Its obligatory to mention this so I'm going to be as boring as everyone else who ever reviews Joyce Carol Oates' work and get it out of the way first: she's written a lot of books. Like, substantially more books than years I've been alive. Its an impressive feat, though certainly not unique . . . while Oates has published almost sixty novels as of this writing, Danielle Steel has published a hundred and forty-one. And she's almost ten years younger than Oates. So its not like its some kind of record.
It is something than isn't exactly common amongst literary writers, which is why it probably gets mentioned so often. What's more impressive to me is that Oates never seems content to stick with one genre over the course of all those novels, like someone challenged her by saying she couldn't write in every genre and her response was "Oh yeah? Watch me!" Though I guess we're still waiting for that great Joyce Carol Oates epic fantasy novel but there's still time (after I wrote that I realized she already has won the World Fantasy Award for Best Short Fiction so I guess she's halfway there).
So yeah, it’s a lot. Amazingly for me, this is my first Oates novel, probably because I bought these back in 2009 and waited to read them first to see if I even liked her style. And I do, but I'm not going to lie, the sheer number of books she is intimidating and I doubt anyone besides the hardest of the hardcore has even attempted to read all of them. I know I won't be, although I want to hit her career highlights eventually. But I've only got so many heartbeats, man.
But she's probably one of the more notable living American writers, so if you're interested in contemporary literature I don't think you can safely ignore her without leaving a giant gap in your reading. Of course if you think that's good advice and are hoping I can tell you where to start you definitely have the wrong person. This is where I started . . . is it the best entry point? Beats me, but it seemed as good a place as any.
This is the first part of what's known as the "Wonderland Quartet" . . . four novels that don't share the same characters or even the presence of a tardy white rabbit but instead serve as an examination of the experience of living in American society at certain points in time, mostly from around the 30s to just past the mid-century mark (they were published between 1968-71). They're pretty universally acclaimed, with all four being nominated for the National Book Award for Fiction and the third novel in the quartet "them", winning the prize itself. Surprising to me, its her only National Book Award win (which is probably why I bought these, to be honest, around 2009 I was chasing past winners . . . yes, its weird).
All of these are decently early in her career, with the opening novel here only her second published novel so if you're going the chronological route you'll hit these early on. And while I don't know what her later period style is like, she's interesting enough here that you can see why she was already winning awards, although that does have a bit of a caveat . . . as she relates in the afterword, for the Modern Library edition published in 2003 she did some revisions to the original text and by "revisions" I mean by her own admission she rewrote about three-quarters of it so while the bones of the novel are essentially the same the meat laid on top of those bones is making a substantially different animal. If you're curious how much of the plot changed you can do what I did and read the summary of the original novel on the Giant Internet Encyclopedia . . . needless to say a lot of details have been altered.
Does it make this version better? I'll let other people compare the two and just go with what I have. As before the novel concerns the life of Clara Walpole, a woman born to a migrant farmer, which is to say, they're decently poor. She's pretty and has some spunk but if you think this is the kind of novel where a young woman succeeds on pluck and cunning and people recognizing her natural talent I am here to tell you that this is a Joyce Carol Oates novel and that kind of thing doesn't happen here. Not only do people not get what you want but they don't get it in such profoundly definitive ways that you wonder if they're somehow being punished for even wanting it in the first place.
Thus, Clara, a woman born poor and with few prospects beyond continuing to be poor, having babies continuously until the childbirth mortality odds of the US in the 1930s stops being in her favor (I'll save you the trouble of looking it up: they're not good), and probably being married to someone who spends a not insubstantial amount of money on alcohol. If that sounds unlikely, she probably doesn't think so as when the book opens it’s the life she's currently experiencing, thanks to her father Carleton. He's responsible for most of the first portion of the novel, when Clara is a young girl, and if there's one thing Oates captures, it’s the desperate intensity of the life he's trying to lead, a barely contained anger that sometimes erupts in surprising bursts of violence, a flailing about as if he's angry at literally everything or just isn't sure what he should be targeting and so is striking out wildly just to feel the shuddering of something that wasn't expecting to be hit, regardless of whether it does any good.
At times it makes for a warped version of "The Grapes of Wrath" where no one gives noble speeches and everyone is violent . . . Clara's a child and is thus sidelined for most of this, so we get a lot of time with Carleton realizing that you can on the bottom of society's ladder while also discovering that the ground is sinking and people are throwing stuff at you from above. Clara is his special girl and he tends to dote on her as much as a crudely violent man can, at least until the day she makes him mad and there's no turning back.
From there the book is propelled by its own terrible motion, with Clara always seemingly running toward something that she isn't in any position to find, straining to catch it and still not sure if its even what she wanted. Unsurprisingly, most of her distant targets are shaped like men. Carleton is just the first man in Clara's life to have an effect on her and its telling that all three sections of the book are named after those various men, like being pressed through various molds, each of them formative in their own ways. If its not her father's blunt shaping, its local mystery man Lowry, who comes in and out of her life as capacious as the zephyr, only with that irresistibleness that all men of mystery have to impressionable girls. After Clara he's probably the secondmost interesting character in the book, defined by his own negative spaces (most of which seem oddly self-imposed), a man who appears to be living his life exactly as he wants to but yet never seems comfortable, as if he's caught between transformations and unsure when the final stage will manifest.
But while Lowry is a lot of things, stability is one thing he's not and and this portion has its own quivering impatience . . . these parts of the book were the saddest for me because there are moments when you can see the vague shape of the normal life Clara might have had . . . sure, the town seems to alternate between treating her with suspicion and borderline hostility (a scene where she has to practically beg for help with a sick baby is heartbreaking in how callous it is) but she's got a job and some hope. She's even happy when Lowry is around, rare as that can be.
Here's the thing, though . . . when you've grown up in a transient environment sometimes nothing but rock hard certainty of what your life is going to be is good enough, to the point where you've compelled to push far past "good enough". Its clear by this point she's never going to satisfied with an average life of struggle (as opposed to his previous life of intense, unrelenting struggle) and thus is going to have to figure out another path. Whether the path she does figure out is a good idea is up for grabs but let's put it this way: at least she doesn't end up poor.
Thus enters Revere. A rich farmer who actually doesn't seem to be a totally awful person, he has an eye on her early. Unfortunately, he's married but let's not forget he's rich so as you can imagine there's ways around that and before you can say "I'm pretty sure the baby is yours" she's got her own place with her child while waiting for the Grim Reaper to catch up to Revere's actual wife. Its pastoral, in its way, with mother and son living basically unbothered. But its not what Clara really wants. And this time, she's bringing the kid.
One thing I found telling between Oates' original version of the novel and her revision was changing the structure so that instead of four sections each named after the men in her life instead it becomes three, with Revere's separate section eliminated entirely and his plot blended into the sections surrounding it. Which probably speaks to how Oates saw the story years later . . . while Revere is important in Clara's life, let's face it, he's a means to an end, and its arguable that she influences him more than he does to her.
That means her son Swan gets to bring it all home. Named Steven by Revere, we first meet him as a young boy and the book travels with him to adulthood as he and Clara become officially integrated into Revere's household (he already has sons, so imagine "The Brady Bunch" theme, but done by the Carter Family in their best "you're not getting out of this world alive" voices). Clara's in the mid-century version of seventh heaven, able to finally afford all the things just as the country was discovering that "all the things" is a LOT of things. It sounds wonderful except for one snag that almost no one notices until its too late: Swan's unraveling.
His section is probably going to be the toughest for a lot of people and I'm not sure if Oates' revisions cleaned up what was kind of messy to begin with or if she somehow made it worse. Its not bad, per se, its that the Swan first meet and the one that we're left with at the end of the book feels like such an extreme shift that even given the fact that it takes place over the course of years it still feels less natural than dictated by the plot. Increasingly we see him become alienated and withdrawn, which readers will probably see as somewhat understandable given all the circumstances (there's a fairly grisly accident that will once again remind you who is writing this) but Oates take that mood several steps past to an extreme that I'm not sure the book entirely justifies. Before that it’s a chilling chronicle of what little there was of someone's youthful optimism evaporating and leaving behind something just a touch darker than obsidian. At the edges you get glimpses of the country changing around them, becoming something a bit more expansive while somehow compressing these people in further, as if all their attempts to stretch to fit are only serving to suffocate them. Swan suffers the worst of it while Clare burbles in her own delusions but after a bit its clear that everyone is some degree of ill, as if something in the air is gradually poisoning.
Once you pick up on that its not a total surprise the book goes where it does, one last spasm of needless violence where all choices have been narrowed down to one terrible one. Again, I'm not sure if Swan is the best candidate to deliver that ending as opposed to the most convenient but even when you see it coming its still impressive how cold it is, one last moaned expression in a book that has rarely missed a chance to shed blood where it could. Yet even though it has an impact its perhaps not as much as Oates, past or present, might have hoped it would be . . . in a way it feels almost reverse engineered from the ending, working backwards to figure out how everyone got there in the first place. It feels like our last glimpse of Clara embeds the point that Oates was trying to make all along and Swan and everyone else is just the vehicles to get us there.
But if there's tragedy (and there is) we only feel it because Oates makes Clara feel real enough, with the whole book eventually feeling like a struggle to avoid the ending we do get, as if Clara can see it distantly ahead even as a child and is doing everything she can to get to the life she wants without overshooting into the end result that she knows is coming. But momentum is its own devil and once you get started the incline always seems to be downhill no matter what the terrain might really be. All you can do is go faster and faster, especially when slowing down hurts too much and eventually all you can do is brace yourself for the crashing through, hoping the arrival won't be as sharp as the leaving. Morrissey once told us that "life is very long when you're lonely" but if Oates make one thing clear, its that you can have multiple lifetimes nested inside each other and each of them can be lonely and each of them can last longer than we can bear. And when its over all we can do is shift into another eternity, over and over again, until the world becomes a grey buzz, a foreground and background hum blending together into the same uniform hue, leaving nothing alive but a vague sense just south of an amputated contentment and the flatly neutral certainty that things were different, once, perhaps. But even if that were true, its yesterday and out of reach and a very long time ago, like a story told about you, by you to someone who keeps laughing without smiling and crying without tears, who already knows it all by heart but won't say how and might also be you. Or that might be another story. Who knows? After all, eventually it all feels the same.