The winner of the National Book Award in 1970, this book took me a full four weeks to read and it raised multiple thought-provoking questions. Firstly, have our tastes changed drastically in the past 47 years? The book is richly detailed, painting a vivid picture of the poverty of a family by closely examining the lives of the mother, the elder sister, and the elder brother. Secondly, was the disintegration of that family so uncommon in 1970 when it now seems more of a common occurrence? Thirdly, the novel appears dystopian, culminating with the Detroit riots of 1968. But at the same time, is it just prescient? Is it预示着 a society that exists without a moral framework? The poverty can be blamed for some of the misfortunes, yet the lack of any moral framework is palpable from the very beginning of the book. Theft, fighting, murder, prostitution, adultery, rape, and political ambition are all too common, and are only condemned when they impede the actor's ability to carry on with their life. The characters we get to know are strange, dangerous, parasitic, needy, and destructive. The writing style is overly elaborate, as if a single correct word is not enough and needs to be supported by adjectives and synonyms. I almost abandoned the book until I reached its climax, which describes the Detroit Riots. The writing was exciting, clear, fast-paced, and terrifying. The book doesn't so much resolve as it ends, sending the three main characters off in different directions. This is a book that I will remember for a long time and continue to ponder.

Do you remember that one side of your redneck family who really struggled with life?

The kids and cousins were always having fights, losing jobs, and getting into trouble.

There's no judgment on poverty here, as we all had it.

But it's more of a discussion on how it can lead to a lack of education and insight at times.

I grew up with it too, just lucky enough to be on a side of the family that struggled for some positivity and betterment of our lives.

Maybe there was more than just one side of your family, especially if you're from a small Midwestern town like I am.

I remember being too fearful to go to their house after school although they were family.

I knew that something unsettling would happen, like a mean-hearted bully cousin shooting a bb gun at me for kicks or a dog biting me and my uncle/aunt not caring about it despite my leg bleeding aggressively.

All of these things happened, and more, leaving me with a sad feeling for these family members and the hardness of their lives.

Well, this story follows one such family.

It's a slightly depressing tale of a lady named Loretta and her three children as they grow up in Detroit in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, struggling through poverty, crime, violence, and other disparities faced by a single mother of three.

It gives you that slightly uncomfortable feeling, where you wish people didn't lead such sad lives.

But at the same time, you feel better off for knowing about it and more in touch with the reality of the world for listening and caring.

This isn't a heartwarming story by any means, and at times the author rambles.

But other times, she makes observations with such acuity that it's inspiring and truly impressive.

Oates shows no fear in discussing topics that I would never have the guts to write about, which is very brave of her to do.

It's a worthy read, for certain.

But beware, the title is indicative of the racism of the period.

I hate this kind of thing, but then most of literature has it from this time period.

Can we just update it all to be less racist or what?

Do we keep these novels as a time stamp on history?

Did the author mean to be racist or just accurately describe time periods and characters of those generations?

Do we want to erase this and forget how people truly were, risking a repeat of this terrible history?

Ugghhhhggg. It's not for me to decide, but these things are uncomfortable for me to have on my shelves.

I managed to get around 200 pages into this hefty tome. It's truly a big book. The author's writing is indeed beautiful, and that's precisely the reason I was so determined to persevere with reading it.

However, then I was compelled to set the book aside for an entire, and rather crazy, weekend. By Monday, I came to the realization that I simply didn't care anymore. I found myself having no emotional connection or attachment to any of the characters, who, by the way, are all incredibly dysfunctional.

I just can't fathom what could possibly be lurking within the next hundreds of pages. It seems to me that it would only be more of the same pointless dysfunction and those strangely stoic sexual encounters. In my opinion, it's just not worth it to continue reading.

This was truly an unpleasant read for me. However, I'm making an attempt to separate this feeling from a judgment of its quality. Indeed, it is well-written and free from cliché. The author has shown a certain level of skill in crafting the story.

Nevertheless, it has its drawbacks. It is over-long and over-done. I was hoping for a little humor or levity to lighten the mood, but I guess that would be out of step with the novel's tone. There is simply no respite from the continuous march of horrors that all the characters have to endure.

But I don't have a problem with sad or grim books in general. What ultimately turned me off was the overwrought sex scenes, especially those involving Jules. He is constantly being overcome by sensations that are described in prose that is rather a chore to get through.

Coupled with the nonsensical abstractions in the dialogue between Jules (and his sister) and their various paramours, I just couldn't wait to finish this book.

On a positive note, the final act of the book is a sort of midwestern Day of the Locust, which I thought was quite cool and added an interesting touch to the overall story.

Overall, it's a mixed bag of a book with both its strengths and weaknesses.

One of my all-time favorite books is truly a masterpiece.

I have a deep affection for the multi-generational storytelling it presents. It allows the reader to journey through different eras and witness the lives and experiences of various generations.

The author's ability to delve into social issues in Detroit at that time is simply remarkable. She explores topics such as race, class, and inequality with great depth and sensitivity.

Through her vivid descriptions and well-developed characters, she brings the city of Detroit to life and makes the reader feel as if they are a part of the story.

This book not only entertains but also educates, making it a must-read for anyone interested in history, social issues, or simply a great story.

I'm not really certain about my thoughts on this book. I didn't have a strong liking for it, yet it was better than just being mediocre. In fact, I'd lean towards giving it 2.5 stars.

Perhaps part of this is because I read a significant portion of it during the weekend when I wasn't quite in my right mind. This was due to my poor (or perhaps nonexistent) ability to cope with the humidity and heat in this area. I probably should give it a reread someday.

Anyway, this is the third book in Oates' Wonderland series. It follows the members of the Wendall family - mom Loretta, daughter Maureen, and son Jules - in Detroit during the 50s and 60s. There is a great deal of abuse and questionable behavior from all sides. Here, as in many of her books and stories, most of the women seem unable or unwilling to take control of their lives. The women, in particular, are constantly forming connections with men because that's the only way they can envision a path forward in life, and naturally, they mostly make bad choices.

A lot of the book reads like a fever dream, and this is intensified if you're a bit out of it due to the heat and humidity and in need of a good night's sleep - it's a very strange experience. Especially the passages from Jules' point of view. I was never quite sure if it was because he was high or if that was just the way he thought. Sometimes it was clear that it was because he hadn't eaten that day, so maybe that was often the case.

I don't think I would necessarily recommend this to people who aren't already fans of Oates. However, if you enjoy something that is occasionally a little bit surreal and features characters whose main personality traits are exaggerated to the point of caricature, you might like this.

I really struggled with rating this book.

I think it's really more of a 3.5 star rating for me.

There were times when I absolutely could not put this book down. The story had moments that were so engaging and captivating that I was completely immersed in it.

However, there were also times when I got annoyed with the "Everything's empty. I'm empty. I feel nothing. Life is meaningless" rhetoric. I suppose that's more a personal opinion because I have no sympathy for characters/people like Maureen. But having so many characters with almost the same emotions? I'm not sure.

I also had a hard time with all the missing space. Huge chunks of time seemed to be missing. For example, I found myself wondering, "Wait...when did Howard get back from the war? How'd he find them?"

And for the love of all that's holy, WHAT HAPPENED WITH BETTY!? OR RANDOLPH!? OR NADINE!? These loose ends really bothered me.

Overall, I did enjoy the book, and it was just on the edge of REALLY liking it. It had its strengths and weaknesses, but in the end, it was an interesting read.

The first book I read by Joyce Carol Oates was "Blonde," which was told from the perspective of Marilyn Monroe. I read it in eighth grade. Sadly, it was extremely violent and had graphic sexual content, which really put me off and left me quite disturbed. However, I did notice Oates' sparse and emotional prose, which fascinated me. I've added quite a few of her novels to my "to-read" shelf and have been waiting to read one. "Them" was the one I finally picked up.

My favorite part of the book was the beginning. Loretta, at sixteen, is idealistic. In just a few hours (and less than fifty pages!), she loses her virginity to her crush, then has to deal with the trauma of her crush being shot by her brother, and is then raped (?) by a policeman who becomes her husband. She then has three kids within a few hundred more pages. It's almost astonishing what Oates does with this character.
But it doesn't last. As the book progresses, the action slows down. Towards the middle, the plot spikes when Maureen, Loretta's daughter and a victimized female character, discovers the value of money and, frustrated by her family's lack of it, takes up prostitution. This is her way of trying to move up in the world. However, her stepfather sees her being picked up one day and beats her nearly to death. She spends some time in bed, refusing to get up or respond to anyone. This is the last exciting part of the book.
Jules is the hero, or rather anti-hero, of the book. Oates clearly focuses on him as the main character, not by mentioning him more or going into more detail about him, but by elevating him. Through Loretta, she describes his maturity and bright personality as a child, and through Loretta, his responsibility as a breadwinner and loyalty to his sister. However, Jules is the biggest disappointment in the entire book. Oates builds him up as a character with the potential to rise above the terrible image of Detroit's poverty... and then lets us down by having him fail, again and again.
Jules almost loses his life because of love. By far the most bizarre sequences in the novel are the ones where he interacts with the love of his life, Nadine. Their relationship is abnormal, to say the least. Jules notices her through a business venture and creeps into her house. He convinces her to come with him and drives her far away. However, she abandons him when he falls ill, a strange twist of events after they both express their sudden, passionate love for each other. They meet again within a few years, but Nadine is married. She makes plans to leave her husband and even rents an apartment for them to share. However, after they make love for several hours (without stopping), she shoots him and almost kills him, and then shoots herself. The reader isn't sure whether she survived, though at the end of the book, Jules says he is going to marry Nadine. At this point, I'm pretty sure Jules is deranged, if not for believing she's alive, then merely for the fact that he insists on pursuing a relationship with a psychopath like Nadine.
This is very contemporary literature. Maybe I just don't "get it." But my complaints are far more numerous than my compliments. If I have to wade through over five hundred pages of a novel, I expect something redeeming. While I won't go so far as to say there was nothing redeeming about "Them," I can honestly say there wasn't enough to make it worth it.
The theme of love bordering on violence is prevalent in "Them." Oates often throws it in your face in a way that is often quite disturbing. Jules and Nadine are an obvious example of this. They both passionately love each other, so much that not touching each other is not an option. So much that Jules will practically rape her to sleep with her. So much that Jules acts like an overprotective psychopath. So much that Nadine feels trapped by their love, lost in it. And so much that Nadine decides to kill them both?
And, of course, Maureen's brief stint with prostitution is another example of love/violence. Oates repeats again and again that Maureen's customers constantly tell her they are in love with her. As a result, Maureen doesn't understand love and both longs for it and fears it. She marries one of her professors late in the book, stealing him from his wife and three children. When Jules visits in the very last chapter and asks her if she loves her husband, she only says, "I'm going to have a baby. I'm a different person," which is both cryptic and completely typical of Maureen. This suggests that she repels love, although in a letter she writes, she claims to want it desperately.
One more thing I want to mention is the bizarre dialogue in Oates' novel. Very much unlike the sparse, realistic dialogue of Hemingway and Salinger, Oates' characters pontificate in flowery, emotional language. I gagged on the emotionally clogged speeches of Nadine, as well as Vera, a girl Jules meets near the end of the book. They all spout their feelings in a seemingly uncontrollable manner. It is not only unrealistic: It takes away from Oates' otherwise lifelike portrayal of Detroit.
For the serious reader, "Them" is a good read, if only to understand Detroit and maybe mull over these heavy topics for a while. For everyone else, though, give "Them" a pass.

This might be the book that, among the three I have read, I liked slightly less.

Certainly, I endured it more, and I find that there are too many characters and too many "subjectives", especially towards the end.

The writing is always powerful, the images are always strong and very beautiful, but I felt a bit of the mannerism in the last chapters.

In any case, this is also a chapter of a splendid saga and highly recommended for readers who are interested in discovering the "true America".

Perhaps it didn't completely capture my heart like the others, but it still has its own charm and value.

The complex web of characters and their subjective perspectives add depth and richness to the story.

Although the mannerism in the final chapters was a bit off-putting, it didn't overshadow the overall beauty and power of the writing.

Overall, it's a worthwhile read for those who want to explore the vivid and diverse world of the "true America" through the eyes of a talented author.

I'm giving this a 4.

It was an extremely challenging read. There was a great deal of inferring involved, or at least I hope there was. Maybe I missed a whole bunch of things.

This is a long book, but I managed to reach the end. I was glad to have finished it, yet also a bit sad that it was over.

Judy Blume said it was one of her all-time favorites, and that's precisely the reason why I picked it up and read it in the first place.

I found myself constantly engaged in trying to understand the deeper meanings and connections within the story.

The length of the book was both a blessing and a curse. On one hand, it allowed for a more detailed exploration of the characters and their relationships. On the other hand, it required a significant investment of time and concentration.

Overall, despite the difficulties, I'm glad I read this book. It provided me with a unique reading experience and made me think about various aspects of life and human nature.

I had to read this book for American Lit 2.

To my surprise, I found it to be an extremely good read. However, it was also incredibly depressing.

It felt like a detailed study of insanity that spanned over 30 years.

On a side note, and perhaps a bit irrelevant to my review of the book, Joyce Carol Oates recently visited my school.

It was a truly wonderful evening.

Overall, she seemed a bit reluctant, to be honest, about doing the reading.

Nevertheless, she was very entertaining and talkative.

Her presence added an extra layer of excitement to the event.

Despite the depressing nature of the book, the visit from Joyce Carol Oates made the experience more memorable.

I will always remember both the book and the evening with her.

It is far too lugubrious. I'm not entirely astonished that this particular JCO novel managed to win the National Book Award. This is because awards committees typically have a penchant for poverty/tragedy porn. There are indeed moments within the story that resonate deeply. Especially the opening of the novel and then towards the end, when the characters embark on a journey of discovery, learning about how they can (and cannot) break free from their impoverished roots and exploring the tantalizing possibility of a new future. However, all too often, it feels as if the narrative is a disjointed collection of unconnected vignettes haphazardly pieced together, rather than a cohesive novel that effectively links these characters together. This lack of seamless integration detracts from the overall reading experience and makes it difficult to fully engage with the story and its characters.