Arnold Friend Interpretation

Simply put, Joyce Carol Oates’s “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?” is an ambiguous masterpiece, laden with text-based evidence to give significance to multiple interpretations. Perhaps, in addition to the story’s rich detail and its mark of literary skill, this is why the story is so widely read among the collegiate community. The story has caused numerous critics to put forth opinions about the characters, plot, and ambiguity; however, no one has largely agreed to accept all of them as a whole—as a single meaning or message.
Arnold Friend’s arrival on the scene of the story marks the beginning of most critical arguments and suggestions. His character is that of a sexually hungry predator who goads Connie into his embrace. The allusions

gathered from Arnold’s appearance, personality, speech, and car are sufficient to feed his different representations.

These include that of teenage serial killer Charles Schmid, Satan himself, and Bob Dylan along with his rock and roll influence. The strong evidence that exists for these different readings suggest that a deeper meaning can be attained from the story—that by connecting them, by establishing a relationship between them, we can see the social agenda that Oates has in store for the reader.
Comparing a character in any text to Satan, or even the satanic concept, is a bold move; however, critics have been doing just that quite incessantly with Arnold Friend since the story was published. The number of arguments and claimed references to Satan only grow as time passes. Marie Urbanski provides a strong argument for Friend’s satanic representation. She says that Friend’s “ominous” appearance includes his “shaggy, black hair” and his slitted eyes “like chips of broken glass”. His “long and hawklike nose” adds to such an interpretation. The fact that his boots seem to fit awkwardly on his feet is

repeatedly used as proof for his “cloven hooves”, as well. However, appearance isn’t the only strong evidence cited by critics—supernatural forces are evident in Friend’s coercion of Connie. For instance, when Connie picks up the home phone in order to call the police, she hears a roaring through the earpiece and the phone feels leaden and clammy. Although Friend is outside the screen door, she feels as if “Friend was stabbing her again and again with no tenderness”. He continues not to act the slightest bit surprised when she is so physically perturbed. Yet more satanic evidence exists in the extreme sinful nature obvious in Friend. Foreshadowing of Connie’s rape is plentiful in his dialogue: “I’ll hold you so tight that you won’t think you have to try to get away or pretend anything because you’ll know you can’t. And I’ll come inside you where it’s all secret and you’ll give in to me and you’ll love me.” (Oates 6) Such incredible sexual lust and attempt at her youth’s corruption is devilish, at least. Arguments such as these aren’t only applicable to Satan, however. For example, his cloven hooves have been countered with Friend’s feet being supported by makeshift insoles of cans and cotton balls—a well-known practice of serial killer Charles Schmid Jr.
Arnold Friend’s parallels with “the Pied Piper of Tucson” Charles Schmid Jr. are so numerous and blatantly obvious that no critic has before disputed that there lies the inspiration for the character of Friend. Author Joyce Carol Oates herself has even admitted to reading the TIMES news article immediately before starting work on her story. Schmid was a curious character, stuffing his boots with rags and crushed cans to appear taller. He, like Friend, wore pancaked makeup, had dyed, jet black hair, and was short and muscular. He boasted of being extremely sexually active, saying that women paid him for teaching them “100 ways to make love” (Moser 23). Moreover, Schmid’s gold car seemed to be one of his main assets in luring girls into his sexual embrace, much like Friend’s golden jalopy provides him an instrument with which to escape with girls, as he will certainly do with Connie. In 1965, Schmid raped and murdered three teenaged girls in Tucson, Arizona. The final parallel between Schmid exists in this; both characters rape and murder their female victims. It is nearly undoubtable that Friend subsequently rapes and murders Connie—evidence for this is previously discussed.
Another significant comparison of Arnold Friend is in the rock and roll idol Bob Dylan. During the 1960’s, Bob Dylan had a heavy influence in the teenage culture. Although people do not often commend him on his melodic voice, his lyrics were powerful enough to cause people—especially young people—to worship him and revere him as some kind of “savior” from the social orthodox; an orthodox which they translated to mean social confines. “For the first time in American history, the flamboyant rejection of respectable norms in clothing, language, sexual behavior, and drug use previously confined to artists and bohemians became the basis of a mass movement. Its rallying cry was ‘liberation’” (Foner 986). Urbanski mentions Oates’s inclusion of how the contemporary youth was “devoted to popular music.” This youth movement, this newfound “culture”, was dubbed the “counterculture”. Arnold Friend and Connie are members of this movement. Both of their actions show that they are sexually careless and reject the traditions of their older generations (Connie’s parents and even her older sister). Arnold Friend can be directly viewed as Bob Dylan himself—resembling him in looks as well as in his quirks. The black hair, sharp nose, thick eyelashes and height were all characteristic of Dylan’s appearance. Friend’s quirks also seem to parallel with Bob Dylan: “‘the simple lilting voice, exactly as if he were reciting the words to a song’” (Tierce, Crafton). There are also many other musical references in the story—Ellie is holding a radio, Connie is listening to music indoors, and she hears “the echo of a song from last year” (Oates 7) in Friend’s voice. Constant music references only strengthen Oates’s meaning—that music had a large role to play in what ensued in the story.
Arnold Friend—Satan, Charles Schmid, Bob Dylan, savior.

Oates includes plausible evidence for all of the interpretations. Since they are all found in one character, we can reason that they are therefore connected. The most obvious connection that can be made is that Oates is relating serial killer Schmid to Satan, or an otherwise dark being. Most people would view Schmid’s actions as satanic; this isn’t that surprising of a conclusion. The rape and murder of numerous women is a devilish and condemnable deed. However, other relations are more suggestive. Oates could be insinuating through Friend that the musical agenda of the 1960’s, led by Bob Dylan and others, is satanic. In other words, that the effect of the music on the people of the nation is detrimental and undesirable. In the time period, she would be facing the full blown counterculture movement as a woman well past her teenage years—therefore not as a member of the rebellion, but as a third person who most likely retains traditions of the previous generation. As mentioned previously, people of the young generation looked to Bob Dylan and other rock and roll “kings” such as Elvis Presley for influence. Oates’s opinion of the sexually careless and unorthodox tendencies is shown through how the “savior” nature of Friend is related not to a kind of social awakening, as often sung about in Bob Dylan’s lyrics, but rather to rape and murder. We can expand this concept and say that the eminent rape and murder of Connie by

Friend can serve as a metaphor for the corruption of the youth brought on by the popular rock and roll music of the time period. However, the story ends slightly ambiguously, not explicitly stating that Connie will face that exact demise. Although not explicitly stated, there is beyond sufficient evidence to conclude that it is so. Friend’s sexually laden comments (Hurley 65) and persistence makes it clear. Therefore, the psychological (and presumably physical) rape of the young generation as a whole is eminent, although at the time the story was published it was not recognized as occurring. Oates believes that it is only a matter of time until the young generation, robbed of its traditional innocence, will be forever damned—as Connie is seen to be in “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?”.
All of Friend’s connections and parallels have so much buttressing evidence that none of them can be neither denied nor ignored. Similarities in physical appearance to different characters, supernatural and natural, are innumerable. Friend seems to have a savior-like persona, freeing Connie from her feeble, old house and taking her out into the world. This is very comparable to Bob Dylan’s social influence—after all, many people of the time saw Dylan as a savior or messiah-like figure. The comparison strongly suggests that Oates meant for us to make such connections and discover a hidden, deeper meaning than that of all of the broken messages embedded in Friend. If you connect the many, equally valid interpretations of the text, you arrive at a strong social commentary, showing how disgusted Joyce Carol Oates is with the corrupted counterculture—what she sees as the rape and murder of the youth, both psychologically and physically—and what she thinks will be the demise of it.