Welcome to Week Five!

 The characters of Marianne and Mike Sr. really intriuged me, and I am interested to know how others felt about them. Personally, I really disliked Mike after reading the book. From the beginning of the book to the
end, he transformed from a wonderful family man to a pathetic, womanizing alcoholic. I think it is unforgivable that he exiled Marianne, and I don't even understand how a father could do such a thing. I feel like regardless of what happens or what your children do, they are still your children. I can understand that he was reacting in his own way to Marianne's rape, but dismissing her presence, in my mind, didn't fix anything. I know that if I was in her situation, I would want my family to rally around me and support me, not banish me from everything I've ever known. Although perhaps Mike thought that dismissing her presence would "fix" what had happened, it is very clear that it didn't.

I also was very interested in Marianne's character. She seemed almost Christ-like at times, especially after the rape, when she refused to "bear false witness" against Zachary, was spending time in the church, etc. etc. I also thought she seemed Christ-like in her forgiveness of Mike. Every time she spoke with Corinne she seemed to be just waiting for Corinne to give the word that Mike was ready to see her. And of course, as I expected, that time only came when Mike was on his deathbed. I also find it ironic that she forgave Mike for banishing her, while Mike never forgave his own parents for doing something similar. I personally feel that Mike didn't deserve her forgiveness for what he did to her. He abandoned her when she needed him the most, and it wasn't even temporary. It was years and years. I find that unforgivable. Marianne's character to me seemed to be almost too good. And even the rape couldn't destroy her "goodness." I can't remember a single time in the novel when she seemed angry, spiteful, or malicious. She was always so loving, generous, and caring of others. I don't really think that her character was always very realistic, but I guess there is a reason Oates portrayed her like that.

I really disliked We Were the Mulvaneys. I thought the book was so upsetting at times that I did not want to read any further. I am glad that Patrick did not kill Zachary because then the book would have become even worse then it already was. And the fact that it took the father dying to kinda pull the family back together was an awful message. Though the family had problems, they seemed weak to begin with. Why else would such turmoil come from this problem? If there were strong they would have been able to pull together and get through the rape. I would not recommend this book to anyone

I know that people in our class enjoyed We Were the Mulvaneys about as much as i liked Beloved, which is slim to none. However, i enjoyed We Were the Mulvaneys, and therefore and am glad that this book was suggested. I know this book revolved around a horrible act, but i did find this book easier to relate to for the rest for several reasons. Growing up I was friends with a boy that lived in a rather upper class family similar to the Mulvaneys, and saw how their family broke apart when the oldest son was arrested for marijuna charges, this ruined their family. They were kicked out of their country club and pretty much exiled from their suburb which before they were examples of the perfect family. Clearly, their family didn't experience the horrors of rape, but the collapse of their family was similar. Experiencing their hurt and their hard times made this book easier for me to relate to than the horrors of slavery in the south as in Beloved.

I have mixed feelings about We Were the Mulvaneys. I have a problem with the fact that Mr. Mulvaney sent his daughter away after times get rough. I think he put more effort into making sure that his family name was talked highly upon in the social aspect, then taking care of his daughter. I also think that for as much as Mrs. Mulvaney claimed she loved Marianne, she would have supported in her in testifying against Zach. Marianne sacraficed her life in not testifying, to upkeep the family. I think even though this family may evolve around the trust of God taking care of everything, they have enough, if not too many, issues to take care of to wait on God.

One of the topics that we talked about in class that interested me was why Judd was chosen as narrator. I think, although many believed he was not credible, that he was the best choice as narrator. He told the story from an outside perspective, and didn't put too much one-sided persuasiveness or emotion into it. He told it like it is. One character that bothered me the most was Corrinne. For all that she stood for and was described to be, I didn't think she was great at all. How could she let her husband send away Marianne? Maybe I'm not with the times, and dont' understand what their reasoning was, being in a small town and everything, but I coudlnt' imagine that happening. I also don't understand Marianne's character, who still could forgive her father and family, and not try to either get back or let them know how much she was hurting. Her strong faith in god is probably what caused this...something I don't understand. Overall two hundred pages of unncessary plot and descriptions I could have done with out but I think the ending made it worthwhile.

I was glad that I had saw part of the movie that was on Lifetime. It made it easier to understand what was going on, and where this was taking place. I also found it borring. It was a real struggle to make it the whole way through the book. I was dying at the end. But also at the same time I was psyched about the whole book. I thought that it would be interesting, since it was part of Oprah's book club.
    I was so frustrated at the fact that Corrine let her drunk husband come up with the idea that he was going to send his poor daughter way so he did not have to look at her because he was weak. To be honest, he pissed me off. Why could he not understand what she was going through? Why could he not be man enough to show compassion. If she did not want to testify against Zachary, that is no reason to go and act like a baby. Mike Senior acted as if he were a two year old and pouted when he did not get his way. Things that happen like this make you stronger, you have to move on because there is no going back. Why dwell on it? It seemed that Mike Sr. was a bit of a drama king. He was upset because all of the attention was no longer on him, it was on Marianne, because she needed it at that time, so he sent her away.

I thought The Mulvaneys was a good book, but could have been better without all the detail. The deatail was a strong point in the book, making up a large part of it, but to me it seemed the detail was extremely boring, making most of the book boring. The detail also came in wierd areas distracting me from the more important text. One exapmle where I felt the author whent to far is when the the dinner salad was described in detail, I dont care what what was in the salad. I could understand if it was a metaphor in some way to describe the person that made it better, but I dont think it was described for that reason. Even if the salad was described for that reason, all the character already had many pages describint them. Overal I feel the detail got in the way of making it a better book.

I thought one thing that was interesting about the book was the use of nicknames and how they affected the way I thought of each of the characters. The nickname "Button" for Marianne fit her perfectly. It's a name that suggests cute, innocent, lovable, just as the author portrayed Marianne to be. I also think of the name Button for a pet dog, and in a way I think her family (well her mother and father) treated her like an animal when they sent her away. The nickname "Pinch" for Patrick not only gave me a certain image of his personailty but also of his physical characteristics. Judd would talk about how Patrick would always wrinkle his brow, or "pinch his eyes" so to speak. And Patrick was smart. Isn't there an expression, "quick as a pinch." I know that nicknames usually have some basis around a person't personality or a physical trait but I really think the nicknames in this book portrayed much more than just whimsical titles for people. All of the Mulvaneys had them and I think if I had to desribe each of them in one word or sentence I would use their nicknames.

I think Joyce Carol Oates was sitting in her room with the ending and the beef of the book in her head, and she needed a way to bring them both together. She then came up with Judd's "even though I wasn't there, I feel as if I was" point of view. I thought it was weak writing. Of course, I'm no great literary critic, but it seemed like a waste since any important part of the story was usually told without Judd being anywhere around the action. It just seemed like she kept that point of view to get the ending she wanted. I could be wrong, I usually am. It just bothered me.

And, yea, Mike Sr. sucked.

Well, I thought The Mulvaneys was okay, long, but okay. What frustrated me was how week some of the characters were, like Corrinne and Marianne. I mean, I would really be one of the last people to insult anyone for their faith, or religion, but Corrinne drove me crazy. People who live their lives dependent and faithful to God, but they are also the strongest people I know. As I strive for that the last thing I want to do is hide behind my God as some kind of sheild from the world or an excuse and explanation of bad things. That is exactly what Corrinne did. I wanted to yank her off of her knees while she was praying and make her do something about her situation. I mean, God helps those who help themselves. I don't know why she thought if she just hid that God would work everything out.
I was also frustrated with Marianne and that was mostly because of her "reconciliation" to her father. I guess I don't mind that she forgave him, but I feel like to really forgive someone you have to understand the whole situation and admit that you are hurt or angry or whatever and then you decide not to be that way, but I feel like Marianne never even got angry or upset or anything. She just seemed pretty shallow. If my father kicked me out of the house for being raped I might have a lot more emotion that she ever showed. That just really bothered me because I know underneath the surface there must have been a lot more going on.

I enjoyed the book for the most part. On a whole, the book was great, but when it's split up and anaylized, it's WAY TOO LONG! I loved the style of writing and I loved the narration. I think it's awesome coming from the youngest sibling. I am the youngest of three and it's always interesting to sit back and watch how the older ones relate to certain situations. Even though Judd wouldn't necessarily know everything that went oh, he can guess and I think he would have been pretty close. The book seems very realistic to me even though I have never known anyone to be rapped and I don't know much about it. Sometimes you hear in cases on the news that the most popular, perfect kids are the ones to commit suicide. So, to see their family fall through all these holes just shows reality to me. It was interesting to see one way an entire family deals with rape.

We Were the Mulvaneys was an interesting novel on many levels. I approached the book with bit of apprehension after hearing what people thought of it initially. I enjoyed the book for various reasons. Mostly I enjoyed the book because it was easy to read and caught my attention. The point made in class about an excess of detail at certain portions was true however. I think I actually liked this novel because it made me think, it made me feel. While reading the book I kept finding myself wondering what would happen next, why Corrine wouldn’t say something, why Michael Sr. was acting the way he was, etc. The novel frustrated me, it made me angry, and more than that it made me sad. I found the connection in the book to the focus of our class, the American Family, to be a very unique and interesting take on it. It was as if we were given the image of the ideal family. A mother and father, happily married, a nice house, a business, hobbies, friends, and of course their children. When you set this image to the backdrop of High Point Farm it is what every American Family strives to be like, what everyone wants. When you examine this family in detail however one is able to find flaws in this seemingly perfect life. Things aren’t always what they seem is a very good summarization of the book as a whole. No one in the novel is exactly who we think they are. I liked this book mostly for that fact. It wasn’t predictable, it kept me thinking. I think We Were the Mulvaneys was a sad, but realistic depiction of what society thinks the traditional or perfect family should be, and what in all reality what the average family is much closer to(of course not on the same extremes as in the novel).

I really enjoyed this book, not as much as I enjoyed Bean Trees but more than I enjoyed Beloved. I don't think that I would've chosen this book to read on my own, but I am glad that I read it. That said, I just would like to say that I was extremely disappointed in Corrinne when she allowed Mike Sr to send Marianne away like that. I understand a family going through a tough time, and maybe the fact that seeing Marianne just made Mike feel sick inside, but to send away your own daughter is not the answer in my eyes. I was also disappointed that it took Mike's death to bring the estranged Mulvaneys back together. I think that if they would've dealt with the rape instead of trying to forget about it and wash it from their minds they would have been a much happier family. I found it predictable that Patrick sought revenge on Zachary because he almost seemed like the only character who would admit that the rape affected him. He was the only one who said, "hey, this guy is the reason why i'm so unhappy." I am also glad that Patrick did not kill Zachary. I think that Zachary was punished enough and that he would probably live his life in fear that the "stranger" would appear again and kill him for the rape. I think (or maybe I hope) that Patrick scared some sense into Zachary and got him to clean up his act. In all I really did enjoy this novel, despite its legnth.

I believe that one of the main points of this story was that bad things happen to every family, no matter how perfect they may seem from the outside. This was shown through the use of the “perfect” Mulvaney family which contained all of the various stereotypes. Within the family there was the hardworking father who was successful at his job, the religious mother keeping the family in line, the athletic son, the academic son, the pretty cheerleader daughter, and the youngest child that sort of just gets left behind. Not only that, they lived in a house that was famous in their community and they were very respected in their community. I think the author painted this picture of a family that everyone believed as perfect to prove his point. I do not believe the book would have had as great of an impact if the family was below the “quality” of the Mulvaney family. For example, I do not think the impact would have been as great if the family lived in a poor trailor park. Instead, it showed that even perfect families have problems and sometimes problems can effect everyone in the family forever.

The book wasn't horrible, I mean I found myself angered and outraged by the actions of some characters and just plain annoyed at others, and I think if a book can make you do that, well then the author has accomplished something. That still doesn't mean I liked it though.
One thing I really liked about the book was the way Marianne finaly stayed in one place when she found the animal shelter. I think the shelter served Marianne in much the same way it served its animal occupants-it took in an abused and abandoned Marianne and made her life happy again, and healed her old wounds. None of the previous places were able to do this for Marianne.

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.

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.

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 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.

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?

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 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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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 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 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...

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.

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!