JoyceCarolOates.jpg

Living Dolls


My Sister, My Love by Joyce Carol Oates / Jennifer McKeown

Book Reviews | July 30, 2008 | Comments (42)


Is it painful to realize that you, too, are but a footnote in others’ lives, when you had wished to imagine you were the text?

So ponders Skyler Rampike, the protagonist (although not necessarily the star) of My Sister, My Love, the latest from the ever-prolific Joyce Carol Oates.

In her latest work, Oates tackles the murder of a child and the tabloid frenzy it ignites. Inspired by the JonBenet Ramsey case, Oates delves into the minds of the Rampike family, whose daughter Bliss (a six-year-old ice skater, instead of the pageant darling that was JonBenet) is found murdered in the family home. The family is thrown into both disarray and “tabloid hell,” as the family achieves a level of fame that was impossible while Bliss was alive.

Of course, the Rampikes deeply grieve the loss of their daughter (although the sincerity of this grief is doubted by many), but none are so affected as Skyler, the older brother doomed to live forever in his little sister’s shadow. The story is told from his point of view; indeed, it is written by him, struggling as he is to come to grips with his sister’s death almost ten years later.

Ripped to shreds in the tabloids, each of the Rampikes is suspect, even though a known pedophile has confessed to the murder, a confession that is implausible yet comforting. Still, as Skyler’s story unravels, it becomes clear that his parents are less than admirable people. First, there’s Bix, whose philandering ways are known to everyone, even young Skyler, who has witnessed his father with other women and even finds a used condom in Bix’s car. Then there’s Betsey, whose yearnings for popularity are more befitting a girl half her age. Betsey, who uses Bliss to gain the love and attention she failed to gain on her own.

But Bliss wasn’t always the favored child. Bliss Rampike was born Edna Louise, and was such a needy, whiny baby that Betsey, who cared little for her youngest child, frequently left Edna Louise in the care of the housekeeper. During this time, Skyler was Betsey’s “little man” and the recipient of her love and attention. Betsey, once an ice skater herself, even hopes to pass her love of the ice onto her son. Skyler writes that

In the beginning—long ago!—there wasn’t Bliss. There was Skyler, but not Bliss. Not yet Bliss! No one knows this. No one has recorded this. Of the tens of thousands of Bliss-cultists who have polluted cyberspace with their crazed factoids and perve-rantings not one of them knows this: that in the beginning it was Skyler who’d been meant to be the star.

Unfortunately, Skyler’s inherent clumsiness prevents him from fulfilling his mother’s dreams. As his value decreases, Edna Louise’s increases, especially when Betsey learns that, where Skyler has failed, Edna Louise could succeed. Just four years old, Edna Louise is a natural on the ice. After Betsey learns in a vision from God that Edna Louise would be their destiny, “Edna Louise” dies and is reborn as Bliss.

As Bliss’s star rises, Skyler becomes more and more of a footnote in his family. Soon Bliss earns fame for the family, and, as nineteen-year-old Skyler notes, “They all lived horribly ever after.” Oates plumbs the depths of this “ever after” (as well as the events leading up to it) with her usual obsessiveness. The result of this obsession is breathtaking: Oates has done more than simply imagine what this family has endured, she has lived it, recreated it. Her prose is fluid, conversational, and utterly believable, and it is difficult to believe that Skyler Rampike does not exist, did not write My Sister, My Love.

Those familiar with the author will recognize the fragmented, non-linear format that has come to characterize many of her works; and yet, after almost 70 books, Oates manages to avoid seeming stale or clichéd. My Sister, My Love is rife with post-modern flourishes: footnotes, self-reflections, addresses to the reader, handwritten segments, and even stretches of blacked out text. In the hands of a less-able author, these touches would seem contrived, but Oates makes them appear natural. True, My Sister, My Love is a bit long, but the seeming simplicity of her effortless prose prevents the reader from minding.

Few escape blame in My Sister, My Love. Certainly Bix and Betsey are guilty of a variety of crimes, but Oates indicts all parents who attempt to live vicariously through their children. Also condemned are the media and the scandal-loving public that loves nothing more than to devour the tragedy of others. Oates reminds readers that sensationalism is not reality; such tragic media figures are real, are suffering, and just might not deserve the ignominy of tabloid hell.


Jennifer McKeown reads way too much and blogs about her experiences over at Bibliolatry.


Think Again, Pajiba | Baghead



Comments

As someone that has never read Oates (at least, to my knowledge), this review was really good. I love the POV is coming from the older boy; but I have to admit, I kinda hate those "post-modern flourishes"; for me, they are ridiculously distracting to the story, like watching a movie on TV, sliced at awkward moments to fit in the commercials.

But it is intriguing enough of a review for me to check it out. Thanks Jennifer.

Posted by: boo at July 30, 2008 11:40 AM

Hmm! I'm one of those people who always avoids writers such as Oates because their work (based on the covers and their prominence at airport bookshops) strike me as the type of books women who line up outside the Today Show would read. In other words, I'm a hopeless snob about shiny covers and items that appeal to Middle America. But this sounds interesting. Perhaps I could pick up a copy while wearing dark glasses and a wig and hide it inside a cover of Crime and Punishment.

Posted by: PaddyDog at July 30, 2008 1:00 PM

Great review Jennifer. Despite Oates' ever expanding list of novels, I've only ever read a short story. And it was disturbing as all hell. This sounds intriguing, but I'll probably start with some of her older stuff should I ever get motivated to read her.

Posted by: Julie at July 30, 2008 1:08 PM

I've never really cared for the few Oates' things I've read, but this sounds like it may be worth a gander. I really dig the narration from the point of the forgotten brother. Anyway, excellent review, Jennifer.

Posted by: jamiepants at July 30, 2008 1:26 PM

As someone who is a huge Oates fan, I cannot wait to read this book! She really makes you believe the characters and the events that happen to them are true.

And as for the book covers deterring someone from reading her books...don't be stupid, read "Black Water" and you'll be hooked.

Posted by: Melanie at July 30, 2008 1:33 PM

Jamiepants thank you for using the word Gander...

Posted by: amanda47 at July 30, 2008 1:34 PM

Melanie:

I'm not being stupid, I'm being a consumer. Book covers are a huge part of whether or not a person decides to pick up a book and even decide to scan the summary on the jacket: it's the same concept that's used to put together movie trailers. If the book cover is designed to appeal to a type, then they have to accept that other types probably won't even pick up the book for a quick look in the same way that a trailer that focuses on girly romance won't attract people who want to see something deeper even if the movie itself is a much better film. A good example of this is the trailer for In Bruges which portrayed the film as a stereotypical light-hearted buddy crime caper while the film itself was actually much darker and not laugh-out loud funny.
I have a huge issue with publishers who use the covers to sell books to the once-a-year-reader crowd in the airport. They are doing the writers a huge disservice by turning off the more serious reader who will come back for more if it's actually a good book, and my form of protest is not to buy the book since I can't encourage that approach.

Posted by: PaddyDog at July 30, 2008 1:41 PM

Kudos, Jennifer, for an excellently written review. I tend to shy away from the "NEW YORK TIMES BEST SELLING AUTHOR!!!!" types simply because it rarely equals any actual good writing, but I may need to check this one out.
I enjoy the "post-modern flourishes" when applied properly and gosh darn it, I certainly am not making any headway with Founding Brothers, so this may end up next in line.

Posted by: Stella at July 30, 2008 1:52 PM

I'm sorry. I just can't get past those names... Bliss, Bix, Betsey. For some reason Skyler doesn't bother me. Maybe it's because I know a Skyler. In truth, Betsey's not really a bad name, it's just spelled odd even though I also once knew a Betsey that spelled her name that way. But Bliss and Bix? You've got to be kidding me. Bix sounds like the name of an English cracker.

Posted by: elsie at July 30, 2008 1:53 PM

Bliss and Bix sound like the leading reindeer in an all-gay production of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer in which the harnesses are black patent leather, and worn by Santa and the elves instead of the reindeer. Actually, I have a friend who would produce that in a heartbeat.

But seriously, the names don't bother me because of course a stage mother type living vicariously through her daughter is going to call her some ridiculous name, like JonBenet, for instance.

Posted by: PaddyDog at July 30, 2008 2:00 PM

Hmm. I wonder what it means, then, that my mom wanted to name me Peni. That name is just an apostrophe away from disaster.

Posted by: boo at July 30, 2008 2:22 PM

PaddyDog, I do the same thing with regards to book covers*. When I see Joyce Carol Oates lumped together with Nora Roberts, Dean Koontz and the like, I steer clear. Perhaps I'll have to revise my previous assumptions about Oates.

*not counting fantasy/sci-fi, of course; that cover art tends to be atrocious

Posted by: HB at July 30, 2008 2:36 PM

Oh Boo:

Please may we call you Peni from now on?

Posted by: PaddyDog at July 30, 2008 2:37 PM

HB:

Thank you. I knew I was not alone in the approach I take. As for sci-fi covers, I have to admit I avoid that section in the shops and just borrow them from someone else because (with apologies to the Pajiba nerdoisie) generally the people prowling around that section sort of scare me.

Posted by: PaddyDog at July 30, 2008 2:41 PM

Paddy, by all means.

-Peni (boo)

Posted by: boo at July 30, 2008 3:09 PM

PaddyDog: Joyce Carol Oates has been thrice-nominated for the Pulitzer, has won the National Book Award (and been nominated several times), and has had her short stories included in "best of" anthologies just about every year for the past forty-five years. Perhaps women in Middle America lining up for the Today show (whatever that means) know something that you don't? Sometimes a book is on Oprah's list and is popular because it's really, really excellent.

As to being a self-proclaimed "hopeless snob" and "serious reader", you may want to investigate the merits of the writers you dismiss out-of-hand without cracking the spine of any of their books.

Sorry to be harsh, but dismissal of "women's writers" in particular get my back up.

Posted by: erica c at July 30, 2008 3:25 PM

I went to a panel that Oates was on a few years ago - I'm a huge, huge fan and think she's one of the best writers around. I introduced myself to her and we chatted for a little while. She truly couldn't have been more gracious and down-to-earth.

Posted by: samantha t at July 30, 2008 3:28 PM

Erica:

Perhaps a deep breath or two would help? I'm not really sure what you thought I was saying. I don't dismiss "women's writers" because I don't believe there is such a thing. A good book is a good book and should appeal to either women or men. A good book is usually written without an intended audience other than "people who want to read a good story". On the other hand a book that is intentionally written to appeal to certain demographic based on opinion polls or marketing profiles is unlikely to be a good book since it is already starting at a disadvantage in that obviously the author's intent is not to "tell a tale" but to sell copies by appealing to a type that he/she thinks exists and is therefore based on assumptions and stereotypes (this is the origin of the hateful chicklit genre). I'm also not sure why you brought in the Winfrey list since I never referred to it either (prehaps you harbor some prejudices in your own mind about "types"?). I think the point of my comments was to suggest that writers such as Oates are being betrayed by their publishers by promoting them in a way that many readers will pass by. But go ahead, let your anger flow, I'm glad to be of use, and give Matt Lauer my love.

Posted by: PaddyDog at July 30, 2008 3:50 PM

I don't avoid her because she's populist fluff (does she have that kind of following and I don't know about it?). Rather, I avoid her because the jacket copy and author photos are frequently so laughably bleak. "Oh! More sex, psychodrama, murder and doom then?"

Again, I haven't read a single word, but that's how the packaging works on me and I don't wanna go anywhere near these stories.

Posted by: Jay at July 30, 2008 4:01 PM

PaddyDog: I'm sure Joyce Carol Oates isn't mourning the loss of your patronage. And your point was initially not about publishing but, rather, your reticence toward reading books that you suspect people beneath you intellectually may enjoy. You were probably that kid in high school who stopped liking a band as soon as it was "discovered" by people outside of your circle.

Posted by: erica c at July 30, 2008 4:02 PM

Yawn, the old elitist argument again. Is that really the best you can come up with? Sorry, I'm just not in the mood today. I go to the Pajiba book reviews for interesting discussion, not predictable knee jerk reactions when someone disagrees with me.

Posted by: PaddyDog at July 30, 2008 4:27 PM

Great Review! I read the book a few weeks ago and it was a great read. JC Oates is an amazing writer - don't let the fact that she is prolific scare you away.

Posted by: anna at July 30, 2008 5:07 PM

Hey PaddyDog! One time I was stuck at John Wayne Airport and I'd finished both the books I'd carried on vacation with me. The bookstore was full of pink covers and books whose author's had the 'perfect bestseller's name.' I was getting discouraged because there are only so many magazines I can read on a 4-hour flight. I'd scoured the bookstore twice when I saw on a shelf above my head a copy of Huckleberry Finn. Which I'd recently read and already had two copies of, but still, better than nothing, right? I pulled it down and found a copy of Crime and Punishment behind it! It was the best airport bookstore find, ever.

It took me two months to read and I didn't like it, but I was nicely occupied on my flight.

Posted by: lunabelle at July 30, 2008 5:45 PM

I am with Paddy Dog on this one. I automatically avoid any woman who admires "Eat,Pray,Love" - men do not read such drivel.
Note: Joyce Carol Oates is a serious writer. Her short stories are excellent.

Posted by: Arkansan at July 30, 2008 5:51 PM

Paddy, I actually think you would dig on Joyce Carol Oates. I understand where you are coming from, and to an extent you are right, but Oates isn't too bad. Then again, I read her in a fantastic Southern Women's Fiction class in college, so I was adrift in bliss. It was the same class that introduced me to Flannery O'Connor and Toni Morrisson.

I know you're a pretty voracious reader, so I'd recommend hitting up a library and grabbing a short story collection to start.

(And you know my tastes. If I ended up on the Oprah show, it'd be in effigy, or on the end of pitchforks.)

Posted by: insertclevernamehere at July 30, 2008 6:05 PM

I would never put Joyce Carol Oates in the category of authors that "women who line up for the Today Show" like. I'm not arguing with your snobbery, Paddydog, I'm just not sure you know who Oates is. She's definitely not a "chicklit" writer, many of whom I steer clear of in public myself for fear of mockery from my peers. Oates work was (and I'm sure still is) used in university English courses all the time when I was in school. I never saw Jennifer Weiner on any college syllabus, is what I'm saying.* Oates isn't in the same category just because some of her books might have a pink, glossy cover. You should check her out, especially her short stories.

*disclaimer: I own a Copy of In Her Shoes. Which I've read multiple times. And enjoyed. Shut up.

Posted by: tinmo at July 30, 2008 8:02 PM

Paddy Dog

I agree with you on the cover thing, and that it's not about elitism, it's about personal taste. I'm not a big fan of romance novels and do find that most best sellers geared towards women don't interest me. And I base a lot on the cover.

As for Joyce Carol Oates, I'll echo Prisco and suggest you try her. "Because it is Bitter and Because it is My Heart" is one of my "read once a year" books. I don't love all of her books, but enough to recommend her.

Thank you to Jennifer for this review. I will definitely read this one.

Posted by: ncnn at July 30, 2008 8:09 PM

It's funny - I don't think all the pastel-covered books are so terrible, though they're all marketed similarly. For example, I enjoyed the "Something Borrowed"/"Something Blue" duo that couldn't have looked more chick-lit if it tried. It's probably b/c I used to practice at a large law firm and know how hateful it is, but I was very absorbed by those books. I was reading them alongside "Middlesex" and most certainly could discern the enormous gulf between the two (and any books from Oates's oeuvre), but I didn't think they were awful. Ditto "The Lovely Bones." I thought the supernatural aspects of it were a bit much, but overall I found the story compelling. I also loved Wally Lamb's "She's Come Undone", which I'd argue is a woman-marketed book.

What I can't stand are your typical book club picks like "The Red Tent." Ugh.

Posted by: samantha t at July 31, 2008 7:03 AM

I liked "The Red Tent." But then again, I'm not in a book club; those things piss me off.

Being in the publishing business (although I am in the "how-to" variety; not fiction), I can tell you that covers are EXTREMELY important, and are often agonized over repeatedly until the book is published. I completely agree that the cover has to grab and appeal to you.

Posted by: boo at July 31, 2008 9:59 AM

Just to clarify for everyone, my original comment was that I had always avoided Oates because of the way her books are marketed, but wanted to give her a chance based on this review. I was not dismissing her: I was railing at the cover ploy.

Posted by: PaddyDog at July 31, 2008 10:19 AM

Paddy, your 2nd comment is on the money, IMO. Book jackets and covers are designed as advertisements, not generally by the author of the book, and are made to appeal to a particular demographic; that's how advertising works. Because the author is female, they're gearing the advertising, or cover art, to a female demographic, which to advertisers means pink and sparkly. [sarcastic font] Women love that sort of thing, don't you know. [/sarcastic font]

Posted by: Anastasia Beaverhausen at July 31, 2008 10:44 AM

I've gotta be honest - I really don't know which Oates covers are "girly." I remember "We Were the Mulvaneys", which was a farmhouse on the cover, and "Missing Mom", which was a woman on the cover, but I don't recall any pink, sparkly covers she ever had.

Posted by: samantha t at July 31, 2008 11:32 AM

I should probably clarify... I don't actually really know any Oates. I was just interested in the cover art/demographic appeal convo. Also, I was using "pink and sparkly" as an example of what advertisers think when attempting to appeal to women; I didn't mean to intimate that that's always the case, just in general: "women like pastels, and pink, and flowers, and romance, and pretty dresses, and shopping, and shiny things, and searching for a husband, so we'll use universal symbols representative of those things on our covers." It's just an advertising mindset that a demographic needs to be appealed to, and has certain characteristics, rather than trying to appeal to the widest possible audience. And it works; though I haven't even looked at, for example, any of those Sophie Kinsella novels, because they look like pure girlie fluff (which is great sometimes, but not usually what I'm looking for). They could be really well-written stories, for all I know, but I'm turned off by their appearance. Plus, advertisers don't necessarily read the story they're creating a cover for.

This story actually sounds quite good, and I will probably try to read it at some point. Oates is one of those authors I seem to never get around to reading, like Hunter Thompson.

Posted by: Anastasia Beaverhausen at July 31, 2008 12:01 PM

hmmm I really did enjoy this review, and it did give me more hope for Oates reading in the future.

I have only read "The Barrens" for a University class and I really disliked it. I mean seriously disliked it. I found the male lead character to be one-dimensional and just really typical in a every-woman-wants-to-sleep-with-me kind of way. The actual story was tired and done. I found her writing very see-through and predictable.

I know it was one novel, but it was a bad experience. I can't even really imagine wanting to read another one of her works....but I will give her another go.

Posted by: justamanda at July 31, 2008 12:25 PM

Anastasia - all good points. I think part of the problem is that lots and lots of men won't read fiction (and are proud of it, which I find bizarre). I have actually heard men, not really any women, say that reading fiction is a waste of time . Incredible.

Posted by: samantha t at July 31, 2008 12:49 PM

I think part of the problem is that lots and lots of men won't read fiction

Is that part of the "too-girly" covers problem? I'm not sure what you're referring to.

And trust me, lots and lots of men do, and I've heard women say they don't.

Posted by: Jay at July 31, 2008 1:03 PM

You may have heard women say they don't read fiction and know plenty of men who read fiction, but it's pretty well-documented that women are more likely to purchase and read (two different things, I know) fiction than men are. No such difference between girls and boys, interestingly enough.

Posted by: samantha t at July 31, 2008 1:35 PM

Just speaking from years of experience working in bookstores and libraries.

Posted by: Jay at July 31, 2008 1:38 PM

justamanda,

it's funny, after reading this review I went to the library to sample some JCO, and The Barrens was the only book available. Now I have made it to the 3/4 point, and I'm giving up. At first I thought it would one of those intriguing "unreliable narrator" kind of books, but there's really nothing there. Your description is spot-on; the only reason I've made it that far in the book was to see the annoying protagonist get some kind of comeuppance, which I gather will not happen. And the chapters taking place "inside the killer's head" were just torture (no pun intended). I mean, it's been done. Oh and the "deranged loser kills women he deems impure" thing, it's so meh. All that to say I'm pretty disappointed; I thought I had found a new author to read, and I was looking forward to reading My Sister, My Love, but now I'm not so sure!

Posted by: millie at August 1, 2008 4:09 PM

I just saw the cover on The Book Jacket Review. Evidently, the (disturbing) cover art is a painting by Martin Mull and is owned by Marg Helgenberger. Weird! I love good cover design but I wouldn't let a bad or banal cover keep me from reading a book.

Posted by: emmasaunt at August 6, 2008 1:36 AM

BIG Oates fan since high school (met her in NYC a few months back at a reading.) If you're new to her style of writing or the genre, I suggest starting out with her short stories "Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?", "Heat", "Twins", Fat Man My Love", or the novella "Rape: A Love Story". Great great great writer of the perverse!!!

Posted by: scorzi at August 8, 2008 2:31 PM

Finished the book, my first foray into Oates, and it is compulsively readable until the last third or so.

The non-linear style of the narrative becomes a little grating at the 400-page mark...too much repetition of events.

(SPOILER) Things really go off the rails w/ the introduction of a love story , in which the female half of the pairing proves to be the most poorly realized character in the book (END OF SPOILER) And I got really tired of the narrator's constant self-flagellation.

Still, there's definitely some good to be found here, and I'd be willing to read another of Oates's works. Any suggestions would be appreciated! BTW if you're looking for a great debut novel by a female writer, try Sharp Objects by Gillian Flynn.

Posted by: stryker1121 at August 12, 2008 3:28 PM