High Lonesome: 40 Years of Stories from Joyce Carol Oates

Photo: from books.google.com at this link

Better known for her Gothic stories, especially the heavily anthologized "Where Is Here?" and a few others, this is still an extremely readable and often striking collection of short stories spanning 40 years, from 1966 to 2006. As with all collections of this length, and shorter, you may find some swings and misses here, but there are far more hits than misses. At worst, a few stories were okay, unimpressive, but not bad, exactly. Some are stunning. Some are memorable, sometimes for the writing, sometimes for the things that happen. (In one, an unhappy woman in her early 20s allows herself to have a messy, unstopped period while she and her family spoke with a priest at a seminary, where her brother would've been kicked out but for that spectacle.) Other stories are memorable for what they don't show, or say. (In one, a young man kills himself in his car. In the glove compartment is found an object that may insinuate he also would've killed someone else, but for some reason didn't. The story ends with a character asking the other what that object had been for--and the story ends right there.) Anyway, there are 11 new stories here (as of 2006), one of them the title story. This one is also perhaps the best of the bunch--a nice comment to be able to make, considering Joyce Carol Oates has been writing now for over 50 years, and apparently hasn't lost a thing. If anything, she may be getting better. So these are all good, and highly recommended, though I prefer her Gothic stories, none of which are here.

A short bulleted commentary:

--"Spider Boy" is very good. Chilling and short, as usual about the unknown side of someone's personality.

--"The Cousins" is an award-winning story.

--"The Gathering Squall" has a nice metaphor, tying a painting in with the story's theme. I tried Googling the painting, couldn't find it. Possibly invented for the story.

--"The Lost Brother" is a good story about the hopelessness of having hope for a lost soul in your family. And perhaps why you shouldn't.

--"High Lonesome" motivated me to start my own story. The best part of the story--the old, desperate, lonely man getting pinched while only wanting conversation from a hooker who's not a hooker--isn't even the main part.

--"Upon the Sweeping Flood" is good and memorable, and has a recurring image of children suffering at the hands of insane adults.

--"At the Seminary" was referred to above. Not to be missed, if only for the scene I described.

--"Where Are You Going...?" is perhaps the most anthologized story here, one the author says she regrets having to include in this volume because it's so prevalent elsewhere. I have it in the tons of other sweeping anthologies downstairs. However, it continues to impress, even after a great many readings. Sly, slow, charming, disturbing, seductive (not in a sensual sense) evil has perhaps never been captured so well, not even by Hawthorne.

--The collection is broken down into the decades. Stories from "The 1970s" are all good, though representative (except for "Manslaughter") of John Updike. Maybe Cheever, too.

--"The Hair" was a very good, very John Cheever, expose of suburban couples and the illusion of social and marital perfection that one couple holds over the other, until the ending. Reminiscent of reality; been there, done that. Got away just in time.

--"Life After High School" was referred to above. Interesting. The woman in the story reminds me of someone I know.

--"Mark of Satan" was a story I was highly critical of on my blog, a long time ago, for reasons that now escape me. I'd read just the last few stories of the whole collection at the time, and responded in anger about this one. I think I mentioned I thought it was a rip-off, but it's not, and I can't even begin to tell you what the hell my problem was. Anyway, it's okay, not great and not bad.

The title, by the way, is a phrase that means "drunk" or "bender," but which sounds depressive to me as well. This all makes sense, because there's plenty of all three here. Most of the characters and stories inhabit upstate New York, Richard Russo's (Nobody's Fool and Empire) stomping grounds, or New York City, when the stories sound a bit like Updike and Cheever.

And I would love to know her writing schedule. She's so prolific, she makes Stephen King seem like J.D. Salinger or Harper Lee. 

Casey Anthony, Not Guilty

Photo: Caylee Anthony

First of all, for full disclosure: I didn't watch most of the trial, and most of what I have to say has to do with the little I did watch, and what was in the papers.  (I try not to pay attention to the talking heads; I admit that the papers are often not much better.)  I also point out that being on the jury and talking about being on the jury are two entirely different things.

So I pointed out to someone recently that the defense did not have to prove that Casey did not commit murder.  I had to say this because this person said that her defense didn't prove that she didn't do it.  I brought up 12 Angry Men, and got a blank look, so I just mentioned that the defense doesn't have to prove that she didn't do it (good thing, because it sure didn't) and it doesn't have to make her testify in her own defense (another good move; the prosecution would've roasted her alive and her defense would've gone up in flames).  The only thing that matters here is that the prosecution must prove without a reasonable doubt (important phrase) that she DID do it, and that she did so with all definitions of murder; that is to say, premeditation, etc.  Clearly the prosecution did not prove this; I can understand this.  Another caveat is that Florida has the death penalty, and the jury felt maybe that the prosecution didn't have enough to hand down a guilty verdict knowing that she'd maybe go to the chair (or whatever Florida's method is).  I understand that as well.  See 12 Angry Men again for a good example of this.

What I don't get is that the prosecution allowed the jury to hand down a lesser verdict of manslaughter if the jury felt that was more prudent.  I have to admit that I don't know why they didn't do that.  Casey bought chloroform and researched its uses on the internet.  If you want to say that you can't prove it wasn't her father or someone else using the computer at the time of the research, okay, but what about buying the chloroform?  What about when she backed the car up in the garage and put shovels in the trunk?  What about all the lies she told investigators--which even this jury admitted she did?  What about the car smelling of death?  What about her excessively inappropriate behavior after the disappearance but before the body was found, when, as it turns out, she knew her daughter was dead, such as partying, smiling, getting tattoos, etc.?

The jury response, apparently, is that it all doesn't matter.  I understand most of the above is circumstantial evidence, but the chloroform and shovels?  The research?  And for manslaughter, if not for murder?  I don't know; I've seen people convicted on less, especially for manslaughter, which, again, was an option for this jury.  It also said that she was not guilty of child abuse, which I also do not understand, as she was the mother, and there was ample evidence of abuse.

So, again, I didn't see most of the trial.  I can't speak of the prosecution's missteps, if there were any.  But I can tell you this: Before the jury's verdict for the O.J. trial (you knew the comparison was coming), the media was screaming at every single prosecution mistake--of which there were a great many.  I didn't see that here.  I did see (on television), however, what I saw as an inept defense.  (Find that blog entry below.)  Apparently I was very wrong, but for the life of me, I wouldn't want that team defending me.  Well, now, after this, maybe I would.

I leave this trial now under the impression that the jury would tell us that they voted "not guilty," not "innocent."  I believe each juror feels that she did it, or had something substantial to do with it, but that it just wasn't proven to their satisfaction.  I don't find fault with this jury as I did with O.J.'s jury.  I think they knew they'd be crucified for a "not guilty" verdict and gave it anyway because they believed it was just.  I respect that.  (The O.J. jurors, by comparison, seemed blown away by the negative reaction towards them, as if they'd never considered the aftereffects.)  So be it; a jury shouldn't hand down a verdict depending on whatever repercussions they believe they'll sustain, anyway.  I agree with the prosecution's guy when he said that everyone did their jobs well--prosecution, defense, jury, everyone.  I believe that.  I believe that the prosecution is probably devastated, despite that guy's brave face, and I'd be surprised if some of them didn't believe that they'd failed a 2-year old girl.  I'd be surprised if a couple of the jurors didn't feel the same way.

I'd love to know what the jurors were thinking, but they're not talking yet, and I don't blame them for that, either.  They'll talk when their book deals come out, I assure you.  In a way, I don't blame them for that.  I don't blame the judge for anything.  No Lance Ito here.  And Casey will never again be charged with this crime, or any of the others, since she was technically charged with the possibility of manslaughter, etc.  She is, and always will be, free.  She won't get a job again until she changes her name, but the public has a short memory, and with a name change and a different living place, she'll be fine.  Nike resigned Michael Vick, after all.  I believe she got away with something, but I also believe the system worked.  I'd like the father and brother investigated, and Casey had better stay sober for the rest of her life, but it is what it is.  It sucks, but we have no choice.  Let's move on.