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.