu t this is not exactly proved to be true. The abandonmen ts ma y be i nterpreted in two ma in m anners (whic h contri bute to the destruction of Richa rd’s mate rnal ide al): a s a legitimate sea rch for i dentity a nd i ndividu al it y ; a nd a s an excessive and for this rea son de structive individualist ic te ndency that distan ces her from her real i d entity as a mother and a writer. The first interpretation perceives her s earch as a val id attempt t o devel op her identity a nd fulfill he rs e l f in a m anner that she c annot a tta in otherwise b ecause she h as subordina ted both her m otherly experience and he r l iterary c areer to h er positi on as a socia lite. Creighton conside rs that it is precisely during t hese p eriods of absence w hen t he “ real” Nada appea rs: the bohemian free spirit, the intelligent, sensual, and gi fted woman ( Joyce 61). T he second view suggests that Nada possesses an exce ss of ego a nd individualism whic h b ecom es d estructive not onl y for herself but also for others because i t prevents her from enjoying her real id entity as a mother and writ er. This interpretation cont emplate s Nada as being as hollow and vain as her environme nt, and is related to her exc essive eating habits which suggest her greed and voracity. In any ca se, we may c laim t hat Nada is indeed a complex woman, even if she doe s not always le t i t show. In fa ct, she fl ees from her house repea tedly with t he objective of filling her intern al vo id, but as Boesenberg (380) suggests, she returns due to her a ttachment to an afflue nt l ifestyle: she conside rs t hat “ [a] world li ke this i s shit wit hout money” ( Expensive 207). Ironically, e very time Nada abandons he r famil y, she is fleeing from an i nner e mptiness ca used by the superficialit y of her affluent life a nd her phony role, only to willingly return to it soon a fterward, because she cannot stand l iving wi thout mate rial luxury. Bo th Nada’s husband and son resent N ada’s de cision to leave beca use the y ca nno t understand her motivations, since they only consider the question from th eir own poi nt of vi ew a nd di sreg ard Nada’s perspecti v e: for them, her decision is a betrayal , as well a s a 272 cle ar ne glect of her respons ibilities t oward them a s an institutional mother. In a cruc ial conve rsation, Nada tries to explain to R ichard her need for f reedom: “There are certain times in a p erson’s life,” N ada b egan, [...] “ when one simply has to shak e himself f ree. [...] everyone m ust free h imself of impossible p ressures, of res traints and bu r dens that suffoca te him.” “If yo u lea ve this time, d on ’t bo t her coming bac k,” I sai d. “There is n oth ing p ers on al, never any t hing pers on al in free do m,” Nada went on, may be not hearing me o r no t ca ring, “f reedom is just a cond ition o ne h as to ac hieve. It isn’t a new pla ce or a new way of livi ng . It’ s just a cond ition li ke t he a ir that surroun ds t he e ar th.” ( Expensive 84 -85) None of them tota lly unde rstands or wishes to c omply to the other’s point of view. T heir m isunderstanding refl ects the ir opposing goals and lac k of empathy. First, Richa rd cannot empa thize with N ada ’s dete rmination to be i ndependent , which he interprets as a kind of betra yal. The second motive that preve n ts Nada from be ing a tra d itional mother is h er a pproach to h er career, whi ch we ha ve explained in the section “Work for Self -Reali zation: Zoe’s And Nada’s Artisti c Inclinations. Creativity and Procreativity,” where we also poin t ed out Richa rd’s resentment for Nada’s literary c rea tive skil l, which has two main c onsequ ences. The first one is Richa rd’s conviction of his having turned into a secondary c harac ter (that is, a lite rary creation) for h is mother instead of her son (the re sult of procrea tion). This a ttitude refle cts once more Richard’s inability to c o ncei ve that Nada ca n assume both role s ( literary aut hor and mother) simultaneously. Se cond, Ri cha rd’s re sentment for Nada’s career i s manife st ed in hi s a ttempt to reverse hi s p osition by becomi ng the a uthor/creator of hi s own li terary chara cter, while reducing h is m other to the status of a crea ted character in his narrative. Thi s impli es not only a confus ion bet ween fiction a nd real ity, but al so a rol e rev ersal which is manife st ed in h is re solve to control his pa rents: he a dopts the role of a monitoring pare n t whil e 273 dodging the supposed obedi ence of a child toward his pare nts. Richard exert s, thus, a double reversal: fi rst a creative reversal by which he tries to t ransform himsel f from character int o author, but the n by do ing so he is at the same time trying to become the author of h is mother as a chara cter, which implies a procreative reversal that tr ansforms him from cre ated son to creative parent. Richa rd, then, frequently spies on his parents, specia lly his mot h er: as he asserts, this is his “li fe’s work” ( Expensive 33): on one occasion he e ven phone s home while he is at school to try to fi nd out i f his m other has gone out. Richard admits thi s reversal: “ I li ked t o thi nk that I possess ed my pare nts. I had the m. I seemed to be leading them as if on a leash [...] I had the dr ea my illusion that they belonged to me a t this time s, Nada and Fathe r” ( Expensiv e 17). One of the ironies of the nove l is that Ri chard spends most of hi s t ime spying hi s pa rents, but he does not a ctually know the m. Nada is a myst ery t o him, as he constan tly decl ares, a nd he does not know his father muc h bett er, s ince he is oft en away from ho me w orking, and h e is not a ctually very inte rested in hi m. Nada’s re ac tion to Rich ard’s attitude is recri minating him for his espionage and t rying t o brea k fre e. Ri chard, on his part, keeps on trying to m onitor her movements a nd t o c reat e her as a cha racter in h i s fanta stic narrative , with litt le succe ss. He eve n goes t o the extreme of fanta sizing ha ving murder ed her by t aking one of he r short stories as a n inspirati on. After she die s, he starts to writ e his me moir to try to ma k e sense of N ada’ s dec ept ive figure, whi ch prove s to be trul y com p licated, beca use he is trying t o possess a person he ne ver rea lly kne w. Besides, by writing the memoir, Ric h ard i s still trying t o reduce he r to a c h aracter that he can mod el to his liking. Despite their di vergent views, Johnson po ints out the existe n ce of similitudes bet we en Ri chard and Nada . Firs t, to a c ertain e x tent Richard has unconsciously acc epte d Nad a’s value s, a nd like her, h e vents h is emoti ons into writ ing. Besid es, mot her and son transform ear ly emoti onal i nse curity in to a nee d for power t hat will replace t h e ne ed for love: Nada tr ies to use mate r ial posses sions a nd social standi ng to fill her voi d, while Richard m ust possess Nada herself (murdering her, whether i n fanta sy or rea lity), and fina lly write his m emoi r ( Understanding 31-62). 280 referri ng her e to the doub le na ture of t he sniper, which i s ye t another instance of Oates’s inter est in doubles. By fantasizing that he is a snip er, Ri chard c reates a doppelgänger that infuses him with a f eeling of con trol. He comes to consider that he is composed by two halve s: his re al, so -cal led “daytim e self,” an introverted and shy chi ld w ho drea m s of his m other paying m ore atte ntion to h im; and hi s “nightt ime self, ” a powerful snip er who has enough col d blood to plan and ca rry out a revenge against his m other. As we shall see , t he l atter sel f i s pure fantas y. Ric hard is c onvince d t hat his nighttime self w ould make Nada proud of hi m: “If only Nada could see m e now a nd rea lize what I w as —not tha t fe eble, sicki sh daytime child of hers, but a da rk er, mor e sec ret chi ld of h ers, a boy who belonge d only t o her and d edicated everyt hing to her” ( Ex pens ive 218). This fantasy night time self is the one wh o, acc ording to R ichard, will eventually murder he r; but as Daly explains, Richard’s i d entity as a sniper give s him power be cause he can be gin as a c h aracter, a nd, by killi ng Nada, be come an author (35). Alt hough, i n fact, Richard do es not re ally kill Nada, he is a b le to e v entually r egai n some authorial control by mome n tarily turning into a writer li ke her. Th e drawbac k is that, de spite a cquiri ng the power to narrat e (and de form) the events, he still has no po ssibility to alter the m; and, as D aly noti ces, Rich ard i s paradoxi cally trying to gain r ecognition by incarnating an indiv idual that i s nev er ide n tified (35) . Richa rd a sserts that he pro cures a deer rifle and starts a shooting spree; but as we sha ll see, t here are sev eral c lues in t h e narrative th at revea l t h e fa lseness of such as serti ons. Ric hard sta rts imitating t he chara cter from Nada’s short story; but suddenly, the situation is complicated when a real s niper begins to randomly shoot a t the neighbors. I t is obvi ous, from the te xt, t hat Ri chard is not thi s anonymous ma n. Most possibly, he rea ds about the real snipe r i n the newspaper and fa ntasiz es about be ing h im by merging the ne wspaper headl ines with his mother’s story. In fact, he affirms that it takes him some t ime to realize t hat the sniper de scribed i n t he newspaper i s himself; that is, it takes h im some t ime to c reate h is fantasy and convinc e hi mself of its a uthenticity. This i s an insta nce of how Expe nsive te nds to blur i magined and actual events a nd of how the 281 distortion be tween p erson an d char acter br ings c onfusion to Ri chard . In other words , the l ayers of fi ction and r eality be come eve n furt h er blurred i n the novel. Intere sting ly, Waller explains that, i n a sens e, Ric hard is also pa rt of Nada’s fi cti on. Richa rd conside rs that Nada wants to m anipul ate him, and the r efore, by de stroying the record’s room a nd later on writing the memoi r, he tries to a ssert his own a utonomy agai nst her novelisti c control . But the real ity h e tries to assert (such as sni ping a nd e ventually, murder) is just a series of fantasies ( Dreaming 118, 221). Since his fanta sy of murder is rooted on one of Nada ’s short stori es, he i s paradoxi cally tryi ng t o e xert cont rol ov er hi s mot her by foll owing Nada’s plot. As Bender bril liantl y noti ces, Ri chard’s agony is the ce ntral irony of the novel: he is progressivel y reduce d form a rtist -hero to a minor character, changi ng from the controlling narr ator to a fi cti v e personalit y in a work literally ghost -written (36). 3.6.2.1.3 Death, Sex and the Oed ipus Complex in Expensive People The components of dea th a nd sex be come an e ssential part of the mot her -son bond, eve n if it is i n a non -stated manner, a s Rich notice s. For h er, the presence of death in the relation between moth er and son i s not an unc ommon occurre nce, perha ps beca use a boy’s mother reminds him of hi s existence as a simpl e clot of flesh growing inside her body. The refore, th inking about a time wh en he wa s nothing, he is forced to acknowledge a time when he will no longer exist. A son may fear (a nd long t o) being lost agai n in a fema le body, being reinc orporated to i t a nd pulled back into a prec onsc ious state. This is why some time s pe n etrating a woman ca n be an a ct fi lled with anxiety, in whic h he must d eny the li v ing pe rson and po ssess he r body, and e v en so that body remains t hreatening to hi m. It seems t hat the mot her loo ms in e ac h woman for the grow n -up boy: he m ust ma k e a separat ion betwee n the sexual w oman and t he m o therly woman, and e v en so, romant ic sexu al love is c losely associ ated with death. The denial of th e anxie ty t oward the mother ma y a dopt m any form s: the need t o p erceive her as the Angel of the Hous e, for instance (Rich 188-189). 282 We shal l e xplore t h ese possibilitie s in Exp ensive a nd Garden in the light of psychodynami c the ories upon male d evelopment, w hich conce de a gre at importa n ce t o early experiences in t hese processes, as well as to the unconscious; a nd which were exami n ed by psychoanalyst s l ike Sigmund Freud, Karen Horney, Nanc y Chodorow and El lyn Kaschak am ong ot hers (Branno n 106, 111). These proce sses are central themes in both nov els, openly recognized by Oat es in the case of Garden , whose plot she has des cribed as a sort of Freudian ro mance ( “Interview. a” Conversations with Joyce 9). For our analysis, we shall foc us on the int erpretation that Kaschak makes of the Oedipal comple x, because it off ers a m ore suita ble explan ation for the chara cters’ situ ation. Freud described t he Oedipus c omplex as the desire of a boy to be sensually c lose to his mother, to id entif y with th e fa ther, a nd to gain his terri tory a nd power. According to Freu d, thi s compl ex illustrates a format ive stag e i n each i nd ividual’s psychos exual dev elopment when the young child transfers his love ob ject from the breast to the mother. At thi s time, t he child develops inte nse sexua l f eelings toward his mother whic h are biologica lly determined and create an anxiety in him that his je alous fa ther will castrate him a s a punishm ent. T he i deal resolution of this confl ict is for the boy to give up hi s moth er and to internalize a nd i dentify with his fa ther, wh om he recognizes as superi or in power. The father is the n adop ted as S uper -e go (the idea l of perfec tion that the e go strives to emulate ), which me ans tha t the boy acknowle dges the supremac y of pa triarch y, the disci p line of the instinct s, exogamy and t h e i ncest t aboo (Wykes and Wel sh 100, Fell ug a n. p., Rich 196-197). Rich discuss es th e impact of the Oedipus com plex in later psychological c urrents. T he Oedi pus complex has been the most widespread of Fr eud’s t heories. Women w ho have n ever read Freud still belie ve tha t to show affection toward their sons is to be “seduc tive,” or that to i nfluence t hem against forms of masculine beh avior is to castrate them, or to b ecome a dominee r ing creature that th eir son s will have to reje ct in order to grow up, or to prompt the m to be homos exual. Although Freud was a pione er in ma ny aspec ts, Ric h reminds us t hat he was terribl y limited by t he ge nder expectations of the dominant 283 ideology of his tim e. The gen eral ass umptio n at work here is tha t the two-person m other - chil d relationship is na turally re gr essive, c ircul ar and unproducti v e, and that culture and c ivilization d epend on father - son relation ships. Karen Horney accepted t he Oedi pus complex, but unlike Freud, she did n ot conside r i t universal but j ust the result of specific situations experienced by some c hildren (Rich 196-198, 200, 202). Approaching psychodynamics from a f eminist p erspective , El lyn Kaschak conce des that Freud’s Oedipus complex was adequate to expla in male personality development, but she dra ws diffe rent concl usions to it in her “Oedipal pha se. ” She disagrees with Freud’s approac h to f emale p ersonality deve lopme nt a nd proposes a counte rpart, the “ Antigone phase,” as we shall e xplai n in the cha pter “Fathe rs.” In contr ast w ith F reud, K ascha k a sserts that when m en s olve their Oedipal pha se, they adopt a non -p atri archa l a ttitude: they see women a s indepe ndent instead of a s pos sessi ons; and t hemselve s as individuals who act withi n bound arie s inst ead of ki ngs . Gaini ng power is not a m ajor go al for t hem. However, K aschak argues that both the Oedipal a nd the Ant igone phases are commonly never solved, because the social structures often pe rpetua te differences in power and i n roles (qtd. in Bra nnon 114-116). According t o Kaschak, an unsolved Oedipus compl ex in me n results in a patriarchal attitude: they tr eat women a s a n extension of themsel v es and not as indepe ndent beings, expect ing serv itude from them. B esides, t h ey a re sexually self -centere d. With this sense of entitlement, men tend to se ek pow er i n a s elf -ce n tered manner tha t may be destruc tive t o others, such as inc est and ra pe (qt d. in Brannon 115) . Michael Johnson, who s tudied fa mily violence, coined the term “pat riarch al terrorism” to refer to the s ystemati c violence that me n engage in at hom e bec ause they feel they ha ve the right to do so (qt d. in Brannon 115). In Ex pensive , Richard f eels anxiety towards sex, but thi s may be due to the ignoranc e and inexperi ence of h is young age: he experi ences episodes of jealousy for hi s mother’s s exual life (p articularly perceived in his ponderi ngs a bout her supposed love rs), whic h may c ontribute to his distress toward sex. In fact , Ri chard seems to adopt one of t he outl ets 284 proposed by Adrie nne Ri ch a nd wishes to perce ive h is mot her as the Angel of the House, since by doing this, he might be able to claim her as a son. But this wish become s problematic due to Nada ’s de d ication to socia l rather than f amily life. In the end, Richard resorts to violence as a n extre me “solu tio n,” as well a s a puni shment for what he p erceives to be a tra nsgression: Nada’s abandonm ent of hi m and her re jection of domestic lif e. Sex, death, and possess ion beco me intermingled in an al most undistinguishabl e fashion, a nd provoke in R ichard simul ta neou s fe eli ngs of l ov e a nd hatre d, worship and aggression t oward his m other. In fact, his adoration for Nada ca n be descri b ed a s brutal, since he refe rs to this as “t h e v ery violence of the love we feel” ( Expensive 1 65). Along w ith this m ixture of sex and d eat h, Expensi ve clearly feat ures a sort of Oed ipus comp lex. Acco r ding to Cre ighton, R ichard i s trying t o make the Oedipal relationship las t foreve r ( Joyce 62). In f act , the most distin cti v e trait of this triangle is the minor role th at the f athe r plays in the complex, from which he virtu ally disappears. The classical resolution of the Oedi pus comp lex, the murder of t he father, se ems to be t urned into m atri cide in Expensive , accordi ng t o it s narrator; but exce pt for Ellen G. Fri edma n and Ev a Bo esenberg, most cr itics agr ee that Ri chard has not li terally ki lled h is mother: hers was an unidentifie d kille r, and Ric h ard s impl y tries to be re cogniz ed a s her murderer. Th ere are seve r al clues that support this interpret ation. Firstly, Richard is a self - declared unreliable n arrat or. In the ini tial paragra phs, he asserts tha t t he novel is not a c onfession: i t may be inferre d, then, that he is not confess ing his mother’s murder b eca u se h e has not rea lly ki lled her. He is just c onfes sing his distorted a ssess ment of reali ty. T he foca lization of the novel is highly significa nt because there is onl y one perspect ive: Richard’s. Nada , the cha racter around whom the text revolv es, is not gi ve n a vo ice in t he n a rrative. Except for a fe w dia logues, she is excl usively portrayed through the perspective of her son, which is undeni ably blurred, as he him self a dmits: “I t’s possible that I’ m lying wi thout knowing it . Or telling the t ru th in some weird, symbolic way without knowing i t” ( E xpensive 5). In a nother pass age, Richard asserts tha t he is hone st a nd t hat event ually t he truth will be t old; but as Johnson rem arks, the i dea t hat 285 truth can be de fined or eve n put into wo rds is repeatedly challenged through the novel ( Understanding 53). Richa rd confess es his own inability t o distinguish li fe from fic tion, and partl y blam es Nada for it . Creighton also emphasizes Richard’s inclination towards fan tasy by posing two exa mples. First, h e oft en fi ctio nalizes him se lf for his parents by making out storie s about his schoolmate s ( Joyce 51, 56-57). This habit i s part of Richard’s manipulative nature, a nd his attempt to becom e an a uthor by reimagining the world a round himsel f : he asserts that the fictional classmate s are exte nsions of himself ; a nd their pare n ts, of his own par ents. He says that he makes e verything up “out of a pecul iar distrust of t h e t ruth” ( Expensive 64). In t he nove l, t h e c onfusion betwee n r eality and fiction is common. T h is lea ds Richard to c onc lude that th e very experience of at tem p ting to portray what is a “ rea l” experi ence f alsifies i t (Creighton Joyce 56 ). The sec ond aspect that suggests that Rich ard is not the ki ller is th e uncle ar a nd i mplausible t imeline of the e v ents tha t he off ers: th e s c hool atte ndanc e reports place him at school at t h e time when he is supposedly killi ng Nada. Richard himself admits t h at readers will be c onfused about the timing, a nd pleads that his subs equent st ay at hospit al m ade him lost t r ack of time. Thirdl y, there a re some blatant incoherencies in Richard’s a ccount: for exa mple , he cannot find the rifle i n the pla ce where he buried i t, a nd subsequently argue s that i t has bee n stolen or removed. Most significa n tly, R ich ard reads in the newspaper about on e shooting that he admits h e has not c ommitted (it was ac tually c ommi tted by t he real sniper). At fi rst, Richard is troubl ed by this int erference of re ality with his fantasy of bei ng a sniper, but he soon r einte rprets it as the action of a sec ond sniper who follows his l ead. Thus , while the m edia ref er to the real and only snipe r, Richard alters t his narrati ve to protect hi s fa ntasy from crum bling, whil e at the same ti me he empowers hi mself by asserting t hat he is be ing im itated and that he is much m ore sophisticated than t he other shoot er. Nada’s ki ller i s nev er discovered; and this ena b les Ric h ar d to i nsist it was hi m. Fourthly, other characters , including the narrator’s father, do no t belie ve him: R ichard’s psych iatrist, Dr. Saskatoon, bluntly tells him that it was a hallucination. By c oolly rat ionalizing his confession a nd 286 diagnosing a n Oedipal delusion, Bender adds, the therapis t i s frustr ating the boy’s ra ge for orde r a nd re tribution (32); tha t is, he is destroying his fanta sy of em powerment and his need to make sense of his mothe r’s deat h. T h erefore, D aly concludes, Richard w rites the confess ion beca use he is not be lie v ed (33). Even if Richard has not ki lled Nada , the narrat or’s c onflicts a re real ; a nd therefore, his mot ivations should be anal yzed. We need to notice that Elwood is mostly absent from the Oedipus com p lex: Richard does not appear to c onsider him a real rival, because he sus pects that his parents do not really l ov e ea ch othe r ; and he also feels that Elwood is unworthy of Nada. First, a s Dr. S askatoon plausibly a rgues, Richa rd is t rying to perpet uate hi s a nguis hed Oedipa l bond wit h Nada by assert ing to ha v e murdere d her, hen ce t ry ing t o be the most expe nsive pa r t of her existence: the on e she has paid for with h er very l ife. Richard wants to regai n the fo cus of th e narrative and to become visib le; but t his does no t completel y work as he expe cted, for nobody bel ieve s that he has murdere d Nada, and this comes as a new disappointment for hi m. Richa rd does not solve his Oedi p al complex, which from Kaschak’s perspect ive means t hat the subject adopts a pat riarchal attitude and trea ts women as an extension of himself in stead of i ndependen t peopl e, expec ting submission from t hem. T his h as been Richard’s posi tion for most of the novel. There are ot her works by Oates which present similar mother -son confli cts. Acc ording to Cre ighton, the mos t out standin g i s perha ps Angel of L ight , 25 where O wen’s killi ng of his mothe r by setting a bomb that a lso kills hi m is also a way t o fix mother and son fore v er in an Oedipal bond tha t recalls Ric hard E verett’s supposed kil ling of his mother. A ngel is yet an othe r i nstance o f Oates claustrophobic and obsessive fami ly romance, in which mat ricide becomes a re gressive longing for one ness with th e mother ( Novels Middle 31, 34). In E xpe nsi ve , the d esire for ga ining ce ntrality is c losely linke d t o Richa rd’s wish to gai n some s ense of power and control. Once more, we ca n consider t h is yea rn in terms of Kaschak’s unsolved Oedi pus comple x: she argue s that these men te nd to search for power in 25 Hereafter cited in te xt as Angel . 287 destruct ive manners, a s Richa rd does by “killing” Nada. His cl aim upon her be come s so i mm e nse that he fantasizes to have cla imed her very l ife beca use he feels entitled to do so. Accord ing to Bend er, t he nov el offers a variation of a Dostoevskia n t h eme: the indi vidual search for power, even for cri minal a uthority, a sel f -designed, grat u itous s ource of mea ning in a world wher e traditional valu e sys tem s are defunct (32). It i s somewhat ironical that Ric h ard pe rpetuates the bond to his mother by killing her a nd th e n deciding to kill himself; but as Oat es expla ins, What is an ass assination b ut a g est ure of politic al impotence? What are most “crime s of passion ” except gesture s of se lf -destruction, self-annihilation? […] A despera te ac t o f (pre medita ted) matricide w i ll n ot re store his soul to him but wil l at le ast remove the livin g ob jec t of his lov e and grie f. (“ Expensive . Co nfess ions” 23 9 - 240) Oates’s words on Ric hard’s im possibility to dea l wit h the loss of t he love object bring to mind Michael M ulvaney’s inc apabi li ty of living with his daughte r after she has been raped. Second, a ccording to Fri edman, by killing h is mother, Richard aims at stopp ing the in evitable initiation th at would have o ccurre d i f he had not killed h er; tha t is, the pro c ess th at would have de f lated his i deal which is already crumbling. Ri chard learns t hat Nada’s demands on h im do not stem from a wish to le ad him to a hi gher existence, on e worthy of he r, bu t from a wish to de ny h is existe nce. First, he learns that she had considered h aving a n ab ortion when she was pregnant w ith him. Second, he di scovers the result s of t he I.Q. that Nada forced him to take twice and learns a bout the malevole n ce of he r demands, sinc e the first results were al ready positive. Third, he reads “ The Molesters” and equal s him se lf t o the victim, a nd Nada to his abuser. Finally, Nada openly disavows h er maternal re sponsibil ity t o Richard by t elling him she does not care to be call ed mo ther and t hat s he w ants him to be free. So Richa rd kills her to preve n t any further rev ela ti ons of what he interprets as Nada ’s betra yals, whil e at t he same t ime stopping t h e process of initiation, a process which would have given him emotional indepe ndence from Nada. He wants to gain prot ection aga inst 288 knowledge a nd the inexor able process of t i me. But killing h er does not shield him from yet another betray al: lea rning her tr ue or igins (Friedman Joyce 67-68, 70-71). Oates gives a t h ird rea son for Richard’s “murder,” foc used on the sociopolitical context of the 1960s: Expensive People , with it s cl imatic e pisod e of se lf- destr uctive violenc e, was pe rceived as an exp res sion of t he radic al dis content, t he d espair , th e bewilderment and t h e ou tra ge o f g enera tion o f y oung and i deali stic America n s confronted by an America o f their eld ers so steep ed in po liti ca l hy po cri sy and cy nicis m as to see m virtually irr emediable except b y the mo st extre me mea ns. (“Conv ers ati on s” 184) As O ate s remarks, Expensive i s set at the onset of the 1960s, the age of counte rcultur e a nd rebe lli on, in which young people que stion ed and objec ted their pa rents’ practice s, a s Richard does, and as seen in Wonderland as well . A fourth re ason for Richard’s “murde r” is expla ined by Oates in the nove l’s afterword, where she aff irms that t h e nove l’s codified sec ret is related to “ t he execution of a n ambitious woman writer as fit punishment for ha ving gone beyond the ‘li mi ts of her world’ —upstate New York” ( “ Ex pensive . Confe ssions” 242). Nada , who c omes from a rural, working-class fa mily, works a s a writer a nd thus oc cupies a nich e mostly associ ate d with men. We mi ght perceive Nada a s a ch aracter who, in he r pursue of a n e w existe nce, trespasses the borders t hat confine h er: her humble orig ins, her u nglamorous family, and the privat e sphere of dom estic work. In any c ase, as Johnson poin ts out, the amb iguity of w hether Richa rd k illed Nada or not is meani ngfu l: t he novel r ef uses to pr esent and interpret “reality” exce p t in a hyp erbolic, sati r ic, and maybe hallucinat ory form. What matters is tha t the world conve yed i n the novel, a s well as it s na rrator, a re mutually destructive. It al so suggests that people w ith freedom and po wer inevita b ly use the m toward destructi v e ends ( Understanding 69-70). So eve n not being a ki ller, Richa rd’s aggressive intentions are equall y present. 289 Af te r Richard’s at tem p ts to attain a pr ominent position i n his mother’s life prove to be unsuccessful, he decides to c ommit suicid e. For hi m, the ide a of dying comes a s a swee t relief from his suffering, which he was unabl e t o totally abate neither compul siv ely eati ng nor writing. He considers how “pleasant” dying would be , “getting rid no t only of eve ryone onc e and for a ll but getting rid of the desire to ge t rid of the m a nd de sir e for any kind of desire a t all” ( Expensive 110). Richa rd’s de sire of “getting rid” of e v eryone i ncludes both hi s mother and himself, as seen i n one of the most enlightening quota tions of the novel: “This memoir is a ha tchet to sla sh through my own heavy flesh and through the f lesh of anyon e who ha ppens t o ge t i n t he w ay” ( Expe nsive 4). T he fa ct that Richard chooses to kill himsel f by overea ting is no c oinci d ence: he shall die by s t ill attempting t o fill himself, this ti me, not with the intenti on of compensating for an emoti on al lack, but wi th the aim of ending his life. 3.6.2.2 A Garden of E arthly Del ights: Descript ion and Origi n of the Confl ict in the Mother -Son Subs ystem In Garden , Clara c hannel s her l ife and gains a n inc reased control over i t when she has her baby. As she c ontinuously e mphasizes, the baby is he rs , not only to name but als o to poss ess: he is “ the only thing she really owned” ( Garden 206). The ba by’s legal name, the one that Revere c hooses, is Steve n, but she c all s him “ Swan.” The significa n ce of t his name is explained late r on by Clara: I would call him Swan beca use I sa w som e s wans once in a picture , tho se b ig wh ite b irds that swim a rou nd — they look real cool, th ey’re not a fra id of any thi ng, their eyes are hard like glass. O n a sign it s aid they were d angerous sometime s. ( Garden 2 65) For her, the nam e r epresents streng th an d c ourage , qualities that she indee d poss esses a nd wants t o transmit to her chi ld. The strength m ay also refer to the source of e mpowermen t that the b aby represents for Clara , since it ma rks the beginning of her new l ife. The dangerousness she refers to c ou ld be a ssoci ate d with the social e xpectations of ma le’s 296 Revere ’s lifestyle, as we shall see. It is poss ible , too, tha t Swan resents the submission of h is mot her t o Revere. Swan wishes to have a di fferent name , but he rejects his mother’s ma iden s urname, a nd although he does not know his biological father’s surname, he reject s him too. T hus, all his choice s see m to lead him nowhere. Revere , Johnson argues, i s not a ruthl ess capi talist figure despite representi ng traditional male power. His love for Cl ara seems genuine and a t ti mes, hi s bewilderment suggests t ha t he i s victi mized by his own social role. However, he does repre sen t t ho se ec onomic force s that have tempted Cl ara from t he garden of her innocence into th e night marish “garde n of earth ly delights” of the title. T oward the e nd of t he nove l, Oates suggests th at thi s gard en stands for America as a whole. C lara does not per cei v e that it is her son th e on e who endures the burden of consciousness in t he novel, und erstanding both hi s mother’s victimization and his own role as the heir of a capitalist and lando wner power ( Understanding 40-41). In ot h er words , Swan is c ertainly t he one who ha s to deal with the weight of hi s pa rents’ am bitions, inconsistencies and frustrations . The other ma in c h aracters (Cla ra, Revere and Lowry) are the ones to put into motion t he deterministic forces that Sw an will try to overcome, an d he is a ctually the on e who real izes, and assumes, the consequences o f their acti ons. When meeting Revere, Sw an ponders that he c an love h im if he does not force him to go hunti ng and “kill things” ( G arden 260); that is, if he does not forcibly introduce him in to t he tr aditionally masculine act iviti es he hate s, since he fe els uncomfortable in t h e ste reotypical masculi n e domain, and a t the sam e time is not a llowed to par ticipate in other traditional ly female activities he enjoys such as stayi ng with fema le re latives inside the house during fa mily reunions. But Revere (with C lara ’s a pproval) mak es him go hunting. T h is proves tha t, as Johnson affirms, society at the time placed a terri b le burden on men, aimed at power and conquest, and so Sw an and his grandfat her C a rleton age pr ematurely, destroyed by a s ense of pe rsonal failure ( Understanding 45). Swan feels direc ted by both his fathers toward a de stiny he fea rs and hates: Low ry ha s predic ted h e would becom e a killer, and Revere is forcing h im to actually kill living beings by going hunting, wit h tragic results, as w e shall soon explain. 297 His mother is al so pushing Swan toward violence, i n a subtler manne r, by p lacing in to his mind the urg e to become Reve re’s sole h e ir and t o dispossess Reve re’s sons of thei r share of the will: “You’re going to ta k e eve rything away from them and kick them out of this house, so what the he ll if they push you around now? Re mem b er tha t. Someday you’ll get b ack at hi m —you’ll b e his best son” ( Garden 270). Moreover, when moving i nto Revere’s house, Cl ara discloses to her son the rea son why she has marrie d Revere: “you’re ge tting a new father. You’re get ting a name. T hat much I’m doing for you, a ll your li fe you’ll be a Re vere!” ( Garden 271). Curi ously, h er ma rriage is a toke n of her love for Swan and not for Rev ere. Clara expe cts Swan t o be R evere ’s sole heir, a nd h e internally vows to do everything she wants. In the nex t ye ars, Swan will ev entually discover Clara’s m aiden name by surrep titiously finding h er marriage c erti f icate. At this point, his fami ly situation becomes clearer, but this does not solve his confl ict: the identity he expos es to the world as Revere’s legitimate heir is false, since he is not really h is son, and Swan is aware of this, be cause he h ad instinctively known that Lowry was his re al fa ther when he met him. A terri ble a ccident wil l c onfirm Swan’s fe ars a bout his i nescapable destiny as a k i ller: t he d e ath of h is brother Robe rt. S wan’s relation w ith his stepsibli ngs is rather stra ined. T he youngest brot her, Robert , is the most sympathe tic to him, a nd shares his aversion to hunt ing, al though he re signedly performs t he a ctivity. Des pite their common grounds, Swan wil l ac cidentally contribute to his death, whic h takes place aft er both of t hem go hunting, an activity to w hich S wan has agree d beca use his bel oved m other has instructed h im to ga in Re v ere’s affec tion in order to be come his sole heir. T r agically, on t heir way back, they m eet their brother Jona than, wh o insults Swan and calls him a “ba st ard.” Swan angrily a sks Robe rt the reasons for s uch treatment, a nd shoves him in anger, w hich causes Rober t’s gun to go off and shoot him in the face . Robert’s de mise is describe d as an accident, but Sw an m ay have contri buted to i t partly on purpose. Johnson c ite s two reasons for this half- conscious killing. The f irst one i s S wan’s insecure place i n the famil y a nd his posit ion as “bastard.” S econdly, by ki lling Robert, whether intentionally or not , Swan i s trying to kil l t he weak ness in hi m, 298 his gentle part that would rath er coe xist h armoniously with nature than subdue it through brute force ( Understanding 42-43). In any case, Swan belie ves tha t L owry’s prophec y is bec oming true at thi s point. Oth er characters s eem to confirm thi s as wel l: after the acc ident, some p eopl e, inc luding his st epbrothe r Jonat h an, be come afrai d of h im. Consequen tly, in the follow ing ye ars, Swan c omes t o consider hi mself “a kil ler w ho ha d not fi nished his work but was waiting for his deed to rise up in hi m ” ( Gar den 377). In this manner, in Daly’s words, the chi ld be come s what his mot her dr eamed of and his biological fat h er predicted: a sw an -like man, cold, unafraid and dangerous: the future murderer of his fa ther (31). Thus, S wan’s thre e parent s encourag e hi m toward v iolence i n seve ral manners: L owry predic ts t h at he will be a ki ller, Clara promotes his force fu l im posi tion over hi s brothe rs as an heir, and Re v ere forces hi m to p erform aggressive activities that h is mothe r also approves of. Swan’s di vision into Swan Wal pole and Ste ven Re vere is al so refle cted in his conflictive aspirations for the fut ure. “Swan” wishes to rece ive a formal educ ation or to become an artist; while “Steven” yearns to be a landowner. Once again, these tw o options a re presented as irrec oncil able go als for this character. Clar a had al ways tried to p rovide his son with the edu cated life she c ould not have as a child: she urges him to go to university an d gain a better understanding of t he world. It seems that C lara is t urning her c hi ld into a means of compensation for her own deprivat ions, a pro cess that Ric h e xplains by asserting that when a wom an spends h er en ergy a nd power on making her son i nto her instrument, her a g ent in a system which has t r ied to keep her powerless, the son li ves under the burden of h is mother unlived lives (207). Thus, if Cla ra coul d have claimed power for he rself, she should not have needed to claim it by mea ns of Re vere, a nd Sw an would not have fe lt the enormous pressure of her exp ectations of him. Swan is thus the first of Oate s’s intellectual prodigie s, in Bender’s opinion (27). Johnson considers Swan, along with his c ousin Debor ah, a helpless i ntellectual cha racter: th ey are dra wn to the world of books and ideas, but they a re personally ineffect ual (at ti mes, even clownish) in their harsh external soci al a nd natural environment, t o whi ch people like Clara a dapt by ha rdening th emselves a nd abandoni ng thought a nd 299 refle ction. Richard from Expensive a nd Jesse from Wonde rland a re simila r ly intellec tual: they bo th will make a doomed effort to conquer their world and forge a p ersonal identity by accumula ting knowl edge ( Understanding 41-42). In Garden , a t the beginni ng, Swan a bsorb s his m other’s desire for acqui ring an educ ation; and as a c hild, he pre fers r eadin g to playing with othe r c hildren. However, ke eping this i nclination will be come arduous for him i n the years to c ome. W h ile rewriting t h e novel for its revised edition, Oates had the opportunity t o refle ct upon thi s process while at the same time recognizi ng a certain resemblance with t he chara cter : I see [Swan] as a kind o f an alter ego for wh om the lif e of the imaginati on (he’s a bo ok ish child, in a wor ld in which bo oks ar e d evaluate d) is finally repudiated, as it was no t, of cou rse for me […] Sw an is b u r n-ou t, self- lo athing, and final ly a suicide beca use his trues t self has been denied, and that “true self” wou ld have been a wr ite r -s elf, an explorer of cultural and sp iri tua l worlds. I would not have kn own in 1965-66 [when the novel was writt en] how this yo ung ma n ’s experie nc e wou ld para lle l the way s in which Americ a wou ld see m to h ave repudiat ed, in the 1970s, 19 80s an d 1990 s, and even into the mora lly d ebase d ec on omicall y ra vaged t wenty -fi rst century, a further loss of in nocence o f this n ation a t such o dds with it s own ideals and grandiloquent vision s. Swa n, c ’es t moi! (Bu t onl y in fanta sy). (“Conv ers ations” 18 3, emphas is in the original) Indeed, as yea rs e lapse, Sw an’s inc lina tion t oward art enters into confli ct with his a im, and familial pressur e, to inherit Revere’s l and: he had to s top rea din g. He had to s top think i ng . […] He had no time f or i t all , a nd i f he c ould n’t do i t all, then what was the p oint in doing any of it? He could no t go away to colle ge beca us e h e was te rrified of lea ving this lan d, o f rel inqu ishing wh at he had won in his fath er. An d he was ter rified that he h imself might forget th e st ra ng e, almost magica l ai r of Revere ’s wo rld […] if he should forget all 300 he had le arned, al l he had b een born for, what then? […] If h e kept reading, h is m ind would b urst, but if h e pu shed his bo oks a side and r ejected everything , he wo uld never lea rn a ll h e had to lear n — for kn ow led ge was p ow er and he needed p ower. […] Between the two impulse s h e felt his muscle s tense as if p repar ing themse lves f or v io lence . ( Garden 356) Thus, Swan i s t orn in se veral ma nn ers. In Araúj o’s words, Swan becom es haun ted by his role a s a n heir: h e does not want to renounce the power that his m o ther has fought so hard to provide hi m wi th, the one he was born t o r eceive (401 ); bu t at the same t ime, d edicating his time to th e far m prevents hi m from focusing on hi s studies, a nd he considers thi s essential for h i s acqui ring control . T h e strain from this dilemma pushes him to violence. Clara ha s a ctiv ely contributed to his dic h ot omy by urging hi m to take control of Re v ere’s la nd whil e at th e same t ime en couragi ng him to get university s tudies, but Swan perc eive s t h ese two goal s a s confli ctive : he f ears t h at continuing h is studies will cause hi m to lose the la nd. Therefore, despit e the insistence of the school’s princ ipal and his m other, Swan finally decid es not t o g o to college, arguing that he does not n e ed to. Cologn e -Brookes lists t h ree r easons that l ead S wan to choose t his. First, thi s serves him as a met hod to rebel against hi s mother, because he hates he r mat erialis tic wo rld (alt hough we need t o add that he certainly has his own ambitiou s side) and wishes to d estroy not onl y what Clara ha s gained for hi m but also the whole world. Second, he de cides that reading a nd writin g a re dangerous beca use the y give too much meaning t o the world. Fi nally, r eading distances him from his classmates, whom he sees swirling a round their trivial world of friendships and hatreds ( Dark Eye s 35 ). Cologne -Brookes’s list is preci se, but h e app ears t o somewhat overl o ok t he c omplexity of Sw an’s feel ings for C lara: he si multaneously h ates her a nd lov es her, and this is refl ected i n hi s wish for re venge and his poi nting a gun at her; a s well as his final decision against killing h er. Swan’s dec ision to abandon his studie s c omes a s t h e saddest disappoint ment in C lara’s life, b eca use sh e is convinced th at he c ould have had the education t h at s he di d not r ecei v e. Re vere, on the other 301 hand, agre es with Sw an: he does not find at tending c o llege m u ch rele vant, and mentions that h e himself did not go to the un iversity. Swan subsequently st arts to work in R ever e’s fa rming business. He has new ideas tha t cou ld bring gr e at ben efits for his fa mily ( like buying land out from partners) but Re vere hesitate s t o enact th e m, so tha t Swan is not all owed to ma k e dec ision s on hi s own: he still ne eds to respond to hi s stepfather. T herefore, he has re lin quished an acad emic l ife to focus on his st epfather’s business , but he f inds that he i s not allowed to make d ecisions . His frustration star ts to ac cumulate: “h e didn’t want t o step into t h e place his fa ther ha d made for himself; instead, he wanted to get rid of it all, destroy all, everything , the e ntire world!” ( Garden 377). The refore, he realizes that hi s decisio n to be come a l a ndowner has not brought any solu tion to hi s confl ict s; and we can perc eive that his psychological t urmoil has become dange rous, as Johnson point s out ( Understanding 43). Besides, in Cologne -Brookes’s words, Swan sees nothing in his future apart from a stru ggl e with Revere’s s ons ( Dark Eyes 35). Araújo (401) ment ions anothe r re ason for Swan’s expl osion of violence, whic h ca n be considered a summary of the previously menti on ed ones: S wan feels he lacks con trol, despite his social status and ec onomic securi ty . Acquiring control is something tha t ha unts ot her Oatesian c haracters like Richard fro m Expensive , Jul es a nd Maur een from the m, and Jess e from Wonderland . Cla ra had wanted to g ive h er son a security she never ha d as a child: she ha d hop ed him to grow up into someone who had control over his life al l the time, and not only sporadically like her. Despite her effor ts, t hough, h er son c annot achi eve this, not even after choosing to become Revere’s he ir. The day he dies, Swan goes to see a movie , whose plot he pe rcei v es as a reflection of his own impot e n ce: he rea lizes the ac tors are just saying words someone has writte n for the m and fe els unea sy, possibly notici ng as well t h e burden of what he perc eive s t o be his ine scapabl e destiny: becomi ng a killer. Art ser ves as a m etaphor for paranoia here, acc ording to Bender. Swan had tried to suppress t he power of his crea tive intelligen ce, a ping his mother’s illi teracy and a voiding libraries, but he cannot free himself of his book -ridde n past (27). [Document text truncated for crawler view.]