Carthage by Joyce Carol Oates

 

     I wanted to read a thought-provoking mystery during my summer break, so I considered one of Joyce Carol Oates’s books. 

  Carthage is an entertaining, provocative novel filled with suspense. It is engrossing; Joyce Carol Oates always creates characters that make you think long after you finish the book.

    The novel reminds readers of the war in Iraq. It exposes the trauma, suffering and pain it caused and the circumstances that led to it.

     I do recommend Carthage but I am not blind to the fact that this novel perpetuates a number of stereotypes and prejudices that float consistently in the traits of unconscious biases.

     The heart of the mystery sets off with the disappearance of Cressida Mayfield, a nineteen-year-old woman from Carthage, New York. What happened to Cressida?

    The mystery revolves around her disappearance; the novel is an unpredictable adventure with several twists and turns. It keeps the readers on tenterhooks till the end.  There is no way you can guess what happened to Cressida, and I love that about the novel.

     Joyce Carol Oates is a brilliant novelist. I appreciate the way she makes the reader believe something about a character, only to later lead the way to the reevaluation of the original views she offers. This may be a strategy to expose the complexity of reality. One has to be careful before judging others. Still, the trap of stereotypes and biases in this novel makes my head spin like a carousel.

    First of all, I found it unsettling that she portrayed an absurd dichotomy between Cressida and her older sister, Juliet. Cressida is labeled as the “smart girl” and Juliet is the “beautiful” one. 

 

  Cressida Mayfield and Juliet Mayfield,

the two icons of the relentless stereotyping of women

 

 “Cressida was invariably judged too smart.” I was intrigued to learn about her. We read about Cressida being “smart” ad nauseum. However, the concept of “smart” is warped to satisfy a kind of stereotype that fits the unconscious biases of society. I find this character shallow, self-centered and somewhat boring. Cressida was tactless, selfish and blunt in a way that did not make her smart. I expected witty remarks or actions that would shape funny, thought-provoking situations, but nothing happened to convince me that Cressida was indeed smart other than the mind-boggling work she did on Frankenstein for a college assignment.

  The author associates the idea of a so-called “smart” girl with being rude and reckless. It was very disappointing because I do believe that some modern societies still have problems with what they consider “smart women”. Smart women are viewed with distrust, so this story helps to enhance the problem and fortify the idea that smart women can be dangerous and unpredictable. Now think about how this translates into politics…

   This is a social feature that dates back to the Middle Ages, when women who expressed disagreement or opposition were persecuted as witches, so the “smart girl” stereotype depicted here may be an expression of the misogynistic trend that continues to exist, and it is used effectively to silence and disempower women across the world. The “smart woman” who appears “different” is a red flag to be avoided at all costs. 

   Women are expected to be docile and follow the rules consistently to be liked. Blunders are not to be forgiven, so the “smart” one in this novel meets the “need” of the collective consciousness of American society to project distrust on “smart women”. Cressida is not to be trusted. She is unpredictable. On the other hand, Juliet is the “beautiful” one, and even though Juliet was sometimes physically attacked by her fiancé she covered it up for him because she was “in love with him”. She would never acknowledge that there was something terribly wrong in that relationship, and this satisfies a kind of prejudice here about what to expect from the so-called “beautiful women”: that beautiful women can tolerate violence because they are dumb enough to do so. The so-called beautiful woman never seems to understand that the relationship is unhealthy. In this novel the women are classified and put into these senseless boxes that perpetuate injustice and unfair judgments about women.

 

 

 Cressida and her intellectual conversations… with her father

Cressida enjoyed discussions about Greek philosophers with Zeno, her dad. However, Joyce Carol Oates makes clear that Juliet and Arlette avoided getting engaged in such discussions because they did not like to disagree.

   "The animated conversations excluded Arlette and Juliet who claimed not to enjoy arguing." I have lost count of the times in which intellectual discussions take place between the teenaged daughter and her father in novels. Fathers are portrayed with fun intellectual interests at the dinner table whereas mothers are boring. I never understood this dynamic, but the bias exists in literature and it makes no sense to me. It is interesting to see how the patriarchy is at work in subtle ways.

   

 

     What does “being beautiful” mean?

   Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, so the whole obsession with beauty here is hard to comprehend. Why did Cressida care about it so much? Cressida is jealous because Juliet is considered beautiful. She bullies Juliet. Cressida thinks her parents don’t love her. Even the author suggests that their parents, Zeno and Arlette, do not love Cressida as much as they love Juliet. How can a parent’s love be influenced by the kid’s physical beauty? The  situation is preposterous and ridiculous, but don’t be so quick to judge them. Her parents do suffer after her disappearance;  Joyce Carol Oates wants to make sure you understand that they do love Cressida. Ambiguity is the queen of the game.  They love her, but they had trouble parenting her. Why is it so hard for Cressida to connect with her parents?After a careful analysis I realised that her father is prone to spoil her, so Cressida has low tolerance for frustration. 

     The dichotomy between Arlette and Zeno

     Zeno appreciates Cressida’s artistic skills. He is impressed by her artworks, but I noticed that Arlette only appreciated her art when Cressida was a child and also once she lost her daughter. Again, we see an unsettling dichotomy here: the man values the complexity of Cressida's art; his wife only does so under special circumstances. The man shares intellectual conversations with Cressida. His wife is unwilling to do so. 

  Due to Cressida’s talent for drawing, Arlette did consider the possibility of putting something together to publish a children’s book, but Zeno dismissed the idea. He considered that Cressida was far too complex for that. Zeno thought that doing so was not at Cressida’s intellectual level, so her father is put on a pedestal here as if he were the one who knows what is best for Cressida.

 

 

 Brett Kincaid

   Juliet’s boyfriend, Brett Kincaid, is the brave hero who served in Iraq. The trauma of war left physical and mental scars that will eventually ruin his life. Even before going to war Brett Kincaid had been carried away by violent impulses. Violence is totally acceptable in males, anyway. Joyce Carol Oates shows that women fall in love with him because he is so “brave and kind.” His violent impulses can be safely ignored because his kindness and empathy overshadow those flaws according to the cultural mindset of the novel. I am not making anything up. This is what happens in the story.

    It is confusing to me, because Brett used to hang out with psychopaths who treat women like garbage, but, strangely enough, Brett has been immune to the influence of his peers who sexually assault women and get away with it. I think this aspect of the novel is baffling. Joyce Carol Oates clearly wants the readers to feel compassion for Brett, so she shows that he can be very empathetic and kind despite his background of hanging out with psychopaths. Joyce Carol Oates shows that Brett is ready to defend the vulnerable at all costs, but why was he a friend of the psychopaths who referred to women in the most disgusting ways? I have trouble handling this ambiguity. Is it realistic? What do you think? 

 

     PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder)

 The stream of flashbacks and disruptive thoughts exposes the atrocities of war and the effects of trauma. I appreciate how the author evokes deep emotions and feelings. She captures the emotional impact of war and the helplessness that results from it. 

  Juliet and Brett’s dream of getting married never materialized. Their dream is completely shattered for different reasons, and there is something about this that remains unclear at the end...

 

 

     Unfair prejudices

 

  I loved it when Cressida volunteered to teach math to students in middle school. She was in her element when she did that. I loved how she poured her creativity into the fascinating task of teaching mathematics.  That was smart of her, but it did not last long. At some point somebody made a comment that was offensive to Cressida. The situation highlights Cressida’s deep sensitivity, but I did not really understand why it affected her so much. This could have been fleshed out more perhaps. It was disappointing that she stopped volunteering because of that. Why did it offend her so much? What does this tell us about Cressida?

   I was also struck by the fact that all the middle school students who needed assistance in math had “brown skin”. Why is Joyce Carol Oates pointing this out? Does she think that only students with brown skin need assistance with math?   This was not only inappropriate; it was also unnecessary to point out the skin color of the students.

 

  

    The intriguing nature of “The Investigator”

 

 “The investigator” is a unique, intriguing character. He investigates and works to address injustice and change things in unconventional, peaceful ways. Yet he is rather authoritarian and cold in his own private realm. I wanted to learn more about this strange man. What happened to him?  

 

    What I truly liked about the novel

   The novel offers the opportunity to get to know a great variety of characters in various settings and situations. At times it dares to invite us to contemplate different perspectives on the same situation.

    The death penalty is explored with heartbreaking details. The novel exposes the darkest, most brutal aspects of society.  Yet amid the violence and disrespect for human dignity there are rays of hope...

    I cherished the unique instants of contemplation, shared silence and human connection. I appreciate the peaceful moments of inner redemption: the empathetic understanding that forms unlikely friendships…

 

 Similarities with We Were the Mulvaneys

 

 Arlette finds comfort and solace in the Catholic religion just like the mother in We Were the Mulvaneys. Again, Catholicism offers them the relief and comfort they seek.

Men use alcohol to deal with their outrage and hopelessness.

Male violence is acceptable and tolerated in several ways.

Both novels deal with the effects of trauma and violence.

Both novels expose the consequences and features of the lynch mob mentality. Interestingly, Joyce Carol Oates mentions the so-called lynch mob mentality at this interview here. I want to highlight it because the lynch mob mentality is a tool of authoritarian regimes.

 https://www.salon.com/2014/02/20/joyce_carol_oates_on_twitter_i_dont_really_say_anything_that_i_dont_mean/

 

 

 

 

                    Conclusion

 This is a thought-provoking, engaging novel that reveals the darkest brutal aspects of society. It reveals the effects of trauma and violence and the persistent nature of gender double standards. It exposes the ways in which women are oppressed and classified by labels with an utter disregard of their talents and potential. Unfortunately, it reinforces stereotypes and prejudices that are part of unconscious social biases.

 

Feel free to read my writing on the following books by Joyce Carol Oates:

We Were the Mulvaneys

Fox

Lost Boys: Why Our Sons Turn Violent and How We Can Save Them by James Garbarino, Ph.D.

 

    I do not have sons, but the title of this book hooked me as soon as I stepped into a library last year. I will explain why.

    Let's start by saying that when I was a child my parents discouraged me from watching violent cartoons and movies. In fact, I abhorred those myself. I found violent movies and cartoons revolting. My parents fostered my curiosity about the world around me and motivated me to read and watch programs that inspired me to reflect and think critically. They also taught me to respect animals and the natural world. While they did consider it important to be able to defend myself and be physically strong, they did not celebrate violence or promote it in any way, so it was strange for me to see that some of my classmates admired the violent American cartoons and movies.

   Today I continue to feel confused and puzzled when I see how fascinated with violence so many children, teenagers and adults are.

    Violence is a useful tool of fascist regimes. It is used to generate profits while people lose their lives as a result of it. Why? Because violence is at odds with empathy. Violence drives people to shoot without respect and consideration for the lives of others, whether they are human or non-human.

      There are many forms of violence. Gun violence is one of them, but it is not the only one. Yet gun violence is a big piece of the enormous puzzle of violence that society tends to conveniently ignore, because different forms of violence get normalized on a regular basis. This is something that Garbarino analyses carefully in his book, so I will let you discover his introspective examination of the problem.

      I’ve always been aware of the fact that the most vulnerable children, teenagers and adults can be heavily influenced by the violence they grow up watching. For this reason, I’ve never understood why psychologists and sociologists don’t do enough to raise awareness on the impact of these influences.

     Don’t they have a responsibility as professionals to do so? Are they so used to the violence they grew up with that they have acquiesced to it and do nothing about it?

 

      When I visited this library and came across this title, I opened the book at once… I was astonished to discover that Dr. Garbarino expressed some of the thoughts and concerns I had been harboring in my mind for decades. I needed a resource like this one as an outlet to express myself; I needed answers to my questions. Furthermore, the book also offers a thorough approach to the problem with practical steps, ideas and recommendations as well as comprehensive plans of action to tackle the issue at every level. The content of Lost Boys is of value to parents, educators, social workers, political leaders and any member of society who cares deeply about this issue.

  The last part of the book offers a vast array of resources with contact details of organizations and associations that provide guidance, support and training for families and their children.

  I am dividing this post into several parts to present the topic with clarity.

   It is my hope that this post will inspire people to raise awareness, spark reflections and effect change.

 

 

 Facts and statistics 

 

   It is well known that young men are about ten times as likely as young women to commit murder.

    Homicide rates in general and our juvenile homicide rate remain higher in the United States than they are in other industrialized societies, such as the countries of Europe. In America death due to gun violence is 26 times more common than in European countries. Canada has a youth homicide rate that is at least three times lower than the one in the United States of America. When this book was first published, however, in the 1990s, Canada youth homicide was ten times lower than in America.

     In the mid-1990s Boston was able to cut its youth homicide rate to zero for a period of two years due to a number of city programs designed to address these issues. Chapter seven of the book focuses on such programs.

 

Cultural roots and how they relate to violence

  The patterns of violence associated with slavery left their impact in the Southern states of the United State of America. Dr. Garbarino highlights the work of social analysts who explain that the highest homicide rates are in the states that constituted the Confederacy during the Civil War. These are the states with the highest homicide rates. On the other hand, the states with the lowest rates are in New England and the northern Midwest. For example, in 1996 Louisiana’s homicide rate was twelve times that of South Dakota. This pattern was as true in the nineteenth century as it is today.

 

 

The effects of exposing kids to violent screen content

   Dr. Garbarino puts into words the concerns that I harbored in my mind for so long. The book was published in the 1990s and nothing has been done to address the roots of it. It is important to emphasize that guns are the first cause of death of children in the United States of America. In fact, the situation has become much worse since he wrote the book. My first goal here is to highlight the roots of the issue because they have been consistently ignored and even denied. Dr. Garbarino validated my concerns by exposing the research on this, as I mentioned at the beginning of this post:

 “Many American kids watch hours and hours of atrocities, day after day, week after week. While some may label it entertainment, it is—from the point of view of a child’s development—a documentary of atrocities with the potential to traumatize and corrupt.” He also analyses the effects of violent video games carefully, but I will let you dig into that yourself.

  Aside from this book, I share recent research done on almost two thousand children which clearly shows the influence of television on violent behaviors. I share a link at the bottom of this post. Dr. Garbarino’s book looks into the research that was already available when he published the book back in the 1990s, and one cannot help but wonder why nothing has been done over this…

 “Analyses of television content reveal that a typical American child can witness more images of death and destruction from the comfort of his living room than any cop or soldier witnesses in actuality in the line of duty in a lifetime. An analysis for the American Psychological Association highlights some important elements of this exposure: ‘good’ characters or heroes commit 40 percent of the violent acts, more than a third of the bad characters are not punished, and more than 70 percent of the aggressors show no remorse and experience no criticism or penalty for their violent actions.”

  Psychologist Leonard Eron and his colleagues researched the effects of the negative influences of violent images by following a group of kids from childhood into adulthood. “Just as some people are more vulnerable to developing cancer from smoking than others, so too are some children more affected by television violence than others.” If you take a moment to reflect on this, you may be inclined to compare the situation to other problems that were ignored at the expense of human health. For example, the effects of exposure of children to violence has been treated like the effects of cigarette smoke on human health. Deniers have tried to deny the effects until they cannot hide the evidence anymore. For at least three or four decades, physicians and medical institutions ignored and downplayed the effects of cigarette smoke on human health. Tobacco companies took advantage of this by promoting cigarettes as “healthful” and “safe”. I am sure the readers of this blog will think of other similar analogies.

   Recent research supports the claim that  boys exposed to violent screen content in the preschool years are more likely to become antisocial and violent themselves a decade later (check the link at the bottom for details).

   I  appreciate how Dr. Garbarino raises awareness on another critical aspect of the issue: the way shallow materialism dominates some of their violent behaviors. He makes it clear and easy to understand.   

 

A comprehensive approach to the problem

 

   The author says he could have ended up like one of the violent kids himself, but he had a strong social network of support: his family and his teachers provided that.

  Dr. Garbarino offers various suggestions on how to address the violence of the entertainment industry. This is something that is often neglected and ignored. I added a link to an article by Brad Bushman on this specific issue at the bottom of this blog post. Feel free to read it and share it. 

    One important aspect to pay attention to is the need to have a person in their lives that they can fully trust. Also, having a life purpose has been shown to help these boys turn away from violent crimes and behaviors.

   The need for social programs that should start working even before the kids are born is paramount. The author provides examples of mothers who get guidance on how to deal with their children even before their babies are born.

  There are also specific programs to teach children and teenagers how to develop skills to manage their anger and interact in meaningful respectful ways:

  “The skills include nonaggressive tactics for expressing a complaint, responding to the feelings of others, recovering from a stressful conversation, responding to anger, keeping out of fights, helping others, dealing with an accusation, dealing with group pressure, expressing affection, and responding to failure.”

 Furthermore, Dr. Garbarino describes the positive impact of spirituality, and he details how to do it.  Many lives will be saved by taking the recommendations in this book seriously.

  Access to guns is also part of the problem, and he delves into this issue by sharing interesting anecdotes and experiences in addition to statistics that compell the reader to understand the need for adequate regulations and policies. 

 I strongly encourage you to read Lost Boys. Share it. There is a long list of resources at the end that I hope will be helpful.

 The book, however, does have some flaws and weaknesses.

       

 

 

Flaws and weaknesses

1) One aspect he glosses over is the role of sexism in some of these dysfunctional social situations. He does acknowledge how the boys consider girls weaker and that behaviors of girls are viewed as less than those of boys. He points out the problem but he does not offer a plan to address this distorted view the boys have. Likewise, he conveniently ignores sexual violence. Why?

 2)  Dr. Garbarino shares details about their lives to explain their dangerous behaviors. He inveigles the reader into believing that the reason for their violent behaviors has to do with their survival, for example, or with a sense of impending danger that is a threat to them, but his argument does not hold water when he refers to how some boys torture or kill animals who are in no way a threat to them. Animals are the most vulnerable beings and they are not a threat to the boys’ safety, so in these specific cases we may be dealing with a psychopath instead.

3) Dr. Garbarino should have devoted an entire chapter to psychopaths to help people identify them. He only wrote two lines about psychopaths. I find this deeply disturbing.

 4) Another aspect of the book that I found troubling is the fact that he is so obsessed about the lack of compassion toward violent boys. Really? Strangely enough, I perceive lack of compassion toward victims instead. He is so invested in giving the violent boys second chances that he forgets the potential victims of the boys “who fall through the cracks.” As far as I know, violent boys can grow into men who are allowed to become presidents, members of the Supreme Court and Congressmen. The violent boys can be easily forgiven and empowered while the victims continue to be bullied, retraumatized and easily forgotten by society.

 

 

Conclusion

 

  I recommend Lost Boys, but I do acknowledge that it has some serious flaws and weaknesses that should be addressed with an expanded version of the book.

   I read an old edition because my local library system does not have this specific book. I decided to purchase a second-hand book. I will pass it on to share it with others and raise awareness. 

 

 

 

Relevant links:

Recent research shows clear link between early exposure to violence and violent behavior:

https://research.chusj.org/en/Media/News/2025/Violence-on-TV-what-happens-to-children-who-watch

A case of severe bullying and the trauma that results from it

   https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/may/24/violently-bullied-age-five-school-punched-teachers-ignored

 

The Trump administration is cutting funds to programs that help to reduce violence

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/may/31/trump-federal-funding-cuts-crime

 

Why is the scientific evidence ignored? An article by Brad Bushman, Ph.D.:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/get-psyched/201302/why-do-people-deny-violent-media-effects