ok....late again. but better late than never!?!??! i've finally found a computer that works and...well, here we go. i quite enjoyed "we were the mulvaneys". i agree w/ frank and others who said they liked the detail and character development. this book, despite it's length, was an easy read for me. tough subject--rape. i think joyce carol oates did an amazing job of portraying marianne's character as a life long survivor of sexual assault. and the effects it had on the rest of the family----wow. tough stuff i say.

and i must comment on the contrast between "the bean trees" and "we were the mulvaneys". wow---now there's two entirely different writing styles! the first being quite simple with relatively undeveloped characters as compared to the depth of information and detail given in the latter. i'm realizing as this course goes on that my ability to approach these novels with "critical" thinking is lesser than i had anticipated. i've enjoyed reading all four (i'm done with "the shining" already) of the novels assigned.....yet am struggling to truly tear them apart/disembowel them for the sake of literary education. there's a fine line between appreciating literature and potentially mis-reading what could have been an innocent work of fiction. i question if the authors of these novels really meant for there to be hidden motifs, etc. i'm not trying to be a drag---just venting my opinion about the way we sometimes "digest" literature. i can appreciate knowing how to compare different works, yet am looking forward to once agian reading books without trying to figure out "what it all means"! please don't misunderstand me.....i really am enjoying this class, and despite my absences, am up-to-date on all the readings and looking forward to the rest of the term.thanks for your patience christina!

As a reader i enjoy the detail in books. When the author puts that much time and effort into adding detail it has importance. It makes the reader fell involved in the story. "The Old Man and The Sea" is a great book and for the most part it is just detail.

I too thought that there was too much detail. First of all, as i had said in class, i didn't like the way he gave the reader detailed directions to get to High Point Farm... to me this was just a waste of ink and paper... also, i thought it was annoying that everytime we met a new character he felt the need to give us five pages of anecdotes that explain the characters' personalities... i understand that its good to give us some kind of background for each of the characters, but the way it was done in this book really took away from the story.

another thing that bothered me was the language that was used in the book... When i was growing up teachers told me not to use the same words over and over again (for example, don't always say "angry," find synonyms <sp?>) and in this book it seemed like joyce carol oats found one synonym "Incensed" <sp, again?> and used it over and over again... while it's a good word, i think it would have made the book a bit better if she had tried to use other words...

I also felt that there was entirely too much detail throughout this novel. Although the detail really allowed the reader to create a vivid picture of the Mulvaneys, in some cases the overuse of detail was not needed. I felt that the beginning third of the book was too slow, and in need of some excitement. I enjoyed getting to understand each family member but it was also very boring. Without the extended background into the family, the reactions to the rape would not have the same understanding, but I felt that more action could be involved in the first third of the novel. But overall I enjoyed this novel. I felt that it was entirely too long and detailed but it offered an interesting storyline. And although the detail was overwhelming the plot devolopment was wonderful.

I did not enjoy "We Were the Mulvenys". I thought that the author tried too hard to be too detailed in her descriptions, and this made the book tedious and annoying to have to read. Seriously, why would we need to know how to drive to High Point farm? Anyway, the Mulveny's did have the perfect family. Each one of them was successful in whatever they were interested in and they were well known in the community. This was true until the family got older, and real adult problems began confronting these story-book people. Sadly, the family turned out not to be so perfect as they proved unable to come together and deal with the tragedy of Marianne's rape appropriately and supportively, or even in a healthy way. Patrick's plotting for over a year, and then attempting to kill Zachary Lundt is obviously not healthy. Disowning people is not healthy either. Believing that God just saves you from your problems without you yourself having to do or say anything to help yourself will not get you anywhere either. Although the book was poorly written, I suppose we can say that "We Were the Mulveny's" was an appropriate book for us to read in class because it shows that even the most perfect family is not perfect, especially if they don't even try.

I was suprised by the way the author developed Patrick's character. I really enjoyed how she made him the logical, book-smart, critical character. I did not expect Marianne's rape to have that much of an effect on him and fester over all that time to the point where he turned to violence. I kind of expected him to rationalize the crime in his head and just leave it at that. By him being pushed to making Zackary pay for his crime, showed that Patrick did have emotion.
I would have enjoyed this book much more if there wasn't so much detail. As said in class, I found this very distracting because you were reading about an event and then they would start into two pages of detail. It was hard to remember the original event that you were reading.

We were the Mulvaneys was the first book I enjoyed this quarter. Even though there was an overwhelming amount of detail, the story line still kept my attention. The amount of detail in describing the farm, and each of the characters was my favorite part of the book. The amount of description that went in to each character gave a better understanding of them. The same goes for the farm. As for some of the other unnecesary detail, I felt the book could do without, but that is the way Oates choose to write it. I simply skipped over detail I found trivial. I am suprised I actaully enjoyed a book in the "Oprah Club".

Edited by author 04-26-2002 12:53 PM
I really liked the idea of this book. Yes, there were a lot of events that I didn't particularly care for, but you'll get that. In the beginning of this book, when we were introduced to the Mulvaneys, Michael Sr seemed to be the only one concerned with the social status of the family. We all know Corinne detested the country club and rarely would attend. The kids seemed fairly unbothered that they were a "Mulvaney." But this idea of a perfect, well-to-do family was Michael's creation. After the "incident" Michael completely turns from his family and embraces only cigarettes and alcohol. I think it is hard to believe that Corinne stood by his side for so long - through losing the farm and the business to sporadic employment, etc. However, really thinking about it, it seems realistic. I am sure Corinne never agreed with Michael’s actions. More than likely, everyday she said to herself that she was going to stand up to him, maybe leave him, bring Marianne home, etc. But how many times a day do we all find ourselves acting similarly - today I am going to workout, today I am going to quit (insert bad habit), today I am not going to procrastinate, etc... I am sure everyday of Corinne's life she thought that day either Michael Sr would get out of his "phase" or she would stand up for herself... but it never happened. I think that's life right there. Just waiting for tomorrow.

Also, in class we talked about how Michael Sr’s death brought the family back together. Again, I think that is totally realistic. When someone dies, the ones closest to them suddenly realize how precious life really is. The Mulvaneys were aware that they had all made mistakes in the past, but I think they were all mature enough to forgive and become a family again. I think it is wonderful that although disaster struck this family, eventually they were able to overcome and love again.

I agree with JoHanna Sestito because I didn't enjoy this book either. I found it to be a slow read with way too much detail. The choice that Patrick made to not kill Zachary is hard for me to say if it was just or not. Patrick did humiliate him but why do we need people like that on this earth. Killing is never the answer but when something so evil is done, humilation sometimes might not be the solution. Overall, I thought the "plot" could have made this book even better by leaving out all of the details upon details. I will never recommend this book to anyone.

I made this argument in class and I stand by my belief that it would have been a lot more interesting a read had Patrick actually killed Zachrary Lundt. I know it was argued in class that this would have been out of character, but the scary thing is, that this would have been true to real life.

What some people don't realize is that there are people who are so twisted out of their normal character by life's tragedies that they often do behave in a manner which they would never think themselves capable of.

I consider that possibility to be rather realisitic, but I guess the book is ok the way it is.

Personally, I didn't really like We Were the Mulvaneys. The story line was ok, but the overwhelming amount of detail took away from what was going on. However, I agree with the choice that Patrick made not to kill Zachary. If Patrick's goal was for Zachary to feel what Marianne did, then killing him would not have been the answer. Patrick wanted him to feel humiliated and violated. The only way for this to happen was for Zachary to have to face people after his attack, and explain what was done. Although I really feel that Zachary deserves to die, his constant embarassment could possibly be a worse punishment.

I also questioned how Mike Sr. could do the same to his daughter as his father had done to him. There are several different possible reasons that he could have made this decision, but I feel that he actually saw a positive light in his father's actions. Mike Sr. had totally led a life much different than that of his father, but I feel that he indirectly thanked his father for pushing him away as he did. I mean, once he got past the fact that his family didn't have the traditional love for him that most families do, his family gave him some serious incentive to set out and to do something positive. This is where i think Mike actually thought that it had gotten to the point where his daughter had to learn the same kind of lesson. Although, it does still leave the question of why he would turn away from his daughter for something that was totally not her fault. Its hard to say. I just feel that there is some psychological significance behind why Mike did what he did. Does anyone agree with this theory? Any other suggestions?

I pretty much agree with everyone else about the book. It was a little long and a bit detailed in some places, but overall it read fine. I think that the author does a nice job of showing that all families have their secrets and how those famlies deal with them.

This is a hackneyed topic of our discussions, but it is at the hub of the "downfall" of the family, but it is interesting to look at Mike Sr. and his own father...I mean, hadn't Mike Sr.'s own father banished him from his house, and didn't Mike Sr. resent and even hate his family for exiling him???...Then, he (Mike Sr.) goes and does it to his own daughter???...Didn't this man learn from his own father's harsh attitude???...Perhaps that is a point that Oates was trying to emphasize. Things, sometimes painful and aweful things, do serve a purpose whether we realize them to or not.

I would have to say that I did enjoy the book, but i have to agree with everyone that it was a little too long and some of the description could have been cut out. I think this book shows that no matter how perfect a family may seem anything can happen to destroy it. I think that Corinne could have done more than she did to help Marianne. I disagree with how Michael Sr. treated his daughter after she was raped. I fully support what Patrick did to Zachary Lundt so that he could learn his lesson and hopefully stop his destructive and horrible behavior. Marianne finally getting her life together and finding happiness despite all that happened to her is the best part of the book besides the incident with Zachary Lundt.

When the family sent Marianne away I honestly didn't think it was that bad. My impression was that she had been teased at school (remember the drawing on her desk in French class) and that her parents wanted her to go somewhere where she wouldn't be teased. But then when I realized it was for Michael Sr. benefit and not Marianne's I was really upset. That automatically shows that the family was far from perfect because the parents chose their happiness over their children.
Also I have to say that I enjoyed reading the ending but I don't know if I can honestly believe that everything was okay. I can't believe that after all of the things that family went through, that they would be completely fine together suddenly when they had a reunion. It just didn't seem realistic to me.