"There are clear and numerous signs of slippage- (Hurley 372). The two have almost nothing in common, save a few minor details i.e. their freshly washed hair. Even if Oates did create the character of Connie in the image of Rowe, it in no way concludes that the story is necessarily realistic in nature.
Furthermore, while defending the story's realistic nature, Coulthard fails to examine the protagonist herself. In the story, Connie is portrayed as a stereotypical, self-centered teenager. Yet, Coulthard fails to realize that in such a portrayal, Connie is left in a vulnerable state. Oates describes her as having a mind "filled with trashy daydreams- (149). It is in this state that she is unconsciously swept away into the expectations of the adult world and is thus, a victim of her own personality. Essentially, the comparison between Alleen Rowe and Oates's Connie only proves that a vague sketch was made from the story of Charles Schmid and from that, the fictitious story of Connie and that of her seducer, Arnold Friend.
Arnold Friend is not Charles Schmid, at least not as Coulthard would have him be, claiming that "[Arnold] doesn't represent anything, except the kind of creep a girl like Connie might have the bad luck to attract- (508). On the contrary, Arnold is not a real person, but rather an element of Connie's nightmare. He is representative of an "idea- of boys in general. Connie condenses the thought of all these boys into one character she envisions: Arnold Friend. .
In her article "O'Conner's Mrs. May and Oates's Connie: an unlikely pair of religious initiates-, Nancy Bishop Dessommes insists that, "Arnold appears as a representation of all Connie's desires and fears- (Dessommes 437). While Coulthard dismisses this as speculation, she overlooks one small detail. At the drive-in, when Connie first meets Arnold Friend, it appears that "only Connie "not even the group she is walking with "notices the by who speaks only to her- (Dessommes 437).