1
Joyce Carol Oates’ “Where Is Here?” as a contemporary Gothic ghost story
According to the editors of the Prentice-Hall Literature text entitled The American
Experience, author Joyce Carol Oates’ discovery of the stories of Ann Radcliff and Edgar Allen
Poe “sparked her interest in Gothic fiction” (324). These Gothic elements typically include “bleak
or remote settings, macabre or violent incidents, characters in psychological and/or physical
torment, supernatural or otherworldly elements, and strong language full of dangerous
meanings” (291) . Oates herself is quoted as saying that “Horror is a fact of life. As a writer I’m
fascinated by all facets of life” (324). What, exactly, does Oates mean when she says that
horror is a fact of life? Do all people fear something, whether rational or not? Why does horror
fascinate her enough to write about it? Is it a means for her to confront her own fears, coming
to terms with them by giving them names and “faces” as other horror writers also do? Does she
use this genre to indirectly address larger social concerns? Is she simply paying tribute to
earlier Gothic writers by using elements from the genre or is this the most effective style for her
to convey her ideas and duplicate Poe’s notion of the “single effect”? Finally, what is the point
behind her short story entitled “Where Is Here?” Who is the mysterious stranger who arrives
late in the evening? Why is he there? What lies behind his odd behavior and enigmatic
questions and comments? What relationship, if any, does he have with the new family in his old
home? How does his arrival and departure affect the family and why? And why does Oates
use Gothic elements to create this narrative? Evidence spread throughout the entire story
suggests that at least one character, the mysterious stranger--who is apparently a victim in an
abusive home, is a ghost. But whose? A former inhabitant who has returned to his childhood
“haunts”? The ghost of what the young boy currently living in the house will become? And if the
latter, why is the grown ghost of the young boy there? Is he hoping to warn the child of some
impending doom? However, Oates does not directly address any of these questions in the
story, instead forcing the reader to test his own hypothesis, using many of the details (the
“givens”) and the speculations noted below to arrive at the “mathematical proof.”
In the story’s exposition, Oates introduces a family of four who have been living “without
incident in their house in a quiet residential neighborhood” for an undisclosed number of years
(325). Then one evening in November, arguably one of the bleaker months of the year, a
stranger arrives, explaining he had lived in that house as a child. Adding to the feeling of
uncertainty and discomfort for the reader and the family, the father invites the stranger into their
home, by no means a typical response in that type of situation. Who openly invites a stranger
into his home on a bleak, dark November evening? The stranger passes on the offer, saying
instead, “I think I’ll just poke around outside for a while, if you don’t mind. That might be
sufficient” (325). Still, the tone has been set for how this stranger will affect the family
negatively. The wife speaks “uneasily” as she encourages her husband to “go out there with
him” (325). And the husband moves “stealthily” (325) to each window, keeping an eye on the
stranger, who has a “slight limp” and who could be “anyone, after all. Any kind of thief, or
mentally disturbed person, or even a murderer. Ringing our doorbell like that with no
warning….” (326).
Interestingly, Oates defies the usual writing conventions with the dialogue in her story.
Instead of beginning a new paragraph when a new of different character speaks, Oates has
2
more than one character speak in the same paragraph. Why? Is this merely her style or does
she want the reader to see all of the characters as indistinct entities? And if so, for what
purpose? Who truly is real in this story? Or are they all ghosts, a la M. Night Shyamalan’s film
The Sixth Sense, souls who will ultimately learn the truth of their existence? Oates hints at the
possibility of at least one ghost during a conversation between the stranger and the mother.
Asking about the stranger’s own mother, she says, “Is your mother still living, Mr…?” To which
their guest replies, “Oh, no, not at all…..We’ve all been dead--they’ve all been dead--a long
time” (329). With one contraction--we’ve--the narrator hints at the truth: The visitor is a ghost, a
fact that is further substantiated when Oates describes the stranger’s handshake as “cool and
damp and tentative” (326). Cool and damp because he has been out in the cool November
evening, or is it the cool, damp, and uncertain touch of a non-corporeal entity?
There is little doubt that the visitor did spend part of his childhood in the house, as
evidenced by even the most minute details he can recall when he enters each room. He first
comments on the changes in the kitchen that is “‘so modernized’--he almost didn’t recognize it”
(326). He notes the size of the windows being different, seeming to shrink, perhaps, as he
grew? What seemed much larger to the eyes of a child has diminished for the adult stranger.
However, in traditional Gothic fashion, Oates has the stranger’s pleasant nostalgic reveries at
times give way to an undefined sense of dread and to hints of an unhappy past. He tells the
mother that her kitchen is “so--pleasant” (327), more pleasant, it seems, than the kitchen his
own mother kept, a kitchen that was “A--controlled sort of place” (327) where plants on the
windowsill never seemed to bloom (or perhaps always died?). Oates seems to suggest that the
boy may have been abused by his parents in this “controlled” house. Why else would he react
as he does when he says, “That is the door leading down to the basement, isn’t it?” (327). The
author notes that the visitor “spoke strangely, staring at the door” (327). Had he been locked in
the basement as punishment? Had he met with a fatal accident in the basement or at least a
fall that has caused him now to limp? Furthermore, why do the new owners not want to show
him that part of the house? In a bizarre supernatural twist the new owners could be the ghosts
of the visitor’s parents, and somehow he has returned to his childhood home as the adult spirit
of his former self for a specific purpose.
It can be no coincidence that he remembers living in the house, along with his parents
and his sister, when he was eleven, and that the current family also includes two children: a girl,
who is thirteen; and a boy, who is eleven. When the stranger notices the window seat, he says
it was “one of [his] happy places! At least when Father wasn’t home” (328). Sometimes, he
confides to the new owners, his mother would join him “If she was in the mood, and we’d plot
together--oh, all sorts of fantastical things” (328). These lines suggest that both mother and son
(and probably his sister as well) were the victims of the domineering father. And later, the visitor
shows a great interest in seeing the son’s room upstairs--coincidentally his old room--but “the
‘master’ bedroom, in particular, he decidedly did not want to see” (329). Curiously, Oates uses
quotation marks around the word master, perhaps suggesting not only an abusive father but
also an abusive husband. Why else would the visitor consciously avoid that room?
Similarly, is this also the case with the family currently living in the house? The parents
seem to be very fond of each other and of their children. However, looks can be deceiving, as
people mask their true selves. Throughout the story the reader sees cracks begin to appear in
the thin veneer of civility the parents pretend to maintain, as the husband and wife blame each
3
other for inviting the stranger into their home and allowing him the freedom they have granted
him as he explores each room. They even silently chide themselves (and blame each other?)
for not asking him to leave before he begins to go upstairs: “So purposefully, indeed almost
defiantly, did he limp his way to the stairs, neither the father nor the mother knew how to
dissuade him. It was as if a force of nature, benign at the outset, now uncontrollable, had swept
its way into the house!” (329).
Clearly the parents’ discomfort continues to grow, quite possibly because of the liberties
the visitor is taking and because they are too timid to intervene. And perhaps this visitor’s
memories and comments force them to acknowledge some horrible truth about themselves. At
one point the visitor asks why the couple had two children. “The father stared at him as if he
hadn’t heard correctly. ‘Why?’ he asked. ‘Yes. Why?’ the stranger repeated… ‘But you love
them--of course….Of course, of course,’ the stranger murmured, tugging at his necktie and
loosening his collar, ‘otherwise it would all come to an end’” (330). Implied here is that a lack of
love would result in a violent or fatal end, as may have happened to his sister and him, and
perhaps his father as well. Oates states early in the story that the visitor’s mother was a widow
when she moved from the house. Perhaps she killed her husband to escape his abuse.
There is one more very uncomfortable encounter when the visitor talks with their son
before the parents finally muster enough courage to kick the stranger out of the house. He first
examines the boy’s room--his old room--commenting on how nothing has changed, with the
exception, perhaps, of his substantial form. When he looks out the window, “his reflection
bobbed in the glass, ghostly and insubstantial” (330). He then shakes the boy’s hand with an
“avuncular formality” (330). The stranger is certainly not the boy’s uncle, as Oates suggests
with the word avuncular. However, as the grown version of the boy or as a boy who had a
similar childhood, he could offer the boy some “avuncular” advice, or a warning. However, his
“advice” is very cryptic, only adding to the mystery surrounding him and his visit. Before
meeting the son, the stranger spoke of how his mother used to share riddles and philosophical
questions with him. The ones he remembers all deal with time, infinity, mortality, and man’s
purpose and place in life: “What creature walks on four legs in the morning, two legs at midday,
three legs in the evening?” (Man); What is round and flat, measuring mere inches in one
direction, and infinity in the other?” (a watch); “Out of what does our life arise?” “Out of what
does our consciousness arise?” “Why are we here?” “Where is here?” (328). The father
confesses with “surprising passion” that he hates riddles (328-29), a passion that startles the
mother. But is this just one small glimpse of the violent person that the father truly is?
Nonetheless, these riddles may be significant to the stranger who has lived and died and will
remain in his current limbo state forever. Unless he can return to his home and warn them
about the consequences of their actions? Perhaps this is why he shows the son how to
represent infinity with a square and a series of triangles on a sheet of paper. He claims the boy
can “take it to school tomorrow and surprise [his] teacher!” (330). He offers no explanation
beyond that for his drawing, but it seems to show his obsession with time as he “spoke with
increased fervor; spittle gleamed in the corners of his mouth” (331). Clearly, he is hoping that at
least the son sees some significance in his drawing of infinity. Why else would Oates include
this scene along with the riddles about mortality and time?
This uncomfortable scene serves as the coup de grace, finally shaking the parents from
their passive nature, as they ask the stranger to leave. He consents, but oddly, as one last
4
favor he asks permission to sit on the basement stairs, in the dark, for just a few minutes.
Perhaps the basement was not a means of punishment for him as a child but instead a refuge
from his abusive father. Regardless, the parents deny his request and shut and lock the door
behind the visitor. However, the couple and the house itself have undergone a change because
of his appearance. The lights have begun to flicker, the wallpaper and carpet are now dingier,
and the husband and wife are beginning to lose their tempers. Almost as if they are showing
their true selves, the ghosts of their former selves who still inhabit this now-decaying house.
The reader now sees more evidence of the anger and violence of the husband, who at one point
when surprised by his wife’s touch “violently jerked his arm and thrust her away” (332). Oates
then writes that “The mother entered the kitchen walking slowly as if she’d been struck a blow.
In fact, a bruise the size of a pear would materialize on her forearm by morning” (332). Given
the Gothic nature of the story, it is not too illogical to assume this is a bruise from an earlier
time, a time when the mother was still being abuse by her husband before he died.
Out of anger at the end of the story, she reminds her husband the he was the one who
invited to stranger into their home. Arguably he was the one who forced both of them to finally
acknowledge what truly did happen when they were all still alive in that house years ago, all of
the anger, all of the abuse, and perhaps even death. And now because of the stranger’s visit,
they are reminded of this hellish limbo they must endure for an eternity. Joyce Carol Oates
certainly seems to offer enough evidence in this Gothic tale for the reader to arrive at this
conclusion. She skillfully creates a bleak setting including actual and implied violent incidents
and characters in psychological torment, not only the supernatural ghostly visitor but also the
couple who are reminded of who they truly were and what they are now. Oates says that
“Horror is a fact of life” only one of many facets of life. With horror, Oates seems to be
addressing a larger social issue in this story, which can serve as an indictment of violent
relationships and having to live with the consequences of your actions, just as these people
have been relegated to their own hell for an eternity to reflect on their actions.