Blog post 5

After watching Oleanna, thoughts of abuse, perfectionists and the ideals of bettering oneself to obtain a better future came to my mind. To me, the young girls hasn't had many social interactions and can easily misconstrue what appears to be friendly gestures by a somewhat very sociable and eager teacher whom only wants to help out a student. Because of such a discrepancy, this young girl not only took serious measures to ensure he would pay for such actions.

 In the beginning of the story it seemed as if it were just a regular student wishing to understand the basic material of a college course. As a teacher with a bright future(recently acquired tenure) whom had just bought a house and was under some pressure due to personal problems, it was understandable for the audience to agree that the pupil should arrange an appointment in order to seek help. After going out of his way, avoiding his wife and family and even resorting to sleeping in a hotel just to find ways to deal with this student the pressures reach him and he finally snaps due to realizing the student  he tried so hard to teach accuses him of rape.  ]

Though towards the ending of this play the social roles switched in when the role of teacher and student were reversed, in which Carol begins to give John speeches and criticism on his books while he is basically just trying to understand what she has become and why she is doing this when he stats "Why are you doing this?" and her rebuttal to be "You ask me why I came?  I came here to instruct you." .


Overall this seems to me as a sadistic story of a young girl whom was gifted with book smarts and upon not being able to comprehend the class, took measures to make sure she passes the class, banned the book the professor wrote and overall ruin the life of the teacher who taught the course.

Blog post #5 Michelle Smart

While reading the play "Oleanna" I went through a whole range of emotions. This play is written in a way that you simply can not like the main characters at all. In the beginning I really disliked Carol because of the way she talked to her professor and her ignorance. She seemed to cut him off every time he would try to help her in any way. She would interrupt with "I don't understand" every time he would try to explain something she had asked. As the reader I believe that her own ignorance is what causes her fear and the following accusation towards her professor. In an article written by J.K. Curry, a professor in a university that comes in contact with scenarios like the one Carol starts, mentions Carol's behavior and possible motives behind them.

"The drastic transformation of Carol, from confused and helpless student to angry woman with an agenda, reads as an hysterical response to the increased access and power of women in higher education, and to their demand for fair treatment."

Curry finds Carols behavior to be a response of advancement towards the professor to gain power. I see this as a possibility for the character of Carol and a real problem that professors might face. Calling sexual harassment on one of your professors could ruin their career and their life, so the power was definitely in Carols hand after she put in a report against John. Carols accusations were not 100% accurate. Even though if the report was read word for word John did take the actions listed, but they were taken completely out of context by Carol. Curry also mentions that these accusations can not just be taken lightly or over looked.

" It is irresponsible for those of us involved in higher education to simply consider the problem of harassment passé, to take a position of solidarity with all accused professors, to treat the issue of harassment as a joke, or to raise the cry of "academic freedom" as a way to avoid a difficult issue."

Just because Carol took the actions John made out of context, does not mean nothing happened. John could have righted the wrongs that he was accused of just by meeting with the board and explaining his side of the story. When he invited her to his office alone after her report was filed to talk to her about her grade, he should have had another person present or even met with her in front of a panel of people. John did not just invite her back once, but twice! And alone.

Curry writes about going to the theater to see the play and the image on the Playbill of the woman with the target or the man with the target. Choosing a side is not the object of the play because both sides are wrong. I can agree with this since the play ends in a violent act from John towards Carol. He gets overwhelmed by her accusations and how she is set on ruining his life that he takes and hand other the goes even further and lifts a chair to hurt her further. The reader and audience already have hatred towards Carol, but now we can see how John can also be hated. This ends the play and the audience feels that neither side can be trusted and/ or liked.

Blog Post #5 | Oleanna

The play “Oleanna,” written by David Mamet, showcases the class struggles between the dominant white, male teacher and a student who first seems like a victim, but becomes much more than that. At first glance, it seems easy to dismiss the student, Carol, as a stereotypical overly spoken, extremist feminist who is bent on destroying any man in a position of power. The way she seems to entrap the teacher, John, and brings down both his mental state, and position of power seems to be completely heartless and self-serving. But, as John is not completely innocent in this whole scenario, and makes multiple bad decisions, it is hard to decide who is in the right and who is in the wrong. There is one other influence in the story, the Group, and even though this group is only sporadically mentioned, I believe it is this group that has taken advantage of Carol in her weak psychological state to advance their goals. As Carol and her group are part of the working class, and John is the part of the group in power, the negative light they are both put in serves to blur the lines between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat and who should actually be in power.

As a class struggle between teacher and student, this story shows an example of a successful overthrow of the in power character. John starts off the story completely in control, even about to gain tenure, and Carol begins as the struggling student, most likely from a shady background as evidenced by her psychological behavior, wanting to know what she can do to improve her grade. Following a Marxist criticism, this grade is the economic means of production in the story, as it is something that Carol is working for, but is completely controlled by John. Thinking he is being a good teacher, John actually seems to abuse his power and step outside of a normal student-teacher boundary. The most notable instance in the first act is when he tells her “Your grade for the whole term is an ‘A’. If you will come back and meet with me. A few more times. Your grade’s an ‘A.’ Forget about the paper. You didn’t like it, you didn’t like writing it.” Carol takes these missteps by John and uses them to turn the balance of power against him in acts 2 and 3.

Carols behavior seems to change completely after the first act, she no longer seems like a lost, helpless girl trying to understand why she isn’t good enough, and now takes control and seems bent on destroying the position of power that John holds. The reasoning behind this is easy to put off onto a stereotype by associating her with the extreme negative views usually put on feminists, but if we take a look at here psychological state, we might be able to gain a little deeper insight into her actions. As Thomas H. Goggans writes in his critical essay titled “Laying Blame: Gender and Subtext in David Mamet’s Oleanna,” “In Act One of Oleanna, Carol constantly traffics in the code words of incest and child sexual abuse, speaking and responding in ways that are recognizable to anyone familiar with the representation of sexual abuse in today’s culture. She exhibits low self esteem, depression, and guilt…,” Carols actions in act one do seem to reflect this analysis as her mental state seems to be very unstable (Goggans 3). This mental state could make her an easy target for the Group that she mentions in the later acts, as they could easily take advantage of her and use her to achieve their own goals, she even states in act two that she, “…came here as a favor. At [John’s] personal request. Perhaps I should not have done so. But I did. On my behalf, and on behalf of my group.” Then later on when asked about how she feels, she replies with , “My Group,” removing her personal emotions and completely associating herself with the group she is representing.

The Group entering the story brings in a new power dynamic. As they have taken control of Carol, they then use her to gain control of John. As John continues to break down mentally, Carol, and thus the Group, gains more and more control over him, until they reach a point where they potentially hold his job in their hands. They use this gained power to blackmail him into helping them achieve their broader goals. It is at this point that John gets a chance to gain back control of the power he has lost, but he instead continues his downward spiral until he ultimately completely breaks down mentally and ends up erupting in physical violence against Carol.

The way that the working class gain control in this story is shady and underhanded, highlighting the fact that they do not deserve to be in control. But from the beginning, John is constantly abusing the power he holds in little ways, not even aware of what he is doing, acting every bit entitled and haughty. Between the working class and the group in power, there is no right, nobody that deserves to be in power, only victims.

Wesley Marin

Blog Post #5

Oleanna is an interesting piece of literature to criticize because it brings about so many conflicting emotional reactions among its audience members.  The way the play is written causes audience members to “cheer” for characters and situations that would normally cause them to be upset or angry.  The play also explores a topic that often brings about heated debates and arguments: sexual harassment.  Most of us are familiar with the “do’s” and “don’ts” regarding sexual harassment, especially in a professional setting, because we have had to suffer through that awful video filmed in the 80’s that Human Resources requires you to watch.  However, when it comes to actual experience, it can prove to be quite difficult not to overstep that line.  One of the big problems is that every person interprets words and actions differently. We are all living different lives, and our experiences as individuals have great impacts on the way we perceive things.  Oleanna really explores this issue and the fact that in some situations, it can be hard to determine who is right and who is wrong.

                In Act I of the play, Carol seems to be a somewhat annoying student who is having trouble in one of her classes.  However, at the beginning of Act II, the audience comes to find out that she has filed false allegations of sexual harassment against John.   At this point, she becomes what one critic refers to as “’just a stereotype that audiences can join in hating’” (Goggans par. 1).  The audience usually takes John’s side because from most people’s perspective, he did not sexually harass her.  While John has done most of the things that Carol stated in her report, she completely exaggerated his actions to mean much more than they did (Curry par. 1).  It is simply impossible for most people to sympathize with her because it is obvious that John has no ill intentions, and the man is on the verge of having his life ruined by this girl.  She loses all sympathy from the audience “as her claims grow preposterous” by alleging that John raped her when clearly he had not (Curry par. 1).  John definitely overstepped some professional lines that he should have been more cautious about, but his intentions never seem to be anything but trying to help a student who has asked for it.

Many people agree that there is no “right” or “wrong” person in this play, but it definitely brings up the issues of intention and misinterpretation.  Some critics like to argue that Carol seems to come from a background of sexual abuse and possibly incest (Goggans par. 5).  She says things like “’I’m stupid’” and “’nobody wants me’” and at one point she asks John if she “’[said] something wrong’” (Goggans par. 6).  According to a psychologist by the name if Dianne Cleveland, these phrases are signs of low self-esteem and shame that come with being sexually abused (Goggans par. 7).  Her false allegations against John and her body language when she is near him show considerable amounts of distrust, but most people do not see a reason for this unless she experienced traumatic things when she was younger.  This would explain why she misconstrued John’s actions into being sexual when his intentions were purely professional.  It is nearly impossible to really determine who is right in their situation, but the way the play is written definitely causes the audience to lean more toward supporting and defending John than sympathizing with Carol.

Blog #5

Travis Tyler #5

I started reading Marc Silverstein's commentary on Oleanna and found it to be something that I easily agreed with. He states that "Mamet's sense that theatre stages the contents of America's collective unconscious and through that staging, translates those contents into consciousness suggests" The main interaction between male and female in Oleanna seems on the surface to be a normal conversation that is following the established cultural norms. WHat Silverstein does a good job at pointing out is that the collective consciousness of Americans can overlook the oppressive overtones of a man to a woman just because we view it as the normal. Even when I was watching it I had just viewed it as a teacher talking to his student when in reality it should have been viewed as the way a man talked down to a woman. At first I saw nothing wrong but as I watched more I realized that he almost talked to her as if she had no understanding of what he was saying. 

Silverstein also points out that "John defines the ability to engage in and reach agreement through such interpersonal speech acts as "the gist of education" (56)". This to me is a great way to look at eductation because that's exactly how I feel. You cannot cram knowledge into someone and then expect them to be able to recite it back to you. Learning occurs when the exchange of words leads to extrapolated ideas in ones own mind.

The story can also be viewed from a Marxist point of view being that John is the bushwahzee and Carol is the working class or the poor class. she came to him to try to get ahead, which can be viewed as a progression of wealth that John, the bushwahzee, is standing in the way of. As Carol tries to reason with him, John has his own ideas and a certain need to retain the standing and material wealth that he has. this wealth is taken from him by Carol, the working/ poor class. This story can almost be viewed from the perspective of Robin Hood, where the poor, Carol, take from the rich, John, and give back to the poor, which in this case would encompass the rest of Carol's "group" which she seems to be associated with.

Blog Post 5 - Brandon Arnold

I agree with Mark Silverstein’s “Were Just Human” which makes the claim that the play “Oleana” “stages the content of America’s collective unconscious and, through staging, translates those contents into consciousness suggesting that theater can demystify and perform a kind of ideology critique of the desires and values inhabiting our national unconscious that is a political unconscious”(Silverstein P 3). “Oleana” displays a series of interactions between a man and a woman that would be considered in America to be cultural norms, but when a society comes to accept these gestures as normal, instead of gestures of dominance, it ultimately creates a collective unconscious and a society that is oppressive to women. There is also language and symbolism in the play that broadens the critique of this hegemonic rule by the elite white man over all the people who have been historically oppressed by them. The play simultaneously illustrates how white men are losing their power. The professor’s views on education, and his willingness to teach his students whatever he wants, illustrates Marx’s claim that the elite use the superstructure to socially condition the working class to be submissive.

The professor symbolizes what Marx would label the elite class, and the student symbolizes the working class. Throughout the play, the way the man interacts with the women, and the things he says, reveals a man who believes that he is superior to her: which would therefore symbolize white men being superior to women and the working class. During their first meeting, Carol starts having a breakdown, and the professor “goes over to her and puts his arm around her shoulder”(Oleana). This is a cultural norm that most people in America would consider to be acceptable. However, this would be considered inappropriate for a man to do to another man he does not know. Since there is an inherent difference here, and that society would deem it inappropriate to do to man but not a women, this becomes a gesture of dominance because society says he can do that to her. The professor continuously picking up the phone while Carol is talking is symbolic of the elite white man believing that their interests, problems, and what they are trying to achieve is more important than those in the lower class. Lastly, the professor speaking of “the white man’s burden” is what extends this critique of the existence of a hegemonic rule over women to minorities who largely make up the working class.

The professor’s philosophy of, and teaching methods symbolize Marx’s theory of a superstructure that facilitates the elite’s rules over the working class. The professor says that education had become hazing, and that it is “a ritual that has become an article of faith”(Oleana). He uses the example of her getting angry when he told her that about education as example of how the elites have succeeded in convincing the middle class that education is a necessity when really it is “a fashionable necessity for those aspiring to the new vast middle class that we espouse it as a matter of right and have ceased to ask what is it good for?”(Oleana). He is admitting that higher education is part of the elites superstructure intended to socialize the working class to further their power and that it is a conscious effort.

The audience’s reaction to the play demonstrates the collective unconscious that exists in America. Sliverstein describes how the beating at the end of the play is “often accompanied by applause, cheers, and quite audible exclamations of encouragement to the professor”(Silverstein P.2) by both me and women. The man in the play sexually harasses and demeans Carol throughout the entire play, however,since he only does this in ways that would be considered cultural norms in America, the audience is unable to see past their social conditioning, so they perceive the professor’s actions as normal. As a result, the end ultimately results in two conflicting conclusions which simultaneously illustrates the power of perception. The intended meaning of the man beating a woman, who has acted completely within the law, and filed her complaints through all the proper channels, being beaten by the oppressor, who is no longer being subtle about his feelings of dominance over her, confirms that Carol was right. His true self, the man Carol knew he was all along (that the professor might not have even realized he was, because he is a product of the same social conditioning as the rest of America), finally comes out at the end, and we see him for what he really is: an elitist who thinks he is superior to women and members of the lower class. Carol says “yes, that is right”, because there is no hiding it anymore, and they both know she is and has been right. However, as a result of the audience being unable to see past their social conditioning, they see everything he has done as cultural norms and therefore acceptable. As a result, Carol becomes the villain, and they on cheer the man who is beating the woman who asks only for equality. They are so socially conditioned by the elites, they defend the man who is breaking the law and cheer as he violently defends their status quo instead of the woman legally seeking equality.

Post #5

After reading "P.C. Power Play: Language and Representation in David Mamet's Oleanna" I completely agree how influential the use and structure of language is to this play. When Betchel refers to "Mamet's characters ... are their language", this reminded me of the saying, "you are what you eat". Ultimately your actions, in this case the language that is used defines who you are as a person. 

In the first act, Carol seems to be very confused. As a failing "student" she continuously states that she does not understand why. Her the structure of her sentences are very short and the way she projects her voice shows that she has little confidence. On the other hand John speaks very precisely, showing authority and power, after all he is a professor at a university. During his conversation with Carol he often uses verbiage that is difficult to understand. The majority would have a hard time deciphering what he is saying without being very knowledgeable in the English language.

One quote that stood out to me was, when Carol questions the meaning of his book's thesis... "Now: I said "hazing." It means ritualized annoyance. We shove this book at you, we say read it. Now, you say you've read it? I think you're lying.I'll grill you, and when I find you've lied, you'll be disgraced, and your life will be ruined. It's a sick game. Why do we do it? Does it educate? In no sense. Well, then, what is higher education? it is something-other-than useful." She then goes to ask John why he teaches if education is so bad and pointless, and he answers by saying because he "loves it". After reading this I can understand how Carol might have interpreted this. To her she views John as an elitist who mocks the system of higher education and decides who passes or fails solely based on biased opinions, regardless if their work does satisfy all the requirements. (This situation reminds me of Marxism) Seeing this as wrong, she decides to bring justice upon his actions.

As the story continues the way the characters speak drastically change. With the influence of Carols "group" that she represents and the numerous amounts of pieces of evidence she posses against John, she gains a tremendous amount of power. The structure of speech, in "acts two and three find her in much greater command of language, using words like "countenance," "patriarch," "transgress," and "hierarchy," to name but a few". Conversely, John seems to be more "friendly" in his speeches, his tone changes from an authorial teacher, to someone that is trying to rationalize the situation by being nice. He is often confused at times and asks many questions to why things are happening. Im not sure of the exact quote but I think at one point he asks Carol "Why are you doing this?" and she replies, "Because Im trying to teach you!" I find it very ironic because she is doing to him exactly what he has stated in his book. On a whim she had ruined his life, which is what he had done to her by giving her an F, making it impossible for her to be accepted to the school she was applying to. 

I really enjoyed this play even though it was two people talking the whole entire time and honestly not understanding half the things they were saying. It showed me how powerful speech can be and the ways you interpret them.

 

Blog Post 5

While reading Oleanna I ran into many problems understanding the reasons for her being who Carol is, and how she is. She seems to be fixated in bettering herself but at the same time fixated in the notion that she is “bad”, “stupid”. While John puts his own future at steak attempting to help Carol with her questions.
I read the essay "Laying Blame: Gender and Subtext in David Mamet's Oleanna" in which the critic Thomas H. Goggans describes Carol’s language and behavior as that one of a person abused as a child. The play seems to be strongly aimed at what a tormented soul that is Carol can do to those around them. She had essentially asked for his helping hand and had instead taken him by the leg and pulled him down to his eventual undoing.
Carol stripped John of his Tenure and therefore his new house. Her actions not only destroyed John’s future career but also ended his future family, all for the insanity that was possibly caused by a moment in her life that derailed her mental health and trust for those around her.
In the critical essay Goggans mentions the trafficking of code words of incest and child sexual abuse. “She exhibits low self-esteem, depression, and guilt, remarking ‘Did… did I … did I say something wrong’”; “I’m stupid”; "I'll never learn”; "nobody wants me”; and "I know what I am. [ ... ] I know what I am". These key phrases help decipher her being. She seems to be strongly bound by her past, stuck thinking that she cannot understand and she is stupid, and the way that she speaks to the professor shows that it is very possible that she is a sociopath. She has obviously not thought of what her actions are doing to him.
Carol brings her unconscious thoughts to the surface in an early point of Act 1. She mentions her inability to satisfy a male authority figure: "I'm doing what I'm told. It's difficult for me."
This shows some evidence that could prove that she was molested as a child. Her insanity does not lead to the rape that she probably expected and quite possibly fantasized about. But instead eventually makes him snap and hit her. A point in the play that the audience was waiting for and is surprisingly well accepted despite the violent nature of it.

Blog 5

The play Oleanna made me think a  about the power and usage of words and how they can make a huge difference in someone's life. Its hard to judge a sexual harassment case from the outside when you don't have any idea of what really happened since you weren't there to begin with. Words are used to accuse and defend in such cases. I strongly believe in the saying  "There are three sides to every story, what she said happened, what he said happened and what REALLY happened". I think that many people jump to conclusions and make assumptions and take sides. In the play Oleanna right away I didn't like Carol because she kept misinterpreting what John was saying. In the article "David Mamet's Oleanna as commentary on sexual harassment in the Academy" by J.K Curry he states that " Mamet makes the power of the accuser and the perceived threat of an unanticipated accusation seem overwhelming by loading the play against the female student." I have to agree with Curry's words on this matter because the power of words are limitless. The way Mamet uses words and makes the characters interrupt each other through out the whole play shifts most of the focus on the female character, Carol. Thus causing some type of emotion towards her. "[Cannot] maintain sympathy for the character as her claims grow preposterous, culmination in the assertion that by pressing against her, John had raped her"(Curry). Carol makes a huge jump from the actions that John makes. She took a simple gesture to harassment, according to the "law" John had raped her but to many people it was just his way of trying to calm Carol down. Carol tends to misinterpret a lot of what John does and says. John doesn't find her accusations very serious because he knew it was her words against his. I think that this was a sexist move on John's part, just because he is  a male and a professor he was very confident that the case would be dismissed.  Curry makes a very good point when he says "The very nature of sexual harassment makes guilt impossible to determine in some cases when it is one person's word against anothers". Curry also recognizes Carols drastic change from act 1 to act 2, he believes that it symbolized women's power and demand for fair treatment. I believe she didn't make a change but simply came out of her shell, she was always an "angry woman with an agenda" inside. She had been observing John for a while and even wrote down dates when John had made "inappropriate" remarks in class. In act 2 she begins to refer to her and  a "group" , a group that she belongs to but we never find out what "group" she refers to. We can only infer what she means by that. I think she misinterprets many things only because that was her purpose all along to achieve fair "equality" for woman . Carol at one point even tries to make a type of deal with John, about taking his book out of his course and she would drop her accusations. I believe she uses her power of words to bring down John not only in his professional life but his home life as well.

Let me just start this off by saying that Oleanna made me so angry. I have never had a movie make me so angry in my life and it was really weird how this work of fiction made me that angry.

 

At the beginning of the story, Carol initially annoyed me because she "didn't understand" anything and she kept interrupting him when he was talking and keeping him from his more important issues like going to see his new house. Then when she completely misinterpreted everything he told her, I really hate her. I read the article, "P.C. Power Play: Language and Representation in David Mamet's Oleanna" by  Roger Bechtel, and it described the language between the two characters as what they are defined by. It gave the teacher John a "his language has earned him the identity of teacher; a title which, ironically, lends his language a credibility it would not otherwise have." Bechtel also used Carols language as a definition of who she is by saying, "That is, Carol cannot form an identity within the community of the university because she cannot understand the language of the university." (There she goes again not understanding anything...) By describing how they talk, it puts the characters into a different light by giving them a kind of explanation as to why they act how they act. 

Later as the story progressed, the language the two characters initially spoke changed. Ultimately, the language of Carol and John were two completely different languages. Even though Carol was right in calling John out on some of the things he said and did, but she was completely misinterpreting them and twisting them around to make them seem like awful things instead of a teacher trying to help a student, which was all he was trying to do. Bechtel makes the connection that Carol "no longer speaks or acts as an individual, but only as an agent of the Group. The Group has subsumed her identity into its own, and she has become as rigid and unforgiving as it must me." 

They argued about the accusations with Carol saying, "No. Those are not 'accusations'" John: "In which it was alleged..." Carol: "No, I cannot allow that. Nothing is alleged. Everything is proved."  

Unfortunately for John, he cannot find the right words to beat the Group or Carol. She completely ruined his life by having him not get his house, his tenure, and accusing his of rape. Finally beat her up for it. Personally, I would have beaten her a lot sooner and with the chair, but he stopped before he could do it.

After reading and watching the play acted out i witnessed how language plays a huge roll in the development of the big picture. From beginning to end the language John and Carol in communicating with each other defined who their characters represented. John Being an educated professor spoke in what we can call an "elitist" held himself higher and spoke according to his social stature. On the other hand Carol a young less educated woman still getting her feet wet in life spoke what is called everyday normal speech that of which is spoken among people with little or no higher education. After looking at all of the scholarly articles that comment and analyze Oleanna i decided to use the "Language and Representation" scholarly article because i feel the one who uses the higher more educated language pretty much holds the power throughout Oleanna.

The one pretty much holding the control and power is John. He who holds the college degrees and is a stand up member of society speaks the language of the university. I liked what the article about speech making the character saying Mamet's characters practically "are their speech" and "their language allows them to exist". Carol's entrance into the play is a simple less educated younger woman seeking help in this course she doesn't seem to understand. After speaking to her professor John in Act 1 it is evident that John is the proletariat in the play and holds the power through the higher educated language he is fluent in. In Carol's case she simply doesn't understand a lot of the things John is trying to explain. I also liked a point in the article explaining that if the language of the characters was taken away the characters would just be characters with no style, traits, or personality. Towards the end of the play the language the characters have been using tells us what will come of these characters based off what speech they use. Se we develop expectations of these characters based on their status in society either an educated professor or struggling young college student.

John assumes this role of the educated professor although he seems only to have become fluent in the language of the academy for personal gain and preservation. This becomes an issue when he calls higher education "systematic hazing" in other words brainwashing. So we see he may only play this role of the high class professor to get further in the world but in his heart believes its all a waste of time. I thought of this idea of him only pretending to be high class and educated after he beats up Carol in the end, at first he speaks with knowledge and point and acts as a gentlemen then as the story goes on he gets a little louder and "uneducated" acting, then at the end he becomes the typical angry man who hits women. So i believe he is only acting as a professor but deep inside he is just as lost and of normal a person as Carol. Carol at first creates the less educated non understanding image but in the end seems to develop all her ideas and brings them forth in her plan to take John down. She seems to speak for all the people in her "group" and starts to sound educated and ready to use her new knowledge. The language of the two characters definitely creates who they are and ultimately creates expectations of the two through their language and social stature. I feel language along with the power of interpretation of that language is most important in this play.

Blog Number Five

Once I got past the initial irritation that “Oleanna” brought on, I found that it had raised many interesting points. After surveying the different scholarly articles on blackboard, I found the one that interested me the most was called “We're Just Human: Oleanna and Cultural Crisis”. The author of this criticism touches on many different psychological topics and interesting aspects of the play, most of which I agree with. 

One of the grand themes of “Oleanna” in my opinion was it’s critique on state of sexual harassment in America. In the play there is an odd tension between John and Carol in the three different scenes that take place in his office. While most people agree that it isn't really clear if John sexually harasses Carol, his closeness to her and his repetition of phrases such as “because I like you,” and “let me help you,” do come off as a little creepy. Mark Silverstein states in his article, “theatre can demystify and perform a kind of ideology critique of the desires and values inhabiting our national unconscious.” This grey area of sexual harassment that is brought up in “Oleanna” is one that was on the nations mind at the time this play was written, it appears Mamet intended to confront this. Plays and other works that force a public discussion on uncomfortable topics such as sexual harassment are important and can bring closeted issues into the public eye. 

Another topic that I thought was very important and evident in this play was that of violence perpetuated against women, especially a certain kind of woman, the “whistleblower”. This was a topic that we touched on in class and seemed to generate a lot of feedback. In his article Silverstein states, “that so many of those who see the play take evident satisfaction to the point of cathartic release in the violence directed not simply at a woman, but at a woman backed by and identifying herself as spokesperson for a feminist "group"raises the question: What can Oleanna tell us about the uses of misogyny, about the frightening "need" for misogyny, at the particular cultural moment at which we find ourselves?” I feel that this eloquently phrases the question, why is it so many of us secretly (or not so secretly) cheer when John finally blurts out, “I wouldn’t touch you with a ten foot pole you little cunt.” Also the question of when is it acceptable, if ever to speak to a woman this way, let alone use violence against one. These questions have different asnwers for different people, depending on the person asked. Also, what does our society say about this? Aren’t most young boys told to never hit girls? Yet it is impossable to watch TV without seeing some sort of violence against, or domination of women perpetuated. These social issues are important for discussion because thay are so complex. While “Oleanna” does not offer answers to these questions, it helps to raise them at a time when they may otherwise not be confronted.

Blog Post #5

Oleanna was a very interesting play.  I was not sure what to think of it at first; actually I wasn't sure what to think about it at all.  It confused me at first because I really thought she was a student who just didn't understand.  It made me not like the professor as much because he seemed harsh and unjust.  I really believed that Carol was a struggling student and just needed help.  Until the tables turned...that caught me really off guard.  Once Carol starting making accusations that weren't all necessarily true I was more confused than ever.  


I did not like the language used by the characters until I read scholarly article about Acts of Violence.  It explained that both characters were speaking different languages.  "Moreover, his usual stylistic tricks--rhetorical questions, unfinished sentences, italics, pauses--fall flat because these characters do not speak the same language."  Mamet made the character Carol seem dishonest and manipulative, while John seemed like all he wanted to do was be a family man and a helpful teacher.  That is not how it seemed at first, but it turned out to be that way in the end.  


All the talk about sexual harassment really didn't seem to be the issue.  In my opinion it was about being driven until the last string broke.  John finally had it with Carol and all her accusations.  Carol was even making me frustrated.  The issue about Act of Violence should have been more important than the issue of sexual harassment.  The thing that I still can grasp is that who was in the wrong.  The article suggest that nothing can be resolved through "irrational violence".  That is vey true and I agree violence should never be the answer.  In my opinion, both were at wrong for different things but both characters seemed to be the blame of each others wrong actions.   

Blog Post #5

So after reading through the different scholarly criticisms on Black Board I decided to take a further look into the critique of Oleanna that adhered to a Marxist framework. Upon reading the critique, I found one thing mentioned by the author, Roger Bechtel, that really caught my attention. In the 2nd paragraph the author says "Because so much of the activity of his characters is prescribed by their speech, it is often fruitless to analyze their 'psychology.

I do not agree with the assertion.  Though I am not trying to the take away from the authors main premise that language can be used to sustain or perpetuate social classes or tiers, I believe that their language used in the play is indeed itself a tell-tale indicator of the characters psychology. For instance when the Bechtel speaks of the opening act when John compares higher education to “prolonged systematic hazing”. John says “Now: I said "hazing." It means ritualized annoyance. We shove this book at you, we say read it. Now, you say you've read it? I think you're lying. I'll grill you, and when I find you've lied, you'll be disgraced, and your life will be ruined. It's a sick game. Why do we do it? Does it educate? In no sense. Well, then, what is higher education? it is something-other-than useful. The hypocrisy is soon discovered:.”. Bechtel tries to make the point that it is readily apparent that this passage has no significance other than illustrating the idea that John is a hypocrite.


While Bechtel might be right about John being a hypocrite, I think that there is more to be revealed of John’s chartecter. For instance, I believe that through this hypocrisy it reveals John to a self-justifying narcissist. With his source of self-justification coming from his want of being successful in his profession and life, to spite those who according to John called him “stupid” while growing up as a child.

Oleana

Oleana

First of all, Oleana was very hard for me to watch. I couldn’t quite understand why I was getting so frustrated. I found it particularly annoying when John kept getting interrupted on the phone while he was trying to talk. All of my anger and frustrations accumulated towards the end of the play when Oleana misconstrued what the professor had said and done, especially towards sexual harassment.

 Though, the accusations towards the professor was in some degree true, the way she perceived it was way out of context. Oleana sounded convincing when said that John put his hands on her, and leaned in against her body in a sexual manner. If I didn’t know anything of that situation and heard only Oleana’s side of the accusations I would probably believe her. Since I saw what had actually happened I know she is way off base with her misinterpretation. Somewhere in the back of my mind I do believe she was planted in the class to try and take down the professor and deliberately looked for ways to accuse him of abusing his position.  

Discussion Post#5

The first review I chose was a positive feedback to the recent movie "The Hunger Games". The review is written by Roger Moore and he really examines the movie in a positive manner. Moore summarizes the movie and delves into examination of the Sci-Fi genre this movie falls into. Moore spends a lot of time examining characters as a whole. He then links it all around to the point that this movie is kinda a rival to the Twilight saga. But overall Moore gives this movie a slight thumbs-up and says that the movie will leave you wanting more.

 The second review of "The Hunger Games" is a more neutral leaning towards negative review of the film. It is written by David Denby and he breaks his review into three sections. First section he evaluates the characters and examines their actors who play them. Second section he belittles the cinematography of the film and he kinda praises the author of the book series. Third section is talking about bullying in America as a rising problem which he links to "kids-killing-kids" in the movie.

 To compare these two reviews it's best to point out the obvious similarities and differences. One similarity that is blatantly obvious it that both critics analyze characters and how the actors played them. Denby author "Kids at Risk" does examine characters into a little more depth than Moore given that he has a longer critique. A difference is that Denby talks about cinematography and Moore doesn't touch down on it. When Roger Moore talks about the characters he links in the plot of the movie with his examination. Both critics talk briefly about a issue that is present in our nation. Moore writes about this teen obsession with these teen novels such as the Twilight saga and Hunger Games trilogy. Denby writes about bullying and does an excellent job at linking it's topic with a core concept of violence in the movie. Denby spends a good paragraph or two talking about the weird decision the director made in using a hand held camera to film some scenes. Then moore does a funny description on saying how the film fits into the science fiction genre. Both critiques, both differing in positive and negative, are vastly entertaining and well read and they really delve into core ideas of reviewing with subtle humor written in.

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2012/04/02/120402crci_cinema_denby  \

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/03/20/3502196/the-hunger-games-will-leave-fans.html

Blog Post #5

In the story, "Oleanna" by David Mamet, Carol, a college student, asks her professor, John, for help understanding the course that John teaches. She is struggling in his class and is desperate to understand everything in his course. She even "read [his] book, you told me to buy your book and read it" (Act 1) which she did to help understand the logic behind his class. Thinking through a Marxist Critic, it is obvious that John represents the bourgeoisie, upper class who runs the class and controls the curriculum that the students, including Carol, must learn and abide by. Carol represents the larger social group, the proletariat, working class who must work for the smaller bourgeoisie. She ends up ruining John's life when she exclaims, "You tried to rape me" (Act 3). This makes a hegemony which switches the power of the upper class, John, to the working class, Carol. In the scholarly article, "P.C. Power Play: Language and Representation in David Mamet's Oleanna" by Roger Bechtel, Bechtel supports my theory on upper class versus working class when he states that John's "identity is that of the academy. When he is engaged in professorial discourse...his language becomes complete: sentences end, rules of grammar and syntax are adhered to."Heisprofessional when talking to Carol and uses large, sophisticated words to show how intelligent and comfortable he is in being an accomplished professor. Carol is a very strange girl who seems to have absolutely no social skills which is seen when John tells her, "I'm not your father" and she replies with, "Did I say you're my father? Why did you say that?" (Act 1). In the beginning of the story, Carol is asking for help individually, however, later on she pronounces herself as "we" because her "group" is trying to take the power away from John. "What if it were possible that my Group withdraws its complaint (Act 3). In the end, the collective wins out against the individual because Carol's group has been trying to get rid of John for a while and they succeeded.

Notes on Oleanna

One way we can get into Oleanna is to examine the play as a statement on the elitism in higher education (a Marxist approach will definitely deal with John and Carol as representative of different social classes and the conflict between them a result of these class decisions – John has power; Carol seeks to overturn that power, certainly. Whether she takes it or not (remember, power is always a fluid entity) is a more complicated question.

The “currency” of the academic institution is often its language, a language that is exclusory and often judged as elitist (typically involving disciplinary-specific jargon unavailable to the untrained). This is certainly true in Oleanna; we see right away that Carol calls John out for his language (ultimately, she claims John’s use of elitist language, the language of privilege and class power, is part of his exploitation of students/women). John uses sophisticated and academic language, perhaps disciplinary-specific (it would be appear he’s teaching an education class without explaining or defining terms), and Carol is allegedly unable to understand because John continues to speak to his students as though they are his colleagues. If this is actually so, the question becomes this: is John deliberately maintaining his elite status by excluding and thus alienating his students – “performing”, as he says he loves to do, and/or “exploiting his paternal prerogative? Or is he simply too self-involved to notice and connect with his students and their needs? What do you think?

In terms of language, let’s consider Carol’s. In the first act, she speaks using, let’s say, the vernacular (common, “everyday language”, repeatedly asking John to define and account for his language. Do think she really fails to understand John, or is she calling John out for using jargon by “making” him explain it? Note also that her vocabulary, at least her demonstration of her command of language, changes dramatically from Act One to Two. These two nearly reverse positions – John becomes less articulate, sputtering and sweating, as Carol becomes more so; John is visibly distraught, especially when compared to his relatively calm and poised demeanor n the first act. Carol, who is much less poised and uncertain in Act One – and much more reactive – she transforms into the powerfully articulate one as the plot progresses, unshaken by John’s increasingly erratic and angry behavior. If language is power (or one’s access to and mastery of it is), what does this “reversal” suggest?

Next, consider the following statement, which John makes: “We can only interpret the actions of others through the screen we create.” John here admits that people can only understand others only through their own filter – that is, can understand only through their own worldview (and, for the Marxist, of course, this worldview is developed by and comprised entirely of the individual’s social and economic position). Thus John can only understand Carol, a seemingly disturbed, younger, less educated, less articulate, less socially valued and less wealthy woman through his “screen” (worldview). His screen is created through his experiences as an elite white male in a position of power and prestige. While John admits this early on, later, it becomes evident that both John AND Carol cannot see beyond their own “screens” and this lack of understanding, on both parts, has dire consequences. Is there any way for two vastly different people, like John and Carol, to relate to or understand one another? Or are their “god-given” positions destined to alienate them from one another forever?

Consider John’s musings nearer the end of Act One, when he tells Carol, “You don’t have to take notes. I’m just telling you some things that I think.” . . . “Is it a law that I have to improve the city’s schools at the expense of my own interest . . . and is this not a case of “the white man’s burden”? What John is essentially asking here is why he has to suffer economically to better reality for those less fortunate than he. Why, if he is willing and able to send his son to (and pay for) private school,  must he contribute to the public school system (seemingly the place for the “have nots” here)? What John is really saying is that he finds it unfair that he has to sacrifice individually for the greater public good. He’s also made it a racist statement by suggesting that the “white” “man” is by nature the one sacrificing for everyone else. Inherent in this belief is the slightly veiled belief that he has “achieved” his economic position through hard work – thus his ability to choose private school – and that others could, too . . . but choose not to. In this sense, John ignores/fails to realize that his position and economic power are at least partly due to arbitrary circumstances rather than his efforts, talent, or intelligence (the family into which he was born, environment in which he was raised – socioeconomically, educationally, etc – the nature of experiences to which he was exposed). In other words, he and Carol very likely did not begin life with the same opportunities. Carol, on the other hand, seems to clearly understand John’s “good fortune” and privilege as, perhaps, sheer luck, that he was fortunate enough to be born male and white (and very likely into a higher-class family than her own). She points out that she had to transcend “economic and sexual prejudices” that she “prays you and those you love” will never have to endure. Somehow, it seems obvious that John hasn’t been privy to such prejudices himself. It is largely thought that Carol is a “scholarship” student while John probably attended an Ivy League or similar institution, and probably not on a scholarship. This may or may not be true, of course. What do you think? The play asks us to consider the idea of “equal opportunity” (as in, we all have it here in America).

Back to the “white man’s burden” for a moment. Ultimately, by connecting his belief that it is unfair that he has to sacrifice individually for the greater good with the phrase “white man’s burden”, he’s really saying, that economic sacrifice has been forced upon the “white man”, who is thus at least partly responsible for taking care of the “others” – largely minorities. Carol believes John’s use of the phrase is both classist and racist, but perhaps even more importantly . . .  it goes unexamined. A big part of Carol’s beef with John is that he doesn’t examine his own thinking or consider others’ viewpoints – he doesn’t even begin to think using such a phrase might be ill-advised and/or offensive . . . because he is so confident and settled in his position of power and prestige that there’s no reason he should have to think about anything from the point of view of the “have nots”.  This, specifically, is what Carol balks at most. IS this phrase classist and/or racist? Does it offend YOU? Why or why not?

Lastly, consider John’s proposition and reasoning regarding Carol’s grade: he understands her concern – he offers her an “A” in exchange for her time – time in which he hopes to “awaken her interest and answer her questions”, he says. Of course, it’s important that he offers this to Carol alone and in a private space – a space that is his turf, symbolic of his position (it is very likely that he is far more comfortable engaging in this space than she is).  Is this offer a genuine though perhaps misguided one, truly intended to help Carol? Do consider how it might be helpful to award a grade not for mastery of a skill, nor performance, but for effort alone. Keep in mind that college grades are not “given” but earned and are nearly always based on performance and product, not effort. A student in English 201, for example, might earn an A on a paper for its innovativeness, depth, and solid writing but will not earn an A for a paper toward which he/she expended a great deal of effort but that offers only surface-level, obvious analysis and messy/laborious/awkward/unclear writing.)

 What, then, is John really offering Carol, and is it useful? To whom? John certainly appears to enjoy his performance as he ignores the phone – “Let it ring!” – and tells Carol that he “says it’s fine” to start over, that “[they] won’t tell anybody”, and that “her final grade is an A.” One reading: John is not genuine (though he may think he’s being so) but is instead offering this deal to Carol because he enjoys the thought of seeing himself in the role of hero “rescuing” damsel-in-distress Carol from her stupidity, lack of understanding, poor self esteem. Basically, he enjoys holding a captive audience responsible for taking in and understanding his ideas and beliefs (he uses one of his own books as a textbook, a controversial practice), thus engaging in self-glorification and edification as well as posturing. Perhaps this offer is intended to make John feel good, and Carol is simply the conduit. And it’s entirely possible that he is consciously unaware of his “true” motivation (something that would be very important to the psychoanalytic critic AND another example of what Carol is most offended by – that John has so wholly eaten and digested power and prestige, and is so secure in it, that he doesn’t even recognize where his motivations and actions are guided by self-interest and ego rather than selflessness and humility.

So which is it – benevolent, sensitive, radical educator, capable of and willing to subvert the dominant paradigm (the exchange of good grades for excellent work, the securing of a grade at semester’s end, not middle) when it opens the door for a student in a creative way? Or, is he a pedantic, selfish, unaware egoist whose teaching is a largely a performance of his own ideas and values, ones he forces on others by choosing to teach his own book? (Consider also that John, by doing so, is clearly a symbol of the bourgeoisie, deciding which ideas and values the proletariat (students) have access to and telling them what they should think about these ideas and values).

At this point, what is your largest concern as a Marxist critic, and what is the play “about” when you adopt a Marxist framework? Sexual harassment? Political correctness? The power of language? Social class conflicts? The failures of higher education? The system of idea exchange in the classroom/institution/country? Gender relations as linked to social class? Economic betterment? Self-awareness (or a lack thereof?). Capitalism’s failures? Classroom dynamics? Poor teaching? The “right” to higher education over its usefulness? (John mentions this, intending to suggest that people are so invested in the idea of their “right” to higher education that they forget or fail to take into account whether it is useful . . . and whether they are college “material” in the first place. Should anyone have the right to go to college? What is done/should be done about students who try but do not have the intellectual or other capacities to succeed? Does college develop these capacities enough to make a successful student out of anyone? Or, are there some people who just “shouldn’t” go to college because they simply cannot/will not succeed? (This, of course, is quite the controversial subject, and it’s clear that John, at least, does not think everyone should go to school. As he says, “we’ve confounded the ‘right’ to education with its usefulness . . .”).

***Obviously, I’m playing a bit of the devil’s advocate here – it’s so easy to immediately hate Carol and dismiss her critiques of John because of why she seems to do it. Her heinous actions don’t necessarily discount the quality of her critique, though. Thus, I tried to explore some points that aren’t the most obvious choices.

Blog Post #5 (Due Saturday, 4/14)

For this post, you will need to go to the:

Scholarly Articles Part 2 Folder (under "Content" in BB)

You'll find

"Oleanna Articles" there. You can skim the abstracts to decide which article most appeals to you. You will use one article (meaning you quote from it at least several times) in your response to the Play. You can analyze the play using any framework/method you want (you'll notice the methodology the critics are using in their analysis). You need to quote from the play itself and your chosen article. I don't care whether you choose an article you agree with, disagree with, or both. You can challenge ideas put forth by the critics; you can use quotes from the article as evidence to support your points; you can use them simply to illustrate something (meaning it's not part of a claim/evidence sequence); you can use them to open or close your discussion; you can use them to show (but perhaps not critique) an alternate view of the play (or use several readings to establish the various scholarly views on the play).  

The paragraph above lists the main reasons you will/would use scholarly articles in your own writing. This is a skill you will refine in your revision of Paper #2 -- in the draft, make sure you get them "in" the paper; you can hone implementation/use further in a revision.

 I am posting some of my own thoughts on Oleanna here as well, as a way of entering into more thorough discussion than we might have in class. 

***These articles are taken from several literary databases available online through the MCC library. I highlighted the best ones in class. For your paper, you will want to go to the Literature Resource Center first, then try Literary Criticism, then McGill on Literature Plus. You can also try JSTOR though it's not a literary database per se.) 

Blog post 4

As we read the story, "The storm", we learned that a seemingly tale of a woman,Calixta, expecting her husband a son to come home from a storm that has plagued the area. But that is not the case, as we soon discover that she is visited by a male friend, Alcee, seeking shelter from the storm only to arouse her as they begin to kiss causing them to cheat on their respective partners. As is stated the time set could be an era in which religion was dominant so any act or form of "cheating" was frowned upon.When the husband and son return she acts as all other whom wish to turn their backs on the past and just begin to act normal as if it never happened. Through a feminist perspective we could analyze this to think Calixta would end up taking all the blame for the actions in which they both committed. Since men played a higher role during this period in time, it gives further evidence to the idea of her being punished.

The poem I chose to read was "The lady in the pink mustang", the tale of a wandering woman whom seems to be a prostitute. As her mustang is her only prized possession and carries nothing of real value besides the car we can suggest to knowing she has nothing going on in her life besides her "gifted body". Though written in a different time, this poem could still relate to many other eras of prostitution such as our own as women work in the adult entertainment industry in order to provide income for their families, themselves, or even to just put the meager food on their table while being able to afford an apartment.  This indeed was written by a woman which gives us insight into having a a deeper understanding to how she feels, rather than if this was written by a man whom would not be able to relate or make such a profound connection.