A Rhetorical Analysis Of Landfill

Joyce Carol Oates has an incredible amount of skill when is comes to writing, and her short story Landfill encapsulates her knowledge of story-telling. The first sentences grabs the attention of the reader and id not set free until the end of the piece. The way in which Oates transports the reader through the events, going back and forth from making them seem like a current event or those of the past, is entertaining to read and masterfully executed in the writing. The inclusion of what feel like really testimonies of events and quotations of those grieving feel authentic. There is however, one problem; these portions of text feel authentic but distant. There is no sympathy or empathy from the writer for her own work. The characters and writing

itself feel generally unsympathetic as well.
Upon simple research, the case of John Fiocco Jr., a college freshman at The College of New Jersey who was found dead in a landfill, is brought about. The many articles and writings commenting about the particular writing of Landfill and Oates’ fictitious take on a real death are rampant. Though the bandwagon is never one to directly jump on to, the issue should still be discussed so many years after the fact. There are many questions one need to ask themselves when considering this issue, but the two biggest are the following: What is ethical and unethical in the realm of storytelling? And who gets to make that decision?
Speaking and responding directly to the text is a good place to begin. The work feels as though it is a pure work fiction from the opening sentence. To say that the reader is going to question the opening statements is an understatement, as the events unravel to reveal a strange and terrifying result. Oates’ constant use of italicization is also intriguing, never truly explaining the purpose for their usage. The particular use of quotes such as “‘You don’t have faith! You’ve given up faith, I hate you!’ For it was crucial to believe, as Mrs. Campos believed, that, nearly three weeks after Hector, Jr., ‘disappeared,’ he might yet be found unharmed,” display the immense grief stricken nature a tragedy like this would create, but also the instability of Mrs. Campos’ degrading mental state as she imagines all the possibilities, which does not good to the soul or mind. But even these writings, which appear to have good intent, feel distant and disconnected. Other works of fiction, from experience, tend to bring you to the heart of the issue in a case such as this. But not here.
This story has also been strategically written in third person point of view, which allows for Oates to remain as far away from the events as possible, looking at the subjects like ants in an ant farm; remaining distant and watchful.

The reader should feel like this as well, being both in the story and away from it at the same time. From the first sentence this is made obvious, as Oates writes "Tioga County landfill is where Hector, Jr., is found. Or his ‘remains’—battered and badly decomposed, his mouth filled with trash." The specific use of quotations around the word remains should be called into question in this instance as well. By doing that, it is almost as if Oates is misidentifying the remains. It can become clear when you picture this in a court of law, with the speaker directly saying “the so called remains” with the sarcastic quotation hand gestures around that last

word.
The accounts of the fictitious death of Hector Campos, Jr. and the real death of John Fiocco, Jr. share plenty of similarities. Both initial incidents occured on March 25th, 2006. By March 27th, they were both in a reported missing, and were both found dead a few weeks later in a landfill, badly decomposed and mangled. There are a plethora of other exact facts that Oates borrowed from the death of Fiocco, Jr. and used in her fictitious story, without ever having known or met the family of the deceased.
Oates reportedly never had connection to the family and came across very unsympathetic towards the death of the family’s only son. Many people were still grieving at the time of publication, approximately seven months after John Fiocco Jr.’s death, and those who were found it very disturbing that Oates published a story about it, gaining from their loss.
There is a very clear difference, though, between taking all facts and using them, creating an entire story around them, and changing just the name, and taking one or two facts and applying them to a story.

When those questions addressed at the start are examined again, they often come into play when a writer is writing a fictitious story based on a true event. Most of the problems created by the need to ask these questions comes from the reader, how they interpret the story, and their own morals and thoughts. That’s what it always boils down to - the reader and how they respond to a particular text. Of the ways in which Tyson examines Reader Response criticism, the most applicable point to extract would be instead of focusing only on the values embedded in the text, this particular type of criticism studies the values embedded in the

reader.
It is questionable whether or not publishing the story was ethically and morally right, let alone publishing it seven months after the incident. It is natural that we borrow from real people, real scenarios, real moments in our lives or others’ because these are the moments that lie in our consciousness and our subconscious. But does bringing about pain to those already grieving go beyond these parameters? Who gets to make that decision?