Post 3

Question #3
In the play Oleanna, there is immense character development dealing with what they look and act like. For instance the character Carol, in scene one is dressed in very baggy clothing, muted colors and her hair messy. In the first scene she seems very insecure and not educated in the way she talks and asks questions. She comes off and even describes herself as coming from no money and there for not as educated. The viewer is led to believe that she is not smart and lacks confidence about everything. In scene two however, when they acts of sexual harassment are brought up she all of a sudden is dressed much nicer and suddenly seems to have found big words to use when she speaks. She carries herself in a much more confident way and seems more sure of herself. When I was watching the movie mid way through the second scene I had to change my thinking about the actress who played Carol because I assumed she was just a bad actress but seeing how she did in the second scene I realized it was the part she was instructed to play. Heading into the third scene Carol yet again seems almost older then she does in the beginning, wiser beyond her years. Not so much the little girl who is mad about her bad grade, but instead on her crusade to get rid of things that her and her group want gone. If you watched the play or movie on mute you would be able to tell just by her clothing that this character goes through a drastic transformation quick. Using her clothing and insecure mannerism and then transforms into a women on a mission as the viewer you are pulled into the scene. 

Question #5
Before I even read this article I already had these same thoughts. It is sad that women take the route of using sex and sexual crimes as a platform for them to find their voice and stand-up for something not related they believe in. Its sad and sickening because everyday women are legitimately abused and used against their will and have no voice, but other women see it as a shock value to get the attention they crave. In the third scene the viewer learns that Carol's ultimate plan was that her and her group wanted a list of books taken off a list that stands for what the school is based off of. Instead of maybe taking the hard road but pure one and fighting to get the books taken off they chose to go after professors and ultimately black-mail them into taking them off. Its scary to think about this actually happening. The problem with this is its like the boy who cried wolf. If enough of these situations where to happen, if something serious truly did happen people might be less anxious to help. Also girls if they are un-happy with their teacher or boss instead of dealing with it in a professional way they may choose this option, without perhaps thinking what the consequences truly are for her and the male and his life. Also I completely agree that the character John sets himself up numerous times. I do feel like people men and women need to be educated on proper etiquette for handling and ultimately avoiding this kind of situation.

Blog Post #3 Question 3: Kendra

Character Development is one of my favorite parts of writing because just by describing an expression you can convey so much about the person behind the 'face'. One of the first thing's I noted about the movie was Carol's clothing choice. She came across as someone who doesn't care, she wore very large clothing and it swallowed her alive which gave me the impression that she felt out of place and uncomfortable, because when you cover yourself with a tent of drab fabric and call it clothing you are almost definitely hiding from something. Her clothing choice as well as her demeanor told me a story of a self conscious girl who was on the cusp of complete castigation. Which was reinforced by the conversation she had with John when she described her seat placement in a back corner. But suddenly nearing the end of the film she appears in a blazer and she looks mildly professional, I say mildly because the blazer was still ill fitted. Now whether this change was 'intended' from the start, like her group planned out her transformation from a fringe girl to someone who knows what she's talking about is debatable. I believe she was recruited by this "group" because they saw that they could take this shy girl and dangle promises of a brighter future out of the shadows of the fringe life she'd been living. The character evidence of her clothing going from frumpy to business frumpy and her constant nagging question asking seems to support that theory because even as she comes back in her blazer with her notebooks full of notes, she still asks "what does that mean?" every time he uses a big word, and the blazer still hangs on her like she's trying to hide. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that what I saw when I looked at Carol was a girl who'd been manipulated and used for the purpose of unseating John and banning a list of books.

michael hernandez post # 3

question 2

Mamet definitely failed to create a balanced incorrectness for both characters. As Showalter stated, polarization has occurred to an extreme degree, and its inevitable that the majority will side with one character in particular with no hesitation. As a personal point of view, i don't see how anyone could possibly find clear reasons why Carol would be sided with. The problem lies with the values that each character holds, and the comparison of those values with American society. John is representing the "definition" of America, being the family man who wants to provide and find security.  Carol is simply "a dishonest, androgynous zealot". Empathy could certainly be given to Carol through her revelation that in order to get where she was,  she had to overcome several obstacles in the face of tyrants like John.
Carol's plight is, unfortunately, shadowed over by the fact that in her struggle, which one can sympathize with, she destroys someone who has already attained that "American Dream". if Mamet attempted to draw on the power of jealousy here, he did a poor job, and john ultimately rises as the protagonist.

I believe that the story was doomed to be biased from the start, simply because history, is full of stories of women who lead a man off into destruction and favoritism of males is firmly ground in. Mamet did not even begin to give Carol a powerful enough perspective to overcome this history.

post 3

   3.   Carol and Jhon ,are  first fine. But as the story developes so does their true intensions. Carol at first seems shy, timid, nice, pehaps even naive. you can tell by the way she carries herself, slouching. But as the story continues her character changes. She trasnsforms her clothing becomes sophisticated. No more baggy sweaters. And Jhon carries himeself very clean and neat. He manages to carry himself well all through the very end. Then at the very end after he has beaten Carol he is a wreck and with a bloody fist. I think it is then when his true colors come out. He had control at the beginning but then he lost it all. Carol on the other hand had no control at the start or the end only the middle. Her lack of dressing reveals she is not in control and maybe confused which ties in when she says that she does not understand Jhons book. In the middle of the story she is well dressed and has some control she"yells rape". Atleat she thinks she is in charge, she does foe a bit. Thant backfires and she gets beat. The way she is presented there there at the end shows that she had no contol. Meither had control and one was more mest up than the other, and that same person had proven the acussasion right.

Blog post #3!

Question 3: As your text says in the chapter “Character”, “Authors reveal characters by other means [than words and actions]. Physical descriptions can indicate important inner qualities; disheveled clothing, a crafty smile, or a blush might communicate as much as or more than what a character says. Characters can also be revealed by the words and actions of others who respond to them” (117). Consider both Carol and John’s clothing, general physical appearance, body language, and facial expressions. How do these things contribute to their character development? Consider especially Carol’s changing outfits and demeanor should you focus on her; you might think about John’s clothing, mannerisms, and how he moves in his physical space (as well as what that space looks like) if you focus on John.
Answer: In the play, Oleana, it does show the author revealing his characters by other means, in this case by physical description. In the beginning, we see Carol as this very unsure dumb girl. Her appearance is very sloppy, baggy clothes and hair like she hasn't brushed it in months. Her facial expressions are very confused, she holds onto her books like its her "comfort zone". John talks to her like she is stupid and like she has problems, she actually notices it and ask him if he thinks she is stupid. John ,on the other hand, in the beginning he is dressed very professional and is very cocky. Towards the middle of the play you see them both starting to change a little, she starts being less "dumb" and dressing a little better, and John starts listening more to her and interrupting her less. And at the end of the play, you see a drastic change. Carol is now looking professional, speaking with stronger vocabulary, and she is not unsure of herself anymore. John, at the end of the play, you can actually tell the difference in his facial expressions, he is quite shocked at the new "Carol", and feels tricked and deceived. It might have been that the Carol could have just gotten smarter over time meeting with the professor, or that it was planned out from the start to trick him, that of which we will never know. 

Post #3: Colton Quick

Question 2:

It was either after we had started watching the play, or before we had started watching it, we were informed that on the actual play’s brochures it said “no matter who’s side your on, you’re wrong”. What is meant by this is that each character in the play is no better in their actions throughout the play, they are intended to be painted in the same light. Taking this into account I tried to watch the movie with this in mind, but to no avail. I saw myself getting more and more angry with the character Carol and her, what I felt to be, manipulations of Johns actions. Quickly I began to feel like the guy quoted in Elaine Showalter’s article that said, “I nearly climbed up on the stage to kick the shit out of the little bitch myself.” Definitely, it was hard for me to see John as anything but the protagonist, and Carol as the blood-boiling antagonist. Yes, I did see some of John’s mishaps in the play, such as his disregard for education that it is “systematic hazing”; a view which I am very much opposed to. But, I just could not get over Carol’s manipulations and bending of the truth to achieve her goals, I mean she tried to censor the books he was using. It was the last straw when she tried to convict him of rape. If Mammot was trying to bring about the balance of characters by having John beat the crap out of Carol at the end, I feel like he built up the audience’s hatred of Carol’s character too much. The beating was seen as more of a “way to go” moment rather than to bring the audience to a less biased stance on the two characters. Unless you really scour the play and pick out all of John’s faults, it is really hard to see the character’s perspectives presented fairly. I mean I think John was missing the point on why Carol was upset and tried to appeal to her by inciting his family rather than the real issue, rather than apologizing for mocking the institution of education. All this, though, is overshadowed by Carol’s actions.

Question 3:

This play is a great example of how authors reveal characters be other means than words or actions. At the beginning the character, Carol, is wearing baggy clothes, looking disheveled and like she just rolled out of bed. Whereas John is in full suit, looking professional. It is in this act, act I, that John was had the upper hand as an intellectual; his clothing added to this position as it fit his intellectual rendering. Carol, though, couldn’t understand the words he was saying and was seen as a failing student; her dress in this act created the sense of, “no wonder she is failing look at the way she is dressed. In subsequent acts Carol’s clothing start to improve as she takes a more aggressive stance, and with this clothing change comes a surprising improvement of her intellectual ability. It is as though her changing wardrobe gives the audience a sense of the stance that Carol will be taking, or what her personality will be. For example, in the third act she is decked out in a full suit with her hair all slick, complete with her groups “symbol” on her lapel. In this act she is using technical language and has a surprising knowledge of the legal system, she is also a lot more aggressive and militant so to speak. I feel Mammot, the author, is using Carol’s dress here to set the tone or theme of the act, or paint a picture of the character’s attitude within that is not explicitly stated. This contrasts John in subsequent acts who get increasingly disshoveled, losing his stance of power. In this play, in particular, the author is using dress to set the tone of the act and show how the characters are feeling in their heads about their situation; whether or not they are feeling confident or not, for example.

Blog Post # 3 Alisia

Question 3:

When you meet someone the first thing you see is them, how they look and what they are wearing. The first time we see Carol, she has on plain jeans and a big sweatshirt. The first time we see John he has on a nice suit. She looks like a student trying to get by, while he looks like a successful teacher. When Carol was in his office, asking for help, she had an innocent and confused look about her. She looked like she really didn't understand what was going on in the class. Then as the film went on, she started dressing nicer and using big words. She would also move around his office instead of just sitting in a chair like he told her to. At the end, she was dressed very nicely and looked smarter, this went well with how she was acting. When John tried to explain things to Carol he would walk around his office, always looking confident. He was always patient with her and would use real world experiences to help her understand. Later in the film, he looked more worn down and would have less patience.   

One thing I found interesting was that when she asked him why he was helping her and he said that it was because he liked her, she would repeat it as if to point out that he said it. You would think that he should have realized that she was focusing on things like that. 

Blog#3"Oleanna"

Q #5:J.K Curry (“David Mamet's Oleanna as Commentary on Sexual Harassment in the Academy”) asserts that "The problem with Oleanna is that it is not really, or not primarily, about sexual harassment at all, ut rather about false allegations. Or, perhaps more accurately, about exaggerated or distorted claims of harassment, for John actually has said or done many of the things in Carol's report, though in slightly different context. The work obscures the issue of sexual harassment by suggesting that sexual harassment is really a ploy of militant feminists to disempower and destroy white, middle-class, male academics. (The article as a whole offers a Marxist/feminist analysis of the play.)

Do you agree with Curry? If so, how and where does the play argue that sexual harassment is simply a tool of disempowerment meant to destroy those with more power and cultural cache (educated white males being a major such group)? Be sure to quote directly from the article.

 

A: I do somewhat agree with Curry. "In the play 'Oleanna' it suggests that the play is really about feminist wanting to dis empower white, middle class males." I do agree with this statement. Carol wants nothing more than to dis empower John by taking away everything he's worked so hard to obtain. His career, families happiness, book and 10year. Simply by using the rape card and accusing John falsely he will lose it all. Which makes us, the audience hate Carol's character. We know nothing about Carol, other than her being in Johns class. And with all her ridiculous claims she loses the audiences credibility." People actually cheered when John was hitting Carol." Although Carol might have deserved the beating, It is never right to lay a hand on anyone. So I somewhat think John should get a punishment for hitting Carol. It is against the law. Even though sexual harassment can be used as a tool to get what one wants, it should never be used at such an extent to ruin someones life. In the end "Oleanna" is a play where you cannot take sides, you'll be wrong on either side. "Oleanna" is in fact not really about sexual harassment but rather about false allegations and manipulative characters who have exaggerated and disorted claims. It makes us question both characters credibility. 

Carson's Blog post 3

Question 5: 

In the play Oleanna, Carol uses the expectations of society to her advantage and, may or may not intentionally, devises a plan to approach John’s breaking point. She goes about this in various steps so she does not give herself away in the first meeting.  Carol disguises herself, portraying a girl who dresses unprofessionally and has no idea what went on in class. These acts make John underestimate her, allowing Carol to catch him by surprise when she suddenly accuses him of sexual harassment and attempted rape. J.K Curry announces that “If an institution handles accusations without regard to due process or if an administration attempts to stifle use of controversial material in the classroom out of fear of harassment charges, the academic freedom of all instructors at the college could be weakened.” Carol makes her complaints to the school; the school doesn't need to follow due process and is in complete control of John’s job. These accusations corner him in a small spot where his field of options is greatly minimized; John is losing a lot of power of which he had a firm grasp on before meeting Carol.  With all his freedom being stripped away from him, the final moments he comes to realize that he has only one more option. By physically hurting her he gets satisfaction and a sense of power,  however, the situation is ironic because by doing that his is actually giving her abuse statement more power.  

The US has built a country in which the act of violence is seen as unnecessary and is known to be punished through the state’s judicial system.  I am in no way saying this shouldn't be the way, but mankind needs a way to fight, it is an instinct no one can ignore. The system has merely shifted the way we fight, with words, not fists, damaging the inner body, not the skin. The instinct to physically hurt others who threaten us is still there, one just has to get angry enough to lose control of their civilized self.    

Mikael's Blog #3

Question 3: After seeing the physical transformation between Carol's choice of clothing between the acts, it seems that she was using her earlier clothing to make John think of her a certain way.  In this case, she was trying to make him think of her as the silly girl who didn't know what she was doing.  It's interesting that we were talking about John's inherent dishonesty in the intentions of asking her to his office multiple times.  We saw that he was only interested in getting her off his back, so he could continue the path to tenure.  However, as the play progressed, John's visage continually became more shabby and unprofessional.  As Zach mentions in his blog, by the third act John lights up cigarettes and drinks alcohol in his office.  This in itself shows the great amount of stress that's being pushed onto John in this small space of time.  He is a defeated man, and I could only wonder if there was any modicum of guilt in his actions.  While he may have been inviting her in to get her off his back, he was still begging her to let him go.  It's easy enough to think that the entire situation wasn't effecting him at all, but he did spend two days in a hotel thinking about it.

Blog Post #3

Question 2:
I actually would have to agree with Mamet in saying that "no matter what side you choose, you are wrong." I agree with him because I believe that the characters are so much more complex than we originally think they are and there are two main characters so it's basically 50/50 for what side you choose. Not to mention, that since it is so easy to side with the professor, and hate on Carol, it almost seems that you have to second guess yourself and realize that maybe instead you should automatically side with the professor but that you should agree with Carol.
When it comes to having to decide between choosing who the protagonist and antagonist is, in this case, I almost feel like it can go hand in hand. Me personally, I think that the professor is the protagonist because in the movie, as a character I believe that his character was more developed than Carol's character. With the professor, we were able to get a little inside scoop with his personal life such as his wife, his son, buying a new house, and just how important his 10 year and job was to him. But when it comes to Carol, we don't know really anything about her. She says she was in his class and that she would talk about her "group" but we don't know for sure if she was really in his class and what type of group she was really involved in. I would name the professor the protagonist and Carol the antagonist.

Sydney Witt

Kathryn Blog post #3

The concept that a character can be developed deeply through their appearance makes a good amount of sense to me. When you meet a person for the first time before they even say anything you have most likely gotten a glimpse at who they are by their facial expressions and personal style. Similarly we can learn a lot about Carol and John by the way they dress and act. In the beginning Carol is portrayed as a dowdy and helpless student. Her clothes and attitude make her seem as though she has complete lack of confidence. Her speech shows that she is not the brightest and is very confused. On the other hand John is portrayed as a very well put together and successful man. His speech is intellectual and he exudes confidence. Throughout the entire first act it is clear that John has control of the setting. Now into the second act you see the complete reversal or control. Carol is dressing more confidently, she no longer has her glasses and frumpy clothes, and speaks with a larger vocabulary. This very drastic and sudden change makes it hard to believe that the original Carol is the true one. It made me think that she had been planning all along to manipulate John. As she goes deeper into control you see John's character begin to deteriorate. He no longer is dressed in a suit and tie. He looks disheveled and tired, speaking less fluently and appearing more desperate, until he finally falls into her trap and beats her. In defense of Carol, I do see how some of John's actions could lead to her believing he was sexually harassing her. The closing of doors and talk of private sessions were unsettling, and along with his grabbing her by the shoulders or insisting her to sit seemed he had other motives. While these are understandable caution cues, Carol took the situation too far with the accusation of rape.

Zach's number 3

Carol right away is presented in her appearance as sort of a slob-looking girl who one could imagine to play in a grunge band in a garage somewhere, which immediately made me discredit her intellect as a serious college student before actually knowing her scholastic abilities.  John, on the other hand, is shown as a groomed, proper, suit-wearing professor surrounded by big books in his office and is shown talking about buying his big new house; a sign of his superior success.  In act 1, my impression of Carol further deteriorated every time she asked a question, which was almost constantly, and really reminded me of a young child constantly questioning "what" and "why" to everything.  Instead of really getting annoyed by the constant interruptions to his probably self-thought majestic speeches, John uses these questions as fuel to boost and praise his own grand, full of himself intellect.  I also thought it interesting how the camera often focuses on John's hands, particularly his wedding ring, which makes me as the viewer sympathize with his character more simply because I know more about his background than I do Carol's, whose is rather mysterious and unknown.  Another oddity is when the professor almost randomly states "I am not your father" and later says he talk to Carol as he would talk to his own son.  Carol is taken aback by these statements and throughout the act is constantly trying to escape both John's physical (but definitely not sexual) advances toward her and the actual confines of his office, only to be nearly forced to stay by another one of John's rambling speeches or the physical blocking of the door.  All-in-all, throughout act 1, Carol is portrayed as a rather stupid, confused student who is constantly retreating from John's continual physical and spoken advances, though the roles between these two characters almost completely switch in the second half of the play.  All of a sudden, Carol is presented as this suit-wearing, neat woman with a newly found vocabulary, where John is now physically and mentally disheveled, actually lights up a cigarette and drinks alcohol in his office, and seems totally defeated leading up to-or until-his retaliation of physical violence at the end.  By the end of the play, Carol never states that she doesn't understand one of John's comments or big words like in act 1, and is now the one who is literally backing John up against the wall and now "teaching" him a lesson.

Blog Post 3 Sydney Thiessa

QUESTION 3

At the beginning of Oleanna, the characters of Carol and John are already set up just by first glance at their appearance. Carol looks like an ordinary college student, dressed casually with jeans and a sweatshirt, and wears her hair down. John looks like an ordinary college professor, dressed formally with a suit. The audience is led to believe whatever Carol and John say because their appearance develops their character. Other than physical appearance, Carol and John display certain body languages that develop their character. Carol sits with formal posture: back straight, hands crossed in her lap. This also contributes to her ordinary college student character, as well as her lack of aggressiveness in speaking (she is continuously interrupted by John and isn't able to explain herself). On the other hand, John strolls across his office with ease and authority, typical of an ordinary college professor. Then, the characters change in the middle and the end of Oleanna, especially Carol. Her clothing becomes more formal than casual, and almost masculine with a black blazer and black slacks. She wears her hair up instead of down, also masculine. As she takes away her femininity in her appearance, she also takes it away in her mannerisms. No longer is she weak and timid, but she is forceful in her verbal and body language. Carol brings herself up to John's level of authority and sophistication simply with appearance. She not only deceives the audience with this change, but also deceives John. Both the audience and John are no longer lead to believe that she is an ordinary college student, so she must have some sort of ulterior motive to being an ordinary college student. Carol is able to get what she wants with this change, which she would have never have been able to do at the beginning of the film. John still remains in his professor-appropriate attire, but towards the end of the film, his clothing and hair become slightly disheveled, indicating his exhaustion with Carol and her accusations of sexual harassment. He also moves less than in the beginning of the film and tends to stay at his desk until, of course, the violent fight at the very end of the film.

Blanca's Blog #3

Question 1: In the play Oleanna, for those who have taken the time to read between the lines, we find an even deeper meaning to the words and actions expressed here. We can say that in Oleanna, carol's cry of rape is somewhat of an American position we've created. When it comes to sexual harassment, we tend to base it on mainly age and sex. In example, this week on The View there was talk of how Carrie Underwood gave a kiss to her 12 yr-old fan Chase, whom said "let's do this lip to lip". The View made a good point of how this was innocent and cute, yet if it were Blake Shelton and a 12 yr-old girl fan America would consider it sexual harassment and wrong. So really, what is the difference between a man and a woman, is it simply because it is a woman its okay? In Oleanna, because men are often looked upon as the vast majority of people who are the cause of sexual harassment, Carol uses this to her advantage and creates a scene upon which if it were the other around wouldn't seem like such a problem. Through John, we get a look at another American issue, tenure. Although John clearly loves his job, he does let Carol know that he believes there is something wrong with the way that education is based on, on the subject of how much it cost, etc. By receiving tenure he is to keep his job until he retires, which in many case in America isn't the smartest choice by institutes. In many cases teachers who do receive tenure are educators whom don't really have a passion for teaching and are rather bad educators. There was actually a good documentary about this which I watched in High School, I forget the name. Oleanna definitely does show something that might happen more than we'd like between students and professors.

Blog Post #3

Question 5:

I do not have a clear black and white response to this article. Although, I do tend to agree with Curry more so than disagree. It is hard to think of sexual harassment and think that the victim may have deserved what happened. In Oleanna, Carol makes the audience feel as though she does deserve the eventual attack by John. As Curry says, "The audience can not maintain sympathy for the character as her claims grow preposterous". In my opinion, though, she drove him to this. She bantered back and forth with him constantly and in the second act, she came back to his office with an agenda. You could tell by her actions and her words that she was out to get him and to get his book taken off this list. Once she reveals this to him, this is when he starts to get angry. Carol takes this one step further by personally attacking him when he is on the phone with his wife. Once she says, "Don't call your wife baby." all hell breaks loose. To me, she completely instigated him and I believe this was her plan all along. Finally all of her allegations were one hundred percent true. She is trying to gain complete and total power over him and the future of his career with this statement and she does. Although, she already had control over his career previously, this was her way of gaining control over his personal life as well.  

Curry says "As sexual harassment has historically functioned as an impediment to women seeking access to education or certain employment opportunities, legal and other restrictions on harassing behavior logically have the effect of making the university and other arenas more readily hospitable to women."  This statement could not fit this play better. Carol uses her position as an "innocent woman" to completely play John and take advantage of him. She uses sexual harassment as a way to sabotage John's career. She tries to play the victim and takes it so far to make him actual attack her. 

While I do believe that Carol drove John to this, I stand in the belief that there is no occasion where it is acceptable for a man to hit a woman. I think she knew exactly what she was doing, but I was slightly disappointed that John eventually gave into her games. I wish that he had possessed the control to be the bigger person and not give into her allegations. If he could just accept what she had done, he could walk away an innocent man and convince the ten-year board that nothing had actually happened because it was just her word against his and he was obviously a respected man at the university. I wish that Carol's devious plan was not successful and while I wish he hadn't attacked her, I do believe she had it coming. 

Question 3 Andrea Morrison

Question 3: As your text says in the chapter “Character”, “Authors reveal characters by other means [than words and actions]. Physical descriptions can indicate important inner qualities; disheveled clothing, a crafty smile, or a blush might communicate as much as or more than what a character says. Characters can also be revealed by the words and actions of others who respond to them” (117). Consider both Carol and John’s clothing, general physical appearance, body language, and facial expressions. How do these things contribute to their character development? Consider especially Carol’s changing outfits and demeanor should you focus on her; you might think about John’s clothing, mannerisms, and how he moves in his physical space (as well as what that space looks like) if you focus on John.

Physical characteristics are an essential asset to human judgment and development. When initially meeting someone, before you have the opportunity to engage in any conversation, appearance is key. Instantly we evaluate someone’s clothes, hair color, facial expression, and so forth. Upon the opening of this movie we see Carol dressed in dull grungy clothes, with her hair pulled back and large round glasses. Physically she looks like an outcast but personally she seems closed off, insecure, and unsure. While discussing the course with Professor John she is constantly raising questions and seems easily overwhelmed; her facial expressions appear frantic as she scurry’s through her text book and notes. During their first meeting John is dressed professional and appears calm and rational even though chaos is erupting around him concerning his new home. John comes off as almost arrogant as he is consumed with his own self confidence when discussing the topics of his book, class, and ten year. Carol remains distressed throughout the first two parts of this movie claiming “she does not understand” and is constantly acts as the “damsel in distress.” Carol continues to appear weak and intangible claiming John has sexual harassed her during their first meeting. Here we begin to see a shift of power as Carol begains to appear mentally strong and forceful when her and John speak alone but once they are in the eye of the public she once again appears flustered. By the end of the movie the roles of power have switched; physically Carol appears strong in a suit and holds her head high as she talks to John. Carol can often be seen physically cornering John as he attempts to make sense of the accusations at hand. John appears physically disastrous with messy hair, ripped and dirty clothes, and attempts to drink or smoke multiple times throughout their last conversation. Physical appearance is an instant way we judge one another, although not always accurate, we can easily tell if someone is tired, stressed, or calm. Physical appearance in this movie is strongly associated with power and confidence and can be proven through every scene in this film.

BLOG POST 3 QUESTIONS (Due by Sat 9/29)

*** I've posted some audience reactions/clips that may be of interest to you as/when you answer the questions below. Certainly feel free to comment on them/use them/link them/reference them. I like, and I know a lot of you do as well, video feed and commentary that adds a nicely multidimensional element to the conversation.

Question 1: Marxist theorist Georg Luka´cs, a Russian formalist, believed that “a detailed analysis of symbols, images, and other literary devices would reveal class conflict and expose the direct relationship between the economic base and the superstructure reflected in art. [This is] known as reflection theory. This approach to literary analysis declares that a text directly reflects a society’s consciousness . . . For these theorists, literature is a part of the superstructure and directly reflects the economic base. By giving a text a close reading, these critics believe they can reveal the reality of a text and the author’s Weltanschauung, or worldview. It is the critic’s job to show how the characters within the text are typical of their historical, socioeconomic setting and the author’s worldview.”

Using the general idea of reflection theory, explain how the characters in Oleanna reflect real-world (and American) ideas, problems, concerns, beliefs (for example, how does the play reveal anxieties about higher education? The tenure system? How does the play reflect concerns about sexual harassment in the workplace (its use as a “tool” to advance versus genuine accusation)? What does the play establish about students coming from a working class, or as Carol says, “a different social, a different economic” place and who endure “prejudices” that can be “economic” and “sexual” (among other things)? Basically, how does the play reflect the position of a lower-class student whose economic and sexual positions/preferences are outside the dominant ideal? What does the play establish about exploitation in the classroom that might mirror what can and does happen to students and professors? Etc. etc. What do you think the author’s worldview might look like based purely on Oleanna?

Question 2: In well known feminist theorist Elaine Showalter’s indictment of Oleanna ("Acts of Violence: David Mamet and the Language of Men"), “In making his female protagonist a dishonest, androgynous zealot, and his male protagonist a devoted husband and father who defends freedom of thought, Mamet does not exactly wrestle with the moral complexities of sexual harassment. What he has written is a polarizing play about a false accusation of sexual harassment, and that would be fair enough--false accusations of harassment, rape and child abuse indeed occur--if he were not claiming to present a balanced, Rashomon-like case. The disturbing questions about power, gender and paranoia raised in Oleanna cannot be resolved with an irrational act of violence.

Essentially, Showalter is saying that the characters are drawn so extremely that the play doesn’t accomplish what Mamet suggested it should (he tells us that, no matter who’s side your on, you’re “wrong”, which suggests their perspectives are presented fairly and in a balanced manner, making it difficult for us to determine who to favor). What do you think? Using Showalter’s article, make a determination about the nature of the protagonist/antagonist relationship here: who’s who?

Question 3: As your text says in the chapter “Character”, “Authors reveal characters by other means [than words and actions]. Physical descriptions can indicate important inner qualities; disheveled clothing, a crafty smile, or a blush might communicate as much as or more than what a character says. Characters can also be revealed by the words and actions of others who respond to them” (117). Consider both Carol and John’s clothing, general physical appearance, body language, and facial expressions. How do these things contribute to their character development? Consider especially Carol’s changing outfits and demeanor should you focus on her; you might think about John’s clothing, mannerisms, and how he moves in his physical space (as well as what that space looks like) if you focus on John.

Question 4: Scholar Richard Badenhausen (“The Modern Academy Raging in the Dark: Misreading Mamet's Political Incorrectness in Oleanna"), acknowledges that “In discussing the 1992 debut of David Mamet's Oleanna, audiences and critics tended to highlight two features of the play: its indictment of political correctness on college campuses in America and its treatment of sexual harassment, an issue made more potent then by the just-concluded October, 1991, Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings.¹ Both of these timely themes allowed spectators of varied political persuasions to take up the cause of the Left or Right via the play's two characters, characters polarized not only in their gender, but physically, generationally, and educationally.”

However, he argues that, “Oleanna ultimately explores the perils of inferior teaching and the subsequent misreadings that necessarily follow in a pedagogical environment that tacitly reinforces (instead of collapsing or bridging) hierarchical differences amongst its participants. In fact, this is more a play about teaching, reading, and understanding: how to do those things well and the consequences of doing them poorly. As such, Oleanna offers an ominous commentary on education in America and more particularly functions as a dire warning both to and about those doing the educating.”

Question 5: J.K Curry (“David Mamet's Oleanna as Commentary on Sexual Harassment in the Academy”) asserts that "The problem with Oleanna is that it is not really, or not primarily, about sexual harassment at all, ut rather about false allegations. Or, perhaps more accurately, about exaggerated or distorted claims of harassment, for John actually has said or done many of the things in Carol's report, though in slightly different context. The work obscures the issue of sexual harassment by suggesting that sexual harassment is really a ploy of militant feminists to disempower and destroy white, middle-class, male academics. (The article as a whole offers a Marxist/feminist analysis of the play.) 

Do you agree with Curry? If so, how and where does the play argue that sexual harassment is simply a tool of disempowerment meant to destroy those with more power and cultural cache (educated white males being a major such group)? Be sure to quote directly from the article.

Question 6: If one of the other articles particularly interested you, discuss it here. To do so, come up with a question about the play (and, you know, type it here) and use the article to answer it. You should of course name the article/author and provide a brief summary of it before you answer it. 

Preview of Oleanna

Preview of the film we just watched.

Blog Post #2: Roxy

Technology hates me. I'm posting this from someone else's phone, so maybe it will finally publish.

Question #1:

Moralizing is sometimes only effective through storytelling. For example, children do not usually have the capability of reasoning outside of provided examples, specifically in the case of right/wrong, good/bad, etc. However, I believe it possible to take that a step further, and argue that even adults take away more value from a moral tale than a "lecture". People inherently learn by example, and a story presents a "safe" opportunity for them to experience aspects of life that they have yet to experience, or are even afraid to experience. As for spoiling artistic value, I think that's very subjective. Granted, a story free of moralizing perspective may leave open interpretation for the reader and thus spawn "creativity" or whatever else, but at the risk of sounding entirely cynical, I don't believe that the majority of individuals are so artistically inclined that they would be able to invent and project meanings not already thought of by the author. The...published...author. My favorite example of this is most likely "Crime and Punishment" by Dostoevsky. The entire tale is essentially moralizing, and yet the artistic and entertainment value is unarguable. Then of course, there's also Wilfred. Greatest show ever!

Question #3:

From a strictly psychological perspective, Chekhov's story represents a truth unknown to many regarding the biological actions and feelings of men and women in romantic relationships. Years of clinical studies have yielded results proving that men are in fact the "romantic" ones in relationships: they fall in love more quickly, and stay in love for longer, but recover well from break-ups. Women, on the other hand, fall OUT of love more quickly, and take longer to fall in love, but take longer and harder recoveries after break-ups. Researchers state that the reason for this is that women are seeking a "provider" for their offspring, while men are trying to "spread their seed". Now, how does this relate to Chekhov's tale?

The fact that Chekhov allowed Gurov to reveal himself to readers through an objective point of view allows for the reader to draw conclusions based upon a single scenario presented to them instead of perhaps associating a moralizing tale with other similar scenarios they are already aware of, which may perhaps allow readers to view Gurov and his situation outside of concrete judgements society places upon such relationships and such individuals such as Gurov.

Post #2 Gerov!

Q#2
A: I definitely wouldn't have enjoyed the story as much, If there had been judgement's based on the character's actions. Especially if the story would end up with them being caught. The beauty of this story is the fact that Gurov and Anna can freely express themselves without any judgements or people frowning upon there actions. I appreciate it so much that Chekhov allows us to form our own developing characters Allowing the character to unfold freely . And making it almost impossible to judge them or their actions..

Q#3
A: Yes it is very easy to see and understand that Chekhov wanted Gurov to unfold and allow him to reveal himself his sensitive side to us the readers. Yes, sympathizing with Gurov is what i believe Chekhov aims at the most. And he succeeds at it. Well, at least for this reader. I truly felt a connection to Gurov. To understand and have compassion for Gurov is what I believe Chekhov wanted the reader to do. My point of view of this story is simply to not judge one another based on our love life. We all have had a time when we've wanted to do something that was looked down on as sinful. Yet we never will do it. But others do. Point being, don't judge. Live and let other's live freely.

el blog post numero 2- michael hernandez

So i logged on Saturday night and, in my sleepiness, misread the due date. Now I'm late, and sick, and headache plauged, and determined to make a good post. bear with me.

1)   I appreciated the way that Chekhov chose to present this story. I feel that any well developed story/characters are spoiled the moment the author directly moralizes a story. Doing this ruins any thinking that a reader has done for himself. Of course, sometimes the moral is completely obvious and is stated seemingly just to make it crystal clear for children or idiots, but in other cases where the moral may not be completely clear, its always best to leave it out.  Stating a stories moral is akin to adding a description to a Rorschach image  telling you what you're supposed to see.I believe that lessons stick to a person best when they are realized rather then revealed even though the same message is gained.

Checkhov's story is a great example of a story that does it right. I could be told that having an affair is bad, but in my mind, the only image i see is a big fat " disloyalty=bad". In this story, the end is left open, and i am left to imaging what might happen. i could picture things working out for a time, but then id begin to wonder: the husband is well off-hell have the means to find her. surely people will recognize either Gurov or Anna, and see what they're doing. do not all people who run away from a problem eventually get caught by it?  in the end, you can easily imagine what would happen to them, and the process of inferring leaves the lesson well planted in your mind, whatever it may be.

3) Whats great about Chekhov's story is that in order to involve the audience more, he reveals a lot about Gurov's point of view while remaining unbiased and untied to a moral. Because of this, we get insight to motivations  and can put ourselves in his place without knowing if hes right or wrong. The reasons for doing this are most likely tied to the simple fact that Chekhov wrote a story that most would give a moral. Rather than having the audience look at Gurov and thinking " OK, these emotions and thoughts and motivations are wrong because hes a bad guy" Chekhov uses this point of view to stabilize the plot and involve readers.

did any of this post make sense? its short and written by someone half-dead...

Blog #2!!! A. Leader

Question #2:
I believe that I would have appreciated "Lady with the Pet Dog" more if Chekhov showed them being penitent for their "sins" because it would have made the story a little more interesting if Gurov felt that there was something wrong with what he was doing. If he had shown that he new it was morally wrong and feeling guilty then I would also have felt sympathy for him but he was a very cold person throughout the story but I think it would have been more interesting because then it would have affected his known life with his wife. Then it could have continued on into the wife finding out about the affair.  Although, towards the end I really enjoyed how he was beginning to change since he fell in love with Anna; however, he did not realize he fell in love right away, it was later in the story after they had to part their separate ways. Anna, on the other hand, did show some remorse about the affair but, unfortunately, she continued to carry on with this affair she had with Gurov. I also believe that they should have done something about their affair if they truly did love each other. Secrecy gets old after a while, and I believe that they should have told their husband or wife. Then they could have been able to make it public and take it to the next step of possible marraige.

Question #3:
I do not believe that Chekhov wants us to sympathize about Gurov, I think he just wanted us to know his background and just simply understand who he is. I feel like if he really wanted us to feel sympathy for Gurov then he would have given a little more background on the wife and a better reason why he was having an affair rather than just stating that it was an arranged marraige, and she was narrow-minded. Reading this story, I felt more sympathy for Gurov's wife and Anna's Husband because of their obliviousness about the affair. Even though they did not know that anything was wrong, as the reader it is still heartbreaking to know that they are being cheated on. This point of view continually made me think about how I felt about their situation on the affair, whether it was right or wrong. In the beginning, I was getting frustrated because of Gurov's lack of emotion. It was annoying to think that someone could be that careless about his wife and about the affairs that were going on for many years; however, his character developed to be more loving and passionate when he met Anna so I really enjoyed the change in his character. My opinion of Gurov is still that he is careless because of the secrecy he continues to keep the affair and he keeps having the affair behind his wife's back. Therefore, it is still frustrating to me that everything that he loves in his life is remained in secrecy. As for me, I love sharing my happiness with others around me who are in my life so it is difficult to understand his situation and the reason behind him wanting to continue the secret affair.

post #2

1. I think that to some extent that having an obvious moral can be good, but to draw your own conclusions from certain works of art that leave the 'moral' unkown, can be a good way to create your own opinion. There are some movies that don't have a clear moral, and it's interesting to see different perspectives people have on the story.

2. The fact that the characters are not caught in their infidelity makes the reader envision their own ending and makes it more interesting to read. Sometimes stories are too predictable, which can be very boring. I can appreciate that the author left out certain judgements.

Blog assignment #2

Blog Assignment #2

"question 2"

I actually appreciated the story being portrayed just as it was. The progression of events and the growth of each character conveyed solely through his eyes was what I think I appreciated the most. I guess I find personal narrative like that more attractive than stories told from an omniscient point of view. And honestly I don't feel there was a place for the characters to be "penitent for their sins" in this story. It didn't seem like there was supposed to be a moral waiting for you at the end, because after all, it was a happy ending (or at least it would appear so for the two main characters judging by what we were shown) It seemed as though the author purposely left out that part of their journey together because it was irrelevant to their destination. He even says something the effect of "..And it seemed as though in a little while the solution would be found, and then a new and splendid life would begin.." However, I don't think he is trying to glamorize the notion of having an affair either because he clearly paints a picture of his and hers inner struggle through out the story. You clearly see their individual, and collective guilt about the events they go through. Morality is subjective to each person, and that being said I can see why some people would think it unnecessary to try and write stories with that premise. Life will never work out to be a clear cut series of events with a climax and a resolution. You are only left with a fog of emotions and thoughts, the person you are, and the circumstances you are in etc. through all that you make your own decisions and try for what you want. That's how I think this story was meant to be taken in. You travel through this journey with him, and are free to make up whatever you want from it and draw your OWN morals. That's our only choice anyway.

"question 3"

I think we needed Gurov to tell us this story because without him we would not have truly understood it. It's not always enough to know what happened(because sometimes "what happens" isn't even necessarily the story) you need to know how they became the people they are in order for them to transition into the people they become. And, we needed to understand how Gurov was going to take Anna into himself. In this story, we get three different versions of Gurov that are all important. You have the person he was that made him who he is as he was telling it, who he is "now", and who he became. That kind of depth truly adds to the story, and perhaps begs a little on the author's part for the slightest of sympathy.

Blog Post 2 - Johnny P

Question #2

I would have appreciated "The Lady with the Pet Dog" more if Chekhov had showed the character's being penitent for their "sins" or suffering the consequences of their actions. It's not right for our society to be reading this story of an adulterous affair and realize these characters lives are much better for it.

Question #3

I don't believe Chekhov necessarily wants the readers to sympathize with Gurov as much as simply to understand his motives. Using a limited third person point of view, the narrator is detached from any opinion or judgement and has a very nonchalant way of telling the story. This unbiased way does affect the readers' opinion of Gurov as no judgements are made against him, influencing the reader to keep an open mind and sympathize with his motives.

blog post #2

Question 5.

I enjoyed both versions of the lady with the pet dog very much, they both had ways of making me feel very sorry for the characters. I did favor Chekhovs over Oates version though just because Gurov isn’t an emotional wreck, he’s a lot more composed through the story which I feel comes from him having multiple affairs before his affair with Anna. Also Chekhovs version was easier to follow the story started from the beginning unlike like Oates who jumped around and made the story hard to follow.

Question 6

I believe Oates offered up her side of the story because in Chekhovs it only shows Gurovs point of view, there are some parts where you see what Anna is going through you can tell she’s very sad and ashamed with herself for having an affair but you do not actually see where she comes from or the true emotion through her eyes. I feel Oates version is meant to accomplish in depth of what Anna is feeling something that wasn’t that emotional to Gurov became something very emotional through the Anna’s perspective. which I feel is the case in real life also women are almost always more emotional than men. I think the female perspective needed to be developed to show why Anna fell for another man while still being married. It isn’t an easy thing to make the reader feel somewhat sorry for the situation Anna is in. Most people would say she is a cheater and see her as nothing more than that but Oates had a way of making me see past it being morally wrong because in the end I just wanted to see Anna fall in love and be happy.

Blog post #2 by Valeria

2. I enjoyed reading The Lady with the Pet Dog the way that Chekhov had intended to write it without a moral or any judgement put upon any of the characters. I liked how he gave the reader the chance to make up their own minds and opinions about the story and the characters instead of telling the reader what to think or feel. I don't normally like stories that don't have a proper ending but I liked how this story gave the opportunity to interpret the story in their own way.
3. I think that Chekhov wanted the audience to understand Gurov as a person and the reason behind his wanting to cheat on his wife. I believe that is why he wrote the story in the point of view of Gurov so that the audience can relate and better understand his motives and thoughts throughout the story. If the author hadn't written in this way I most likely would not have sympathized with Gurov because I would not have known why he did what he did.

Blog Post # 2: Alisia

1) I think that combining "art" with moralizing can be a good thing or a bad thing. If there is more to the book/ movie than just the moral then it can be a good thing. When reading or watching a movie, people want to be able to think for themselves, they could see the story one way while someone else sees it a different way. If we are told the moral and that's it, there is no entertainment in that for us. We are told what happened and how we should see it. If the reader/ watcher has to think for themselves and come up with the moral, I think they would respect and understand it more even if it's different from what someone else got. 

6) I really enjoyed Oates's version of the story. In Chekhov's version you got to see everything from the man's point of view. You knew that he had affairs often. In Oates's version you see it from the woman's point of view, you don't know that he has affairs often so you see him as this nice guy who talked to her. During the whole story, Anna is conflicting with herself. She isn't truly happy with her life and husband so she has an affair. She knows it's wrong and knows that she should stop but she doesn't really want to. In the end, she realizes that she is not being unfaithful because in her heart she is married to her lover.

2nd Blog Assignment!

4. If you read both versions (and yay for you, for you're bound to learn much more about how point of view works if you do), discuss the ordering of events (plot stuff). Which seems more effective to you? Effective how? Is one more emotionally arresting than the other? More logical? Less so? (i.e., is the organization of events/highighting of particular moments and places related or parallel to the uneven and highly emotional state of the female protagonist?)

A: I read both versions of "The Lady With The Pet Dog", and found them both very interesting. Chekhov's version was very "put in order", the story begins with Gurov meeting the lady, them having the affair and then going their separate ways and then back to the affair again. But in Oates version, the story starts off with Anna seeing her lover at a theatre and freaking out and then goes into how they met 6 months ago. I think the Oates version was more effective because i feel like Gurov had no guilty feeling towards the affair. Anna, however, was having a hard time excepting herself after what she did. She even seemed a bit suicidal. The Oates version is definitely more emotionally arresting than Chekhov's version, the whole story was about how she felt and in Chekhov's Gurov never expressed his feelings.

2.  Do you think you would have appreciated “The Lady with the Pet Dog” more or less if Chekhov judged his characters or showed them either being penitent for their "sins", caught by their significant other(s), or suffering the consequences of their actions? Or, do you appreciate it more in the sense that the moralizing is left to you as the author simply develops his characters rather than judging them (this is much like Question 1, but it of course asks you to respond directly to what we're reading than more generally).

A: I think it would have definitely made the story more interesting if Chekhov would have caught by their significant others, because we are now left wondering if they will ever get caught. Asking ourselves how long they kept the relationship a secret or did they eventually tell their spouses or did they just decide break off the affair. I liked the story how it is, but would have liked it more if they would have gotten caught. Being that Chekhov did not judge his characters in the story, it kind of made me feel like Gurov and the lady were not guilty because they truly loved each other, but i know it is wrong regardless if they are in love or not. 

Blog # 2

2.  I think that I appreciate :The Lady with the Pet Dog" the way it is. I believe that we should have our own opinions of the characters and the story in general. It's also very creative that Chekov wrote the story this way. I personally think that it is very wrong that the characters cheated on both of their significant others but there might be some who believe that they don't think that it is wrong for them to cheat because they were in love.

6. ]I think that Oates offered her revision to give us a different outlook on this story. There is always another side to every story available. Everyone likes to have their own opinions and views. I think that it was good of her to give us the female view of the story because the affair involved both the man AND the woman. not just the man alone.

Blog #2, by Carson Blessinger

Question 2.

I appreciate the fact that Chekhov left judgment and opinions out of the short story and simply told the plot as it would be seen though any observer. It gives the reader more to think about and question the story as it relates to the reader. The short story can be seen as being general because Chechov left out consequences of the characters sins or a resolution to the affair, therefor we are left to draw our own conclusions and are able to relate it to our own lives. These lovers’ story can be seen as didactic, giving warning to other curious people out there that cheating may not end in total loss of contact or emotion.

Question 3.

Chekhov might have wanted us to see how complex and tight of a situation Gurov is in. Marriages seem to lose their touch after a while, husbands and wives become bored of each other and seek out the excitement of finding another mate while still carrying out their marriage. Most affairs may be to ‘blow off steam’ or take a break from normal everyday life. The cheaters don’t wish to find anything serious, however, Gurov is taken hold by love and cannot seem to eradicate the new girlfriend from his mind. His emotions constantly call for her but Gurov has a stable family and home that could quickly be torn away from him if he continues this love. Gurov’s mind is in a tug-of-war between his family and, supposedly, the love of his life, we are simply to understand this and heed Chekhov’s warning that we could be in a similar situation of we choose to. In the end Gurov asks himself the unanswerable question of how to balance his life to have both the woman and his wife and family.  The point of view in this story allows us to hear Gurov's thoughts and emotions which doesn't make you hate or love Gurov, but it does create a sort of pity feeling for him. He is struck by love but cannot abandon his home.