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.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteSome very good insight here. You write, "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"." You highlight some real irony here, and it's not clear whether Carol realizes that, she's simultaneously ruining one person's realization of that dream in pursuit of her own (though she does say she's "profit[ting] nothing from [his] misfortune" (i.e., what she's doing isn't going to advance her personally).
This, too, is an excellent point, one I want to highlight for everyone: "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."
You're right - history is full of vixens, sirens, harpies, bitches, and Medusas. More. Carol embodies some of the same stereotypes and characteristics these long-studied women (real and fictional) have exhibited. Consider Helen of Troy, whose visage turned the outcome of a major war and the mythical Sirens, whose song caused men to crash their ships into the rocks. These examples do no justice to a rich historical tradition of women who disarm/harm/ruin/kill men with their feminine wiles, but I love your point that Mamet hasn't done enough with Carol for her to surmount this history, to demonstrate how/why her perspective IS valuable (and it is, really, but she undermines it with her behavior). Looking at her character in this way is an excellent beginning to using feminist literary criticism to analyze the play.