4.
Yes, I think that Mamet defiantly builds up empathy with John. At first I thought that it was very rude that he kept answering the phone and interrupting his meeting with Carol, but each time he answered the phone it was to say he could not talk. The phone calls made the reader aware of his family life, that he had a wife and kids, that he's life was going in a new direction because he is about to be granted tenure, and that he is going thought the process of buying a house. It is the only interaction that is made besides John and Carols conversation made during the play. It sets John up as being someone who finally just hit the big time and life is starting to look much better for him. Things could not be better for the professor. Despite all the phone calls he appears to be a good teacher making time to help his student. This throws the reader for a spine when Carol starts making claims against trying to hurt his career and family. So naturally John is the one that receives the empathy right away.
8.
I think that it is really cool that they treated Carol and John as two separate features to the play and that it said "Whatever you think/ Whichever side you choose, you're wrong". It made me step back and I was reminded that, "Hey this is English, no this is art! There is no right or wrong answer." There is no secret way in which Oleanna and be interpreted or analyses that proves one hundred percent that there is a right or wrong answer. The only bad argument is one made without any defense. The only way to figure things out is to try to understand Mamet's intent, and I do not believe his intent was to make the audience side complete with one person. He wants people to walk away from the play and say those two people were both evil. Both John and Carol are in the wrong, there are both sinners. Both of them are equally to blame. There is not right or wrong person in this play. Both are wrong.
Having said this, it is what I think, and if you refer back to the program that means that I am wrong.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Week Seven-Everyday Use
In "Everyday Use" Maggies flaws are shown to the reader from the onset. The physical scares are pointed out clearly to teh readers. There is the emotional scares as well. Maggie has been left disfigured because of a fire. She fells she is less of a person then her sister Dee.
Dee, is presented as being "flawless" in every way. Dee, is light skined, attractive,stylish, well educated, and has great hair. These traits are to suggest that Dee is superior to Maggie. This is a culture thing in this race being suggested. That the color of your skin (lighter) will help you go further in society.
Mrs. Johnson has contributed to Maggies lack of self worth by collecting funds to send Dee off to college, but not Maggie. Towards the end of the story Mrs. Johnson finally stands up to Dee in defence of Maggie by snaching the quilts from Dee.
Dee and Maggie are oppisite of each other in the subject of roots and family.
Dee, is presented as being "flawless" in every way. Dee, is light skined, attractive,stylish, well educated, and has great hair. These traits are to suggest that Dee is superior to Maggie. This is a culture thing in this race being suggested. That the color of your skin (lighter) will help you go further in society.
Mrs. Johnson has contributed to Maggies lack of self worth by collecting funds to send Dee off to college, but not Maggie. Towards the end of the story Mrs. Johnson finally stands up to Dee in defence of Maggie by snaching the quilts from Dee.
Dee and Maggie are oppisite of each other in the subject of roots and family.
Week # 6 Questions 1 & 10
1. In the first scene established with Carol and John is a great insight to their characters. My impression of John is a busy man, so he really wasn't interested in anything except his personal life.He gave the impression that he was preoccupied with his home purchasing, and Carol questions became irritating. Carol gave the impression of a passive aggressive student, needing help. There is defiantly miss communication, between the two characters. All together this scene describes a tension filled conversation that took place at the wrong time.
10. As the argument grew bigger, I think the lines had already been crossed. Both characters had already engaged in professional and personal conversion in a way. In a way I think his reaction was natural to her rude comment. John had already held back his true anger, throughout the entire conversion, and I think he lost it when she made that rude comment. In a way I think his irritation was displaced from his personal life, and he was already at the level beyond anger.
10. As the argument grew bigger, I think the lines had already been crossed. Both characters had already engaged in professional and personal conversion in a way. In a way I think his reaction was natural to her rude comment. John had already held back his true anger, throughout the entire conversion, and I think he lost it when she made that rude comment. In a way I think his irritation was displaced from his personal life, and he was already at the level beyond anger.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Week Seven
My personal definition of love is: Love is an action and not a feeling. An action that is selfless towards yourself and endless towards another. What do I mean? When you love someone you show it in your actions. You stop worring about what you can get from someone you love. Instead you worry about how you can show the person that you love that you love them. In terms of what love is and how it contributes to one's worldview I would say it effects how one would see the world. If you hate everyone you would see the world though hate vs. love. Love holds the world together.
Week 7
“Everyday Use” Questions #3/ “Kasper Hauser” Question #3
In, “Everyday Use”, the author does a great job of making the reader aware of Maggie’s imperfections from the beginning. Pointing out her physical scars from the fire that burnt down the family’s house, assigning her personality to traits of shame and envy, and describing her walk as that of a lame animal are only a few of the ways we are introduced to the character of Maggie.
Dee, on the other hand is someone who is obviously much superior to Maggie in every way. “Dee is lighter (referring to coloring of the skin) that Maggie, with nicer hair and a fuller figure” (356) is one of many ways that Dee is portrayed as a much better person. All of these words make the reader feel sympathy and pity for Maggie, but also bring about high expectations for Dee.
Would anyone truly want to be Dee? Although Maggie holds shame in her scars, the shame Maggie holds for her family and home is far more deplorable. The mother, speaking of Dee says, “She wrote to me once that no matter where we “choose” to live, she will manage to come see us. But she will never bring her friends” implying that Maggie has a lack of respect, understanding, and appreciation for the heritage that she has. Maggie appears to be intelligent, but lacks the empathy needed to truly connect with those around her.
Obviously indoctrinated, when Dee arrives at the house for a visit in the story, she has changed her name, and renamed herself, suggesting that her former name was a reminder of oppression. Although her mother can trace the name back to before the Civil War, Dee insists on the new name. In a miraculous turn, Dee insists on having some items from the house that she now finds “priceless”, quite contradictory to her previous claims regarding her name and her distain for their home. When Dee inquires about the quilts, she again behaves with abandon for others’ feelings and hurls accusations at Maggie. Maggie graciously obliges and gives her the quilts, but not before the mother realizes what virtue abounded in her other daughter. She insists on Maggie having them.
“I can ‘member Grandma Dee without the quilts”, and “This was Maggie’s portion” are two of the most powerful lines in the story and punctuates everything about Maggie that is wonderful, understanding, humble, and giving. Not once does Maggie falter about who she is or where she comes from, and not only does this exude from her in the story, but she is content to be who she is and aware of her being so. So, once again, who would want to be Dee?
First and foremost, "Kasper Hauser" lost his life for seventeen years. In speaking of this unimaginable horror and cruelty, it is summed up best by the words “For it was only in leaving myself behind that I saw what I had been, although it is equally true that by the time I was able to see myself at all, I had already advanced so far that when I glanced back I was scarcely visible.” In this loss of seventeen years, Kasper has left behind the shell of a human life and assumed an overwhelming transformation into normal society. This gain of a somewhat “normal” existence does imply the loss of his former life, but nobody would call this a loss by any means.
In the last few moments of his speech, Kasper reflects on his losses and gains in the few years that he has regained a human existence. He’s lost his nervousness, and gained a bit of confidence. He attributes this gain of confidence to a loss of childlike rapture at the world around him. His ability to learn has not faltered, yet his progress and zeal for learning have lessened. His sense of touch is normal after being hypersensitive, and the loss of this, undoubtedly, is helpful.
With the understanding of the monumental changes that have been made, he acknowledges the loss of who he was before. “Sometimes I feel that I am slowly erasing myself, in order for someone else to appear, the one I long for, who will not resemble me.” These words truly shine perspective on the whole process of his assimilation into “normal” society. As he broods over the uniqueness that set him apart from the average person, he longs to be among them -- to be common, and un-interesting. In his desperation to be normal, he has ignored the beauty of who he actually is.
Posting in Red and Blue
Hi all,
Just a request -- if you wouldn't mind, please post in colors other than red and especially blue (these are hard on the eyes and difficult to read, especially when the responses are long). You can use colors -- just use light ones -- the lighter the better, so the contrast between the typing and screen is much stronger.
Thanks,
Amy
Monday, September 28, 2009
Week 7 Discussion Questions
Discussion Questions Week 7: Communication
***available in BB as an attachment
What We Talk About When We Talk About Love:
1. Use a personal definition of love and analyze one of the character’s definitions of love in “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love”. Do they contradict one another? Complement one another? What do you think most contributes to one’s worldview in terms of what love is and what we ought to do with it?
2. Consider the analysis provided in this week’s lecture (in “Course Materials”). Did you interpret the story similarly? Why/why not? Does the analysis change your interpretation at all? Why/why not?
3. “Is this story optimistic or pessimistic about true love? Is the old couple a positive or a negative example of true love? What about Nick and Laura? What about Ed? Could you argue that he was in love?” (Making Literature Matter 685)
Everyday Use:
1. Consider the relationship between the story’s content and title. Ultimately, is “everyday use” a good thing? The narrator uses this term in the story itself, referencing the possibility that Maggie will receive the quilts. One sister has a very negative association with the idea that such items will be used “everyday”, and in a casual manner; the other appears to believe that such items should be used in order to demonstrate value – unused items have no value in Maggie and her mother’s household. Which definition of “everyday use” does the story, as a whole, appear to uphold?
2. Do you think the narrator is too biased to provide any kind of objective framework through which readers can view/understand her daughters? What do you attribute to the use of first-person narrative (and the fact that the narrator is someone so closely tied to the sisters) in terms of how you interpret the story?
3. “Although many students seem to prefer Maggie to Dee, most would probably rather be Dee than Maggie. Is this true for you? Why/why not?” Provide character analysis in your answer (Making Literature Matter 303)
4. Do you think it helps or hinders the social fabric to affirm ethnic differences? Do you think America is a melting pot? Is a quilt a better symbol to capture our diversity?” (Making Literature Matter 304)
Kaspar Hauser Speaks:
1. Interpret the following passage: “It’s as if I were nothing but a dream, a fantastic dream – your dream, ladies and gentlemen of Nuremberg. For whatever I may be, I who was buried deeper than the dead, I am always mindful how very much I am your creation . . . I have been formed in your image. I am you – and you – and you – I who only a few short years ago was lower than any beast” (Making Literature Matter 1086) Why/how does he consider himself formed in another’s image? What does he allude to when he suggests he’s been buried “deeper than the dead”?
2. Are you intrigued by Kaspar Hauser’s story? Do you find that you want to keep reading, or are you turned off by the narrative? In your explanation, consider structure: the author uses a “frame narrative” to concretize the story (here, within the confines of a speech to a group of people). How do you think you would have responded differently were the context NOT a speech but, say, a story told from an objective, third-person narrator?
3. “Kaspar notes the things he has lost. What are they? Do all gains imply loss? What does he gain by becoming civilized? What baggage comes with his new awareness of who he is?” (Making Literature Matter 1091)
4. ****Might Kaspar be a stand-in for the Other – the unconventional, the different, the outsider? If so, is there some irony in Kaspar’s advances? (Making Literature Matter 1091)
5. De Toqueville, the famous French observer, of early nineteenth- century American society, thought that a drawback to democracy was the tendency of small towns to move everyone to the middle – that is, to encourage conformity, to relentlessly urge every one to fit in. Btu what about those who don’t? What happens to them? Is this Kaspar’s problem?” (Making Literature Matter 1091)
****This question might be of particular interest to you if you are interested in post-colonial criticism, which highly values and interrogates concepts of identity and assimilation/internalization of a given society or group’s norms.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Alice Walker Interview
Here, she talks about the impact of war on children and her stance on war in general (she recently authored a children's book on war).
The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser: A full-length movie (with subtitles; it was originally in German) that won multiple awards when screened at the Cannes film festival. Interestingly, or perhaps ironically, the opening song is a traditional version of Pachabel's Canon, which is traditionally used in weddings (if you listen, you will indeed recognize the popular melody). If you link to it, you will see a notice advising the viewer of partial nudity, etc.
"Question of Logic" scene, Kaspar Hauser
Discussion Q's Week 6
4.
I sympathize with John. Perhaps the fact that his character had more development influenced me a little but what made me take his side the most was that we, as the audience, knew everything that was said or done while John and Carol were having their meetings. We knew that John didn’t really try to rape Carol and we heard exactly what he did and did not say to her. When Carol starts making accusations the audience is a witness and can think to ourselves, “No, that never happened!”
5.
I think John was revealing himself to Carol to try to show her that he understood where she was coming from. He felt they had similar life experiences –feeling stupid. He was just trying to connect with her but she obviously did not think he was. She thought he was mocking her perhaps or trying to change the subject and get her to focus on something else.
8.
I think the statement is saying that there is no way to take a side because there’s not enough facts to decide who is right or wrong. And both characters, John and Carol, honestly believe they are correct. And if you look at the situation through each of their character’s eyes you can see why and how they could believe what they do.
I sympathize with John. Perhaps the fact that his character had more development influenced me a little but what made me take his side the most was that we, as the audience, knew everything that was said or done while John and Carol were having their meetings. We knew that John didn’t really try to rape Carol and we heard exactly what he did and did not say to her. When Carol starts making accusations the audience is a witness and can think to ourselves, “No, that never happened!”
5.
I think John was revealing himself to Carol to try to show her that he understood where she was coming from. He felt they had similar life experiences –feeling stupid. He was just trying to connect with her but she obviously did not think he was. She thought he was mocking her perhaps or trying to change the subject and get her to focus on something else.
8.
I think the statement is saying that there is no way to take a side because there’s not enough facts to decide who is right or wrong. And both characters, John and Carol, honestly believe they are correct. And if you look at the situation through each of their character’s eyes you can see why and how they could believe what they do.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Oleanna Discussion Questions 3 and 5
3. Given the fact that the proposed lawsuit is based on the entire Act 1 interaction, discuss the events and comments that make up this interaction. Has Carol twisted John’s words? Is her lawsuit legitimate? Would it be legimitate in “real” life? On the other hand, has John, intentionally or otherwise, overstepped his bounds? How so? Remember that Carol’s accusations are not simply a matter of sexual harassment but of a perceived elitist, classist, and economic bias and privileging she feels John misuses.
The questions asks if Carol twists John's words and it doesn't appear as though she twists them, she just vastly misunderstands them. She even says herself that she has an issue with language. Her lawsuit is also so very unnecessary. To me, the exchange I saw in Act 1 was nothing more than a teacher attempting to understand a student, and in turn, have the student understand him. But what frustrated me so much was how stupid Carol seemed. I felt like grabbing her by the shoulders and yelling! Maybe to some John overstepped his boundaries, but in my opinion, he is just a human being and he was doing his best to understand a student that was misunderstanding him. The accusations she presents against John have somehow been planted in her head, because with the exchange in Act 1 there is no way she could've possibly gathered that information and derived that opinion.
5. What do you think of John’s decision to “reveal” himself to Carol, to confess weaknesses and sins? Are these revelations part of a genuine attempt to identify with Carol gone wrong? Conversely, are they disingenuous rhetorical moves designed to maneuver Carol where John wants her?
I said a little bit about this in my first post. I think he was just trying to show her that he was human. While reading this, I found myself siding with John, of course, I don't think Carol deserved the beating in the end, but I did find him the protagonist and her the antagonist. He was simply trying to prove to her that professors are humans too, and she even felt a tad of sympathy for him while he was speaking about his tenure, and his house, and his family. She totally manipulates his words to make it seem as though he said something worth prosecuting.
The questions asks if Carol twists John's words and it doesn't appear as though she twists them, she just vastly misunderstands them. She even says herself that she has an issue with language. Her lawsuit is also so very unnecessary. To me, the exchange I saw in Act 1 was nothing more than a teacher attempting to understand a student, and in turn, have the student understand him. But what frustrated me so much was how stupid Carol seemed. I felt like grabbing her by the shoulders and yelling! Maybe to some John overstepped his boundaries, but in my opinion, he is just a human being and he was doing his best to understand a student that was misunderstanding him. The accusations she presents against John have somehow been planted in her head, because with the exchange in Act 1 there is no way she could've possibly gathered that information and derived that opinion.
5. What do you think of John’s decision to “reveal” himself to Carol, to confess weaknesses and sins? Are these revelations part of a genuine attempt to identify with Carol gone wrong? Conversely, are they disingenuous rhetorical moves designed to maneuver Carol where John wants her?
I said a little bit about this in my first post. I think he was just trying to show her that he was human. While reading this, I found myself siding with John, of course, I don't think Carol deserved the beating in the end, but I did find him the protagonist and her the antagonist. He was simply trying to prove to her that professors are humans too, and she even felt a tad of sympathy for him while he was speaking about his tenure, and his house, and his family. She totally manipulates his words to make it seem as though he said something worth prosecuting.
Oleanna Discussion Questions
English 103 Blog #6
Oleanna Discussion Questions #2, #5
Oleanna Discussion Question #2
2) Consider the portion of the conversation (the first meeting) in which Carol offers up her reasoning, as it’s implied, for her performance in the class: “No, no, no. I’m doing what I’m told. It’s difficult for me. It’s difficult . . . I don’t . . . lots of the language . . . The language, the “things” that you say . . . It is true. I have problems . . . I come from a different social . . . a different economic . . . No. I: when I came to this school: . . . does that mean nothing . . . ?” (702-703). What is Carol trying to say? Are her points legitimate? (Consider the context in which she’s offering them). Why or why not?
In the play, Oleanna, written by David Mamet, the discussion between the professor John and the student Carol gets twisted from simple help to sexual harassment charges. There are many different theoretical standpoints that many people take when reading this powerful play, and it is amazing to read the many different analyses. I actually read Oleanna through a couple of times. I thought I was going to view the play through a feminist lens, but after reading it through a second time, I have changed my perspective. I took a psychology class two semesters ago, and I can definitely see some of Sigmund Freud’s influences, along with other evidences of psychoanalysis, in this dramatic play. However, this particular part of the conversation between Carol and John revealed a little bit of Carol’s past. This was one of the major and more important parts of the conversation that jumped out at me in the first act of the play. At first glance, it may seem like Carol is not saying a lot at all; in fact, it may just seem like she is just mumbling broken sentences about how is she struggling in school. However, there is meaning in these broken sentences, and it is these broken sentences that I would like to focus on.
If we focus on Carol’s part of the conversation with John, it is clear that it is very important because of the context of these broken sentences. In Oleanna, Carol states the following: “No no, no. I’m doing what I’m told. It’s difficult for me. It’s difficult… I don’t . . . lots of the language . . . The language, the “things” that you say . . . It is true. I have problems . . . I come from a different social . . . a different economic . . . No. I: when I came to this school: . . . does that mean nothing . . . ?” (Mamet 10). From a psychoanalytical perspective, it was easier for me to analyze these sentences because it seems like Carol suffered some type of abuse from her past. This is clear in the way that she is speaking to John, and by the way that she is stumbling over her sentences. Even though Carol said very little to John here, her words were full of meaning. Carol was trying to tell John that during sometime in her past, something happened to her as she has difficultly having to follow orders, or following what others tell her to do. It brings up some dark demon from her past. Carol states, “I’m doing what I’m told. It’s difficult for me” (Mamet 10). Furthermore, she states, “It is true. I have problems . . . I come from a different social . . . a different economic . . . No. I: when I came to this school: . . . does that mean nothing . . . ?” (Mamet 10). In this part of the conversation, Carol has a hard time admitting to John that she has some issues; furthermore, she is hinting at the type of background that she came from, and the way that she says it suggests that this is a painful part of her past that she would rather keep buried. However, due to the nature of the conversation between her and John, Carol felt that she should admit to John that doing everything he is telling her to do, even though this is difficult for her. Also, the fact that Carol emphasizes that she has problems should be a red flag that something traumatic probably has occurred to her in her past that is affecting her in the present. In just a few words, she is telling John that she has suffered (either emotional or physical abuse from her past), and that even though she has suffered, she has overcome those painful obstacles in her life and made it to that prestigious institution. And, this should mean something to the school, in Carol’s opinion. In a few words, on Carol’s part of the conversation, she points out that she has suffered some type of abuse that has shaped her into the type of person that she is in the present.
Yes, Carol’s points are legitimate, considering the context they are spoken through in the sentences. They are legitimate because she is a traumatized individual that is clearly affected by whatever occurred to her earlier in her life (whether it is some type of physical or emotional abuse). Carol points out that she is “doing what she is told” and that it is “difficult” for her. Furthermore, she admits that she “has problems” and that she came from a “different social and economic background” and that this should “mean something.” Carol’s side of the story is just as important – in this respect – as the professor’s. Her points are legitimate because it explains a lot about her character and about why she acts the way she does in the remainder of the play. In the remainder of the play, she acts confused, depressed, and lacks self confidence as she always refers to herself as “stupid” and that she will never understand what is going on (Mamet 12). This is probably why she made these accusations when she joined her “group”; they made her feel secure, safe and accepted. Furthermore, she would be officially accepted as part of their “group” if she pressed these charges, and she agreed. While I do not agree with how she made a huge list of false accusations against the professor, I can see why she did it, especially if she had these psychological problems. Therefore, Carol’s points in the conversation at the beginning of the play are legitimate, considering the context they are spoken in.
In the play, Oleanna, written by David Mamet, Carol’s stumbling reveals a dark demon from her past to John, and her points are just as legitimate as John’s are.
In the play, Oleanna, written by David Mamet, the discussion between the professor John and the student Carol gets twisted from simple help to sexual harassment charges. There are many different theoretical standpoints that many people take when reading this powerful play, and it is amazing to read the many different analyses. I actually read Oleanna through a couple of times. I thought I was going to view the play through a feminist lens, but after reading it through a second time, I have changed my perspective. I took a psychology class two semesters ago, and I can definitely see some of Sigmund Freud’s influences, along with other evidences of psychoanalysis, in this dramatic play. However, this particular part of the conversation between Carol and John revealed a little bit of Carol’s past. This was one of the major and more important parts of the conversation that jumped out at me in the first act of the play. At first glance, it may seem like Carol is not saying a lot at all; in fact, it may just seem like she is just mumbling broken sentences about how is she struggling in school. However, there is meaning in these broken sentences, and it is these broken sentences that I would like to focus on.
If we focus on Carol’s part of the conversation with John, it is clear that it is very important because of the context of these broken sentences. In Oleanna, Carol states the following: “No no, no. I’m doing what I’m told. It’s difficult for me. It’s difficult… I don’t . . . lots of the language . . . The language, the “things” that you say . . . It is true. I have problems . . . I come from a different social . . . a different economic . . . No. I: when I came to this school: . . . does that mean nothing . . . ?” (Mamet 10). From a psychoanalytical perspective, it was easier for me to analyze these sentences because it seems like Carol suffered some type of abuse from her past. This is clear in the way that she is speaking to John, and by the way that she is stumbling over her sentences. Even though Carol said very little to John here, her words were full of meaning. Carol was trying to tell John that during sometime in her past, something happened to her as she has difficultly having to follow orders, or following what others tell her to do. It brings up some dark demon from her past. Carol states, “I’m doing what I’m told. It’s difficult for me” (Mamet 10). Furthermore, she states, “It is true. I have problems . . . I come from a different social . . . a different economic . . . No. I: when I came to this school: . . . does that mean nothing . . . ?” (Mamet 10). In this part of the conversation, Carol has a hard time admitting to John that she has some issues; furthermore, she is hinting at the type of background that she came from, and the way that she says it suggests that this is a painful part of her past that she would rather keep buried. However, due to the nature of the conversation between her and John, Carol felt that she should admit to John that doing everything he is telling her to do, even though this is difficult for her. Also, the fact that Carol emphasizes that she has problems should be a red flag that something traumatic probably has occurred to her in her past that is affecting her in the present. In just a few words, she is telling John that she has suffered (either emotional or physical abuse from her past), and that even though she has suffered, she has overcome those painful obstacles in her life and made it to that prestigious institution. And, this should mean something to the school, in Carol’s opinion. In a few words, on Carol’s part of the conversation, she points out that she has suffered some type of abuse that has shaped her into the type of person that she is in the present.
Yes, Carol’s points are legitimate, considering the context they are spoken through in the sentences. They are legitimate because she is a traumatized individual that is clearly affected by whatever occurred to her earlier in her life (whether it is some type of physical or emotional abuse). Carol points out that she is “doing what she is told” and that it is “difficult” for her. Furthermore, she admits that she “has problems” and that she came from a “different social and economic background” and that this should “mean something.” Carol’s side of the story is just as important – in this respect – as the professor’s. Her points are legitimate because it explains a lot about her character and about why she acts the way she does in the remainder of the play. In the remainder of the play, she acts confused, depressed, and lacks self confidence as she always refers to herself as “stupid” and that she will never understand what is going on (Mamet 12). This is probably why she made these accusations when she joined her “group”; they made her feel secure, safe and accepted. Furthermore, she would be officially accepted as part of their “group” if she pressed these charges, and she agreed. While I do not agree with how she made a huge list of false accusations against the professor, I can see why she did it, especially if she had these psychological problems. Therefore, Carol’s points in the conversation at the beginning of the play are legitimate, considering the context they are spoken in.
In the play, Oleanna, written by David Mamet, Carol’s stumbling reveals a dark demon from her past to John, and her points are just as legitimate as John’s are.
Oleanna Discussion Question #5
5) What do you think of John’s decision to “reveal” himself to Carol, to confess weaknesses and sins? Are these revelations part of a genuine attempt to identify with Carol gone wrong? Conversely, are they disingenuous rhetorical moves designed to maneuver Carol where John wants her?
In the play, Oleanna, written by David Mamet, the professor, John, “reveals” himself to Carol, in an attempt to identify with her in order to help her not feel like she is the only one who struggled in college. In Act One, John decides to reveal a part of his past to Carol because she starts to go on and on about how stupid she is:
Carol: No, you’re right. “Oh, hell.” I failed. Flunk me out of it. It’s garbage. Everything that I do. “The ideas contained in this work express the author’s feelings.” That’s right. That’s right. I know I’m stupid. I know what I am. (Pause.) I know what I am, Professor. You don’t have to tell me. (Pause.) It’s pathetic. Isn’t it?
After Carol reveals to John her lack of confidence and self-esteem, John tells Carol to sit down because he wants to tell her a story about himself. John opens up to Carol, probably in an attempt to help her feel better, and that she is not the only student in the world ever to suffer from this predicament.
John: I’ll tell you a story about myself. (Pause.) Do you mind? (Pause.) I was raised to think myself stupid. That’s what I want to tell you (Pause.)
Carol: What do you mean?
John: Just what I said. I was brought up, and my earliest, and most persistent memories are of being told that I was stupid. “You have such intelligence. Why must you behave so stupidly?” Or, “Can’t you understand? Can’t you understand?” And I could not understand. I could not understand (Mamet 14).
Looking at this part of the conversation between Carol and John, it is very easy to see that this is a genuine attempt by John to identify with Carol. John feels really sorry for Carol in this conversation; it is easy to feel bad for her as she expresses her huge lack of self-esteem and confidence. John felt sorry for Carol as well, and since he struggled as a student, he wanted to be open with Carol with his experiences and he was hoping that she would just feel better from the conversation they had. However, as genuine as John’s attempt was at identifying with Carol, it was an attempt gone wrong. The next time he and Carol met, she was pressing charges against because of “attempted rape.” It was all very ridiculous what happened between him and Carol, and I do not think the professor did anything wrong at all until the end of the play when he physically attacked her (even though she was being somewhat of a jerk, and I can see how she was asking for it.). However, at the beginning of the play, John was just trying to help Carol feel better because she was so upset that she did not understand anything in college, and Carol took his caring attitude the wrong way.
No, I do not believe that John’s genuine attempts to identify with Carol are disingenuous rhetorical moves designed to maneuver Carol where John wants her. I think that is crazy and ridiculous. Looking at this conversation, I really do believe that he did care about her because she was so upset, and not because he had some secret agenda to do what he wanted with her. That is stupid and ridiculous (pardon my French). But, I truly think so! I do not think that teachers should be heartless, uncompassionate, and should not treat their students like a piece of dirt. Teachers, instructors, professors – whatever we like to call them – they are human beings as well and they should be enjoyable to be around in class, have polite manners, and be caring (to some extent). This I have no problem with, and I believe that the majority of my class would agree with me. Who wants a mean, boring, lifeless professor/s that treats you worse than they treat their own backyard? I know I have had a couple, and I do not want any like them again…..anyway, back to the point. That was what John was trying to be to Carol – just caring and understanding – and she took it the absolute wrong way. John saw that she was in distress, and decided to help Carol by confiding in her. However, his kindness backfired on him, and ended in disaster as the mentally-unstable Carol pressed rape charges against him.
In the play, Oleanna, written by David Mamet, the professor, John reveals himself to Carol in a genuine attempt to identify with Carol, and his genuine attempts to identify with Carol are not disingenuous rhetorical moves designed to maneuver Carol where John wants her.
In the play, Oleanna, written by David Mamet, the professor, John, “reveals” himself to Carol, in an attempt to identify with her in order to help her not feel like she is the only one who struggled in college. In Act One, John decides to reveal a part of his past to Carol because she starts to go on and on about how stupid she is:
Carol: No, you’re right. “Oh, hell.” I failed. Flunk me out of it. It’s garbage. Everything that I do. “The ideas contained in this work express the author’s feelings.” That’s right. That’s right. I know I’m stupid. I know what I am. (Pause.) I know what I am, Professor. You don’t have to tell me. (Pause.) It’s pathetic. Isn’t it?
After Carol reveals to John her lack of confidence and self-esteem, John tells Carol to sit down because he wants to tell her a story about himself. John opens up to Carol, probably in an attempt to help her feel better, and that she is not the only student in the world ever to suffer from this predicament.
John: I’ll tell you a story about myself. (Pause.) Do you mind? (Pause.) I was raised to think myself stupid. That’s what I want to tell you (Pause.)
Carol: What do you mean?
John: Just what I said. I was brought up, and my earliest, and most persistent memories are of being told that I was stupid. “You have such intelligence. Why must you behave so stupidly?” Or, “Can’t you understand? Can’t you understand?” And I could not understand. I could not understand (Mamet 14).
Looking at this part of the conversation between Carol and John, it is very easy to see that this is a genuine attempt by John to identify with Carol. John feels really sorry for Carol in this conversation; it is easy to feel bad for her as she expresses her huge lack of self-esteem and confidence. John felt sorry for Carol as well, and since he struggled as a student, he wanted to be open with Carol with his experiences and he was hoping that she would just feel better from the conversation they had. However, as genuine as John’s attempt was at identifying with Carol, it was an attempt gone wrong. The next time he and Carol met, she was pressing charges against because of “attempted rape.” It was all very ridiculous what happened between him and Carol, and I do not think the professor did anything wrong at all until the end of the play when he physically attacked her (even though she was being somewhat of a jerk, and I can see how she was asking for it.). However, at the beginning of the play, John was just trying to help Carol feel better because she was so upset that she did not understand anything in college, and Carol took his caring attitude the wrong way.
No, I do not believe that John’s genuine attempts to identify with Carol are disingenuous rhetorical moves designed to maneuver Carol where John wants her. I think that is crazy and ridiculous. Looking at this conversation, I really do believe that he did care about her because she was so upset, and not because he had some secret agenda to do what he wanted with her. That is stupid and ridiculous (pardon my French). But, I truly think so! I do not think that teachers should be heartless, uncompassionate, and should not treat their students like a piece of dirt. Teachers, instructors, professors – whatever we like to call them – they are human beings as well and they should be enjoyable to be around in class, have polite manners, and be caring (to some extent). This I have no problem with, and I believe that the majority of my class would agree with me. Who wants a mean, boring, lifeless professor/s that treats you worse than they treat their own backyard? I know I have had a couple, and I do not want any like them again…..anyway, back to the point. That was what John was trying to be to Carol – just caring and understanding – and she took it the absolute wrong way. John saw that she was in distress, and decided to help Carol by confiding in her. However, his kindness backfired on him, and ended in disaster as the mentally-unstable Carol pressed rape charges against him.
In the play, Oleanna, written by David Mamet, the professor, John reveals himself to Carol in a genuine attempt to identify with Carol, and his genuine attempts to identify with Carol are not disingenuous rhetorical moves designed to maneuver Carol where John wants her.
Questions 8-11
8. On the playbill distributed at various performances of Oleanna, theatregoers were treated to TWO rather than the traditional one picture: one featuring Carol, one featuring John. A version of the words “Whatever you think/Whichever side you choose, you’re wrong” was imprinted on the program. What do you make of this statement? What does it mean? Do you agree or disagree?
Playbill propaganda is so fascinating to look at. Producers and directors are able to direct the audience to a specific question for focus during the performance and can in a way influence how the audience perceives the characters and the action. The phrase on the playbill refers to the fact that it is impossible to take sides in a situation such as the one Carol and John find themselves in. A he said/she said struggle with no witnesses and no evidence is almost never concluded justly, or accurately. If one were to side with Carol, we could call her a liberated woman rebelling against white male societal privilege. If we were to side with John, one could say that he is acting in accordance with his prerogative as a teacher trying to reach out to a struggling student. And of course, no matter which stance is taken, the ‘other side’ would rail against that decision and try to convince the audience that their side is right and Carol/John are horrible people with disgusting motives. There is no real way to win in a situation like this one, and I think the play highlights that fact more than anything.
9. Consider Carol’s most serious accusation: “You tried to rape me. According to the law. . . . You tried to rape me. I was leaving this office, you “pressed” yourself into me. You “pressed” your body into me. . . . under the statute. I am told. It was battery. . . . Yes. And attempted rape. That’s right” (728). Discuss your reaction to this accusation. As you do, consider carefully Carol’s addition of “according to the law”. Is she, at some or any level, in the right? Is John right to be undone by this accusation?
I feel that Carol doesn’t fully stand behind the accusations she makes against John. From the interaction between Carol and John in the first act, the audience gathers that Carol has a hard time grasping collegiate level concepts and vocabulary. This second meeting finds Carol armed with a litany of legal terms and an inflated sense of herself, as does the third. When she tells John that he raped her “according to the law”, it feels like her accusations are more disingenuous stabs at the white male establishment than a personally traumatizing experience that she needs to bring to justice. I think Carol felt belittled or demeaned to an extent after the first meeting with John, and she feels the need to retaliate with this lawsuit. The entire reaction is very much overblown and verbose, and I think a lot of that has to do with her experience with her group; not necessarily that they put her up to filing a suit, but that they inflated Carol’s sense of self to the point that she feels a sense of power. Coming from a woman who could not understand a bar graph or the word hazing, her accusations sound more like puppetry than conviction.
10. The first time John orders Carol to leave his office, with some force, he has just called his wife “baby”, a term we have not yet heard in the other one-side conversations to which we are privy. This is significant, as is Carol’s ordering John not to “call [his] wife “baby”’ (728). Why do you think it is this comment that fully engages his wrath and destroys his self-control?
This is not actually the first time we hear John call his wife “baby”, as he refers to her by that moniker in their phone conversation at the end of Act Two, but this is the first time Carol hears John refer to his wife in that manner. I think Carol’s inflated sense of self is again at play in this interaction because she feels that she can manipulate John’s behavior to her own newfound feminist standards. John finally loses his cool because he sees his authority being threatened and after Carol taking away his tenure and house, he is not about to let her take away his authority or dignity by being talked down to. Of course, this is a terribly ironic decision because the second he lays a hand on Carol, John has cemented his loss of power and authority by committing a legitimately enforceable crime.
11. All is decided in terms of John’s career and reputation once he physically attacks her. Carol seems to reiterate as much when she says, “Yes. That’s right. . . . yes. That’s right”’. Theatregoers, time and again, have cheered when John attacks her. Cheering and encouraging the physical attack of a woman on the part of a man is a dangerous maneuver, and much has been made critically about audience’s reactions to this moment. In many ways, though, the act offers a catharsis, and it certainly does provide the resolution to the debate at large here. What do you think of Mamet’s conclusion? Are they both, ultimately, responsible for how things play out? Why or why not?
I guess I’m not enough of a raging feminist, because I can not stand Carol or her characterization, but I don’t know that I would outright applaud anyone being attacked in such a manner. I don’t exactly support John’s actions, but I can definitely understand the motivation behind them. In many ways, both characters are responsible for how the plot movement comes to a head in the final scene. John is at fault for encouraging repeat visits with Carol, and Carol is at fault for acquiescing to the requests. Both characters are guilty of ambiguous or mis-communication from the first meeting, and this causes feelings and emotions to escalate to the point of violence. I think much strife could have been avoided from the outset if clearer communication had transpired between the parties.
Playbill propaganda is so fascinating to look at. Producers and directors are able to direct the audience to a specific question for focus during the performance and can in a way influence how the audience perceives the characters and the action. The phrase on the playbill refers to the fact that it is impossible to take sides in a situation such as the one Carol and John find themselves in. A he said/she said struggle with no witnesses and no evidence is almost never concluded justly, or accurately. If one were to side with Carol, we could call her a liberated woman rebelling against white male societal privilege. If we were to side with John, one could say that he is acting in accordance with his prerogative as a teacher trying to reach out to a struggling student. And of course, no matter which stance is taken, the ‘other side’ would rail against that decision and try to convince the audience that their side is right and Carol/John are horrible people with disgusting motives. There is no real way to win in a situation like this one, and I think the play highlights that fact more than anything.
9. Consider Carol’s most serious accusation: “You tried to rape me. According to the law. . . . You tried to rape me. I was leaving this office, you “pressed” yourself into me. You “pressed” your body into me. . . . under the statute. I am told. It was battery. . . . Yes. And attempted rape. That’s right” (728). Discuss your reaction to this accusation. As you do, consider carefully Carol’s addition of “according to the law”. Is she, at some or any level, in the right? Is John right to be undone by this accusation?
I feel that Carol doesn’t fully stand behind the accusations she makes against John. From the interaction between Carol and John in the first act, the audience gathers that Carol has a hard time grasping collegiate level concepts and vocabulary. This second meeting finds Carol armed with a litany of legal terms and an inflated sense of herself, as does the third. When she tells John that he raped her “according to the law”, it feels like her accusations are more disingenuous stabs at the white male establishment than a personally traumatizing experience that she needs to bring to justice. I think Carol felt belittled or demeaned to an extent after the first meeting with John, and she feels the need to retaliate with this lawsuit. The entire reaction is very much overblown and verbose, and I think a lot of that has to do with her experience with her group; not necessarily that they put her up to filing a suit, but that they inflated Carol’s sense of self to the point that she feels a sense of power. Coming from a woman who could not understand a bar graph or the word hazing, her accusations sound more like puppetry than conviction.
10. The first time John orders Carol to leave his office, with some force, he has just called his wife “baby”, a term we have not yet heard in the other one-side conversations to which we are privy. This is significant, as is Carol’s ordering John not to “call [his] wife “baby”’ (728). Why do you think it is this comment that fully engages his wrath and destroys his self-control?
This is not actually the first time we hear John call his wife “baby”, as he refers to her by that moniker in their phone conversation at the end of Act Two, but this is the first time Carol hears John refer to his wife in that manner. I think Carol’s inflated sense of self is again at play in this interaction because she feels that she can manipulate John’s behavior to her own newfound feminist standards. John finally loses his cool because he sees his authority being threatened and after Carol taking away his tenure and house, he is not about to let her take away his authority or dignity by being talked down to. Of course, this is a terribly ironic decision because the second he lays a hand on Carol, John has cemented his loss of power and authority by committing a legitimately enforceable crime.
11. All is decided in terms of John’s career and reputation once he physically attacks her. Carol seems to reiterate as much when she says, “Yes. That’s right. . . . yes. That’s right”’. Theatregoers, time and again, have cheered when John attacks her. Cheering and encouraging the physical attack of a woman on the part of a man is a dangerous maneuver, and much has been made critically about audience’s reactions to this moment. In many ways, though, the act offers a catharsis, and it certainly does provide the resolution to the debate at large here. What do you think of Mamet’s conclusion? Are they both, ultimately, responsible for how things play out? Why or why not?
I guess I’m not enough of a raging feminist, because I can not stand Carol or her characterization, but I don’t know that I would outright applaud anyone being attacked in such a manner. I don’t exactly support John’s actions, but I can definitely understand the motivation behind them. In many ways, both characters are responsible for how the plot movement comes to a head in the final scene. John is at fault for encouraging repeat visits with Carol, and Carol is at fault for acquiescing to the requests. Both characters are guilty of ambiguous or mis-communication from the first meeting, and this causes feelings and emotions to escalate to the point of violence. I think much strife could have been avoided from the outset if clearer communication had transpired between the parties.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
More Imput
I know of a situation very similar to this that happened at a campus that I went to a few years ago. A professor taught a Friday night class from 7pm -9:50 pm. He was late leaving his classroom because of a phone call. When he came out of the building he found one of his female students standing out at the edge of the parking lot. It was all most 10:30 pm there was know one around. He asked if she was ok? The student told him that her ride never came to get her and that she guessed she would have to walk the three miles home. The professor felt that it was not safe to leave her there in the dark, in an empty parking lot. So, he gave her a ride home. Nothing happened, nor did she accuse him of anything. The school found out that the professor gave her a ride alone. They let him go because they said he used poor judgment.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
More Thoughts on Lisa's Blog
One thing I can say about the professor is that he is a "male chauvinist pig" (just trying to make a point so don't take offense) he thinks that of what his status in life and as an elitist, he can get away with his choice of words. Not only that, John took Carol's weakness as an advantage to him. He thinks that he can wrap Carol around his finger.
Carol is also out of "grip". She must be "dreaming" of a "love affair" here as she told John not to call his wife "baby". I mean there is this illusion that John has feelings for her of some sort. I think that reason behind why Carol went back to see him alone it is because she wants something more out of that last meeting. Which is why she said "you want me to retract" repeatedly in Act 111. She must thought that the last meeting would make the illusion a reality. Bad girl.
Carol is also out of "grip". She must be "dreaming" of a "love affair" here as she told John not to call his wife "baby". I mean there is this illusion that John has feelings for her of some sort. I think that reason behind why Carol went back to see him alone it is because she wants something more out of that last meeting. Which is why she said "you want me to retract" repeatedly in Act 111. She must thought that the last meeting would make the illusion a reality. Bad girl.
My Answer to all the Questions
Well, I wanted to say more, so now I can. So here it is:
1) A professor that has been accused of such a thing would never meet with a student alone in his office, behind closed doors. His career would be in danger.
2) Why would Carol go back several times unless she is trying to set the professor up. Is this the plan from the beginning. Could it be that the group is tyring to get the professor fired, and this is just the plan of the group?
3) Some of the statements the professor makes would make most females very nervous and they would never go back to the professors office alone. Much more for two more meetings. Carol must like the attention she is getting from the professor or the group.
4) Now, legally:
The professor has broken several laws in the state where he lives. (no matter what state it is) Under the Civil Code he has sexually harassed Carol. He has caused her emotional damage. The professor has assaulted and battered Carol under the law. But, there is a legal defence as well for the professor on some of the charges. Rape, how can a rape charge stand, when the victim Carol, returns to the scene of the crime, with the criminal. (The Professor) This weakens any lawsuit that Carol would claim against the professor. But if it was true, he will loose his job without a doubt. Since the professor hit Carol he would face criminal charges and go to jail for batter at the least. Carol would name the professor and the institution that the professor works for as defendants.
SEE HOW MISCOMMUNICATION WILL GET YOU IN A WORLD OF TROUBLE.
1) A professor that has been accused of such a thing would never meet with a student alone in his office, behind closed doors. His career would be in danger.
2) Why would Carol go back several times unless she is trying to set the professor up. Is this the plan from the beginning. Could it be that the group is tyring to get the professor fired, and this is just the plan of the group?
3) Some of the statements the professor makes would make most females very nervous and they would never go back to the professors office alone. Much more for two more meetings. Carol must like the attention she is getting from the professor or the group.
4) Now, legally:
The professor has broken several laws in the state where he lives. (no matter what state it is) Under the Civil Code he has sexually harassed Carol. He has caused her emotional damage. The professor has assaulted and battered Carol under the law. But, there is a legal defence as well for the professor on some of the charges. Rape, how can a rape charge stand, when the victim Carol, returns to the scene of the crime, with the criminal. (The Professor) This weakens any lawsuit that Carol would claim against the professor. But if it was true, he will loose his job without a doubt. Since the professor hit Carol he would face criminal charges and go to jail for batter at the least. Carol would name the professor and the institution that the professor works for as defendants.
SEE HOW MISCOMMUNICATION WILL GET YOU IN A WORLD OF TROUBLE.
To Lisa
I strongly agree with you and isn't it that this is where the problem lies when one "group" thinks overly about their ideals and mythodologies? There is nothing wrong in standing up for what a person believes in but on how extreme they would go and create a problem to their fellow human beings.
Carol was able to show how the "group" gave her the strength to confront John and I do not believe that Carol would not fight her fight without the dictations and influence by the group.
Carol was able to show how the "group" gave her the strength to confront John and I do not believe that Carol would not fight her fight without the dictations and influence by the group.
Discussion Week 6
Discussion Week 6
1.Consider John and Carol’s first interaction (not the entire interaction, but up to point at which Carol mentions her background in relation to her performance in the professor’s class). What do you think is established in this interaction? Who and what do the characters reveal themselves to be? In such revealing, then, do you identify any miscommunication, non-communication, or a simple lack of communication? (In your discussion, consider particularly the “term of art” (701) exchange, the way in which John tells Carol she’s failing his class, and/or Carol’s offerings with regard to her performance (the language John uses, her socio-economic background, etc.).
I could identify miscommunications, non-communications and also lack of communications between the two. Miscommunication is when John speaks to Carol in the language where Carol did not understand to start with. The non-communication is where there are interruptions in their conversations. Carol could not speak the right words of what she is trying to convey to John. This inability to express her thoughts and feelings lead to the non-communication and lead to the miscommunication between the two. In addition to that, Carol speaks with emotions of which also she was not able to communicate well with John.
John on the other hand, continues to speak to Carol even if he has other commitments that he has to attend to. This is another factor that leads to the miscommunication as well. There was no communication to start with. They speak in broken sentences and only respond to certain words and the exchange of such words back and forth without making any sense out of it but merely “assuming” what the other one is talking about.
These two individuals’ both started the conversation with the wrong foot, John has a different way of speaking (highly intelligence) and Carol has already has a mindset of her impression of John’s writings or books. Carol also shows “selective hearing” and just wants John to reaffirm what she really understands. Aside from that, the two comes from different socio economic background and this also contributes on how one sees things.
It is a mistake that was dragged from beginning to end. There is non-communication, lack of communication and miscommunication.
3. Given the fact that the proposed lawsuit is based on the entire Act 1 interaction, discuss the events and comments that make up this interaction. Has Carol twisted John’s words? Is her lawsuit legitimate? Would it be legimitate in “real” life? On the other hand, has John, intentionally or otherwise, overstepped his bounds? How so? Remember that Carol’s accusations are not simply a matter of sexual harassment but of a perceived elitist, classist, and economic bias and privileging she feels John misuses.
I think Carol went in his office armed with an agenda. First, I think she pretends who she really is trying to show that she does not understand anything. Second, with Carol’s “state of mind”, why would she start jotting down notes for her to remember, if she did not plan to “nail” her professor down? I would say that Carol knows what she is doing because of what she is saying as not “understanding” John contradicts what she is doing by jotting down notes. If her motives and intentions are clean to go and see John to “learn” more and needs understanding, she would go there in the office and not taking notes. I really believe that Carol has an agenda to begin with. I am not a lawyer so I do not know what the legalities of the lawsuit would be other than what is given and that is “twisted John’s words” would probably be counted as legit, considering that she has all the “transcripts” of their conversation on paper. However, if the jurisdiction of this lawsuit is in the US, anything can happen here. The US is such a litigious society and even the “craziest” lawsuits are heard and even won in the court of law. Also, being an elitist, classist, and economic bias are not enough evidence that these “ways of thinking” actually has done some harm. I do not think that John should be persecuted by his way of thinking. He speaks his mind and he can exercise his rights and protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution- Freedom of Speech. I would say that being an elitist or a classist could only be punishable by law if he uses his being elitist or classist to commit a crime but he did not.
4. Why do you think Mamet allows us a window into John’s life (signaled by the constantly ringing telephone, an apt metaphor for his connection to the outside world) but none into Carol’s (we have no sense of who she is or her life outside of this series of exchanges with her professor nor any events leading up to them)? Is Mamet empathizing with John by developing his character more than Carol’s? Do YOU sympathize with John and think perhaps the development of John’s character (as a professor, husband, father, recipient of a surprise party, etc.) might have something to do with where your empathy lies?
I think the reason why Mamet allows us a window into John’s life because Mamet wants us to see the other “side” of John. Carol accuses him of being an elitist, classist and economic bias so Mamet tries to divert our attention of who John is in terms of his personal life. Speaking in a feminist standpoint, I would say that Mamet (a man himself) is trying to “defend” or “protecting” John. I see a difference in his tone of voice when he talks to his wife on the phone. He is calm for the most part (although he also wants to manipulate the situation with the realtor) and I do not see his side as an elitist in his “outside world”.
1.Consider John and Carol’s first interaction (not the entire interaction, but up to point at which Carol mentions her background in relation to her performance in the professor’s class). What do you think is established in this interaction? Who and what do the characters reveal themselves to be? In such revealing, then, do you identify any miscommunication, non-communication, or a simple lack of communication? (In your discussion, consider particularly the “term of art” (701) exchange, the way in which John tells Carol she’s failing his class, and/or Carol’s offerings with regard to her performance (the language John uses, her socio-economic background, etc.).
I could identify miscommunications, non-communications and also lack of communications between the two. Miscommunication is when John speaks to Carol in the language where Carol did not understand to start with. The non-communication is where there are interruptions in their conversations. Carol could not speak the right words of what she is trying to convey to John. This inability to express her thoughts and feelings lead to the non-communication and lead to the miscommunication between the two. In addition to that, Carol speaks with emotions of which also she was not able to communicate well with John.
John on the other hand, continues to speak to Carol even if he has other commitments that he has to attend to. This is another factor that leads to the miscommunication as well. There was no communication to start with. They speak in broken sentences and only respond to certain words and the exchange of such words back and forth without making any sense out of it but merely “assuming” what the other one is talking about.
These two individuals’ both started the conversation with the wrong foot, John has a different way of speaking (highly intelligence) and Carol has already has a mindset of her impression of John’s writings or books. Carol also shows “selective hearing” and just wants John to reaffirm what she really understands. Aside from that, the two comes from different socio economic background and this also contributes on how one sees things.
It is a mistake that was dragged from beginning to end. There is non-communication, lack of communication and miscommunication.
3. Given the fact that the proposed lawsuit is based on the entire Act 1 interaction, discuss the events and comments that make up this interaction. Has Carol twisted John’s words? Is her lawsuit legitimate? Would it be legimitate in “real” life? On the other hand, has John, intentionally or otherwise, overstepped his bounds? How so? Remember that Carol’s accusations are not simply a matter of sexual harassment but of a perceived elitist, classist, and economic bias and privileging she feels John misuses.
I think Carol went in his office armed with an agenda. First, I think she pretends who she really is trying to show that she does not understand anything. Second, with Carol’s “state of mind”, why would she start jotting down notes for her to remember, if she did not plan to “nail” her professor down? I would say that Carol knows what she is doing because of what she is saying as not “understanding” John contradicts what she is doing by jotting down notes. If her motives and intentions are clean to go and see John to “learn” more and needs understanding, she would go there in the office and not taking notes. I really believe that Carol has an agenda to begin with. I am not a lawyer so I do not know what the legalities of the lawsuit would be other than what is given and that is “twisted John’s words” would probably be counted as legit, considering that she has all the “transcripts” of their conversation on paper. However, if the jurisdiction of this lawsuit is in the US, anything can happen here. The US is such a litigious society and even the “craziest” lawsuits are heard and even won in the court of law. Also, being an elitist, classist, and economic bias are not enough evidence that these “ways of thinking” actually has done some harm. I do not think that John should be persecuted by his way of thinking. He speaks his mind and he can exercise his rights and protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution- Freedom of Speech. I would say that being an elitist or a classist could only be punishable by law if he uses his being elitist or classist to commit a crime but he did not.
4. Why do you think Mamet allows us a window into John’s life (signaled by the constantly ringing telephone, an apt metaphor for his connection to the outside world) but none into Carol’s (we have no sense of who she is or her life outside of this series of exchanges with her professor nor any events leading up to them)? Is Mamet empathizing with John by developing his character more than Carol’s? Do YOU sympathize with John and think perhaps the development of John’s character (as a professor, husband, father, recipient of a surprise party, etc.) might have something to do with where your empathy lies?
I think the reason why Mamet allows us a window into John’s life because Mamet wants us to see the other “side” of John. Carol accuses him of being an elitist, classist and economic bias so Mamet tries to divert our attention of who John is in terms of his personal life. Speaking in a feminist standpoint, I would say that Mamet (a man himself) is trying to “defend” or “protecting” John. I see a difference in his tone of voice when he talks to his wife on the phone. He is calm for the most part (although he also wants to manipulate the situation with the realtor) and I do not see his side as an elitist in his “outside world”.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Question about week 6
Are the discussion questions this week extra credit again? They are not on the due date schedule. As far as I can tell, the ancillary and the quiz that was posted late are the only assignments due. A timely response would be appreciated. Thanks!
Blog Week Six, #9 & #11
Question #9
Carol’s statement, “according to the law”, points to her recent contact with the “group” she has so often referred to when making definitive accusations against John. Although she may be right as to the legal definition of rape, it also appears that she has escalated the entire context of their interactions within John’s office to include this highly inflammatory accusation. Because the author excludes her feelings and only highlights the awkward conversation between these two, and because the legal definition can vary in consideration of a victim’s feelings, there is no real concrete evidence other than Carol’s formal complaint to the Tenure Board Committee to suggest that she really felt violated in this way. Therefore, the accusation of rape feels extremely unexpected and radical when it surfaces. John’s reaction to this allegation is typical and, considering the dialogue, expected. Escalating what appears to be a blatant lack of communication and misunderstanding between two people to charges of rape seems to be an eruption of underlying emotional issues on the part of Carol.
Question #11
Mamet’s conclusion is satisfying yet disturbing. From Carol’s perspective, her ultimate point has been made. This professor is abusive, sadistic, and every bit the demeaning elitist she proclaims that he is. From John’s perspective, this helpless student, in search of the real meaning behind higher education and “understanding”, has ultimately assumed power over him and destroyed his career. Both are definitely responsible for the conclusion of this perilous magnitude. John’s archaic solutions to Carol’s indictment were far too intrusive given the circumstances, and proved such by his every attempt at reconciliation. Carol’s constant misinterpretation of his attempts to resolve their conflict only antagonized the situation and made it considerably worse.
The primal instinct to physically attack is reached when any attempts at communication are exhausted. After threatening John’s livelihood and removing his source of identity—his career as an educator, and a provider to his family—, Carol removes herself from the role of student and becomes simply and “obstacle” to be removed in John’s life. Carol’s consulting with her “group” has empowered her misunderstanding of John’s intentions and has led her to the wielding of power in a role reversal that leaves her abused and, redundantly, a victim.
A few things to consider as you respond
Hi all,
I originally posted this in response to something Lisa wrote but thought I would share it here as it might spark some interesting debate.
Lisa,
"You make a good point about both of them returning to the "site" of their first interaction to face each other alone. This is not a realistic scenario, I wouldn't imagine, as I cannot fathom, as a professor, meeting with a student alone, in a secluded space, after sexual harassment charges had been filed against me.
That said, the fact that John chooses to do so could speak to that sense of elitism that Carol points out -- it is likely he believes he can coerce her into changing her mind when they meet the second time, and it appears he STILL thinks this might be possible the third time -- he doesn't identify Carol as powerful, intelligent, or capable enough to do what she does.
As for Carol? Why does she return two more times? An obvious question, of course, is whether she REALLY feels violated, REALLY feels that she is in danger of physical or other forms of violence (if she did, would she really have chosen to meet?) The answer, possibly, is that Carol always MEANT for things to turn out this way, that she was writing down things John said in their first encounter with the sole intent of transcribing them in a way that would render him inappropriate. We hear little about this "Group", but it has often been identified in various analyses as some sort of militant feminist group intent on taking down/displacing white males whom they feel misuse power and believe they are entitled to it (unfortunately, the play does lead to a distrust of feminist ideals on some readers' parts, and many forms of feminism do not at all have these kinds of goals).
If this is the case, it is possible Carol is trying to get John to cross that threshold so as to nail him to a wall -- once he attacks her, it's over. And, of course, she looks like the helpless victim rather than the instigator. We might be on dangerous ground by considering the possibility that a woman might, literally, be "asking for it" and perhaps forgiving a man for "giving it to her" in a well-deserved moment. This line of thinking is troublesome to many, and it raises serious questions. Do we default to the standard "It is never acceptable for a man to hit a woman, under any circumstances"? Many readers sympathize with John and say they would have "done the same thing" at that point. What do you make of these reactions? IF Carol did indeed set out to ruin John, and her concern was not her grade but making an example of him by way of her group's methodology and encouragement, is John to be forgiven entirely? Should he be punished because he harbors elitist values and doesn't seem even to notice that he does? What do you think?"
I originally posted this in response to something Lisa wrote but thought I would share it here as it might spark some interesting debate.
Lisa,
"You make a good point about both of them returning to the "site" of their first interaction to face each other alone. This is not a realistic scenario, I wouldn't imagine, as I cannot fathom, as a professor, meeting with a student alone, in a secluded space, after sexual harassment charges had been filed against me.
That said, the fact that John chooses to do so could speak to that sense of elitism that Carol points out -- it is likely he believes he can coerce her into changing her mind when they meet the second time, and it appears he STILL thinks this might be possible the third time -- he doesn't identify Carol as powerful, intelligent, or capable enough to do what she does.
As for Carol? Why does she return two more times? An obvious question, of course, is whether she REALLY feels violated, REALLY feels that she is in danger of physical or other forms of violence (if she did, would she really have chosen to meet?) The answer, possibly, is that Carol always MEANT for things to turn out this way, that she was writing down things John said in their first encounter with the sole intent of transcribing them in a way that would render him inappropriate. We hear little about this "Group", but it has often been identified in various analyses as some sort of militant feminist group intent on taking down/displacing white males whom they feel misuse power and believe they are entitled to it (unfortunately, the play does lead to a distrust of feminist ideals on some readers' parts, and many forms of feminism do not at all have these kinds of goals).
If this is the case, it is possible Carol is trying to get John to cross that threshold so as to nail him to a wall -- once he attacks her, it's over. And, of course, she looks like the helpless victim rather than the instigator. We might be on dangerous ground by considering the possibility that a woman might, literally, be "asking for it" and perhaps forgiving a man for "giving it to her" in a well-deserved moment. This line of thinking is troublesome to many, and it raises serious questions. Do we default to the standard "It is never acceptable for a man to hit a woman, under any circumstances"? Many readers sympathize with John and say they would have "done the same thing" at that point. What do you make of these reactions? IF Carol did indeed set out to ruin John, and her concern was not her grade but making an example of him by way of her group's methodology and encouragement, is John to be forgiven entirely? Should he be punished because he harbors elitist values and doesn't seem even to notice that he does? What do you think?"
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Week Six #3 and #7
First, let me say I like this question. Has Carol twisted John's words? Maybe, but even if she did, it is what she thinks he meant. That is what is driving her lawsuit. Is her lawsuit legitimate? Legitimate has nothing to do with a lawsuit. Legally Carol only has to fill that wrong has been done to her to file a lawsuit against John and whoever else that may be in charge of John (like the school). Has John overstepped his bounds? Yes, without a doubt. Rather he realizes it or not is not a defence. He knows there is a problem and he keeps meeting with Carol. Mind you alone..... How many times will he put himself in legal liability. He should have never had her in his office alone. Carol also fills that John is using his position of authority to be bias and sexist. Which does violate the law in all fifty states. Would this case hold up in a court of law in any state? Yes, especially in California. I don't want to go to far into the story at the end, but John had broke many of the civil codes and laws in any state.
In print of "What every you think/Which ever side you choose, you're wrong". It was printed on the playbill because it was trying to make a point to the viewers. The point was that no matter which side you choose, that of Carol or that of John, you were still wrong because they both were wrong in the choices that they made. I would agree with my thoughts because I see many choices that both Carol and John made that used poor judgment. For instance: John should have never meet with Carol in his office alone. With position comes a call to moral judgments. Carol on the other hand want to complain about her ill treatment at the hand of John but she then goes back to Johns office more than once. Why? poor judgment and choices.
In print of "What every you think/Which ever side you choose, you're wrong". It was printed on the playbill because it was trying to make a point to the viewers. The point was that no matter which side you choose, that of Carol or that of John, you were still wrong because they both were wrong in the choices that they made. I would agree with my thoughts because I see many choices that both Carol and John made that used poor judgment. For instance: John should have never meet with Carol in his office alone. With position comes a call to moral judgments. Carol on the other hand want to complain about her ill treatment at the hand of John but she then goes back to Johns office more than once. Why? poor judgment and choices.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Discussion Questions Week Six
*****You may want to consider watching a few of the scenes and other videos below before answering.
1. Consider John and Carol’s first interaction (not the entire interaction, but up to point at which Carol mentions her background in relation to her performance in the professor’s class). What do you think is established in this interaction? Who and what do the characters reveal themselves to be? In such revealing, then, do you identify any miscommunication, non-communication, or a simple lack of communication? (In your discussion, consider particularly the “term of art” (701) exchange, the way in which John tells Carol she’s failing his class, and/or Carol’s offerings with regard to her performance (the language John uses, her socio-economic background, etc.).
2.Consider the portion of the conversation (the first meeting) in which Carol offers up her reasoning, as it’s implied, for her performance in the class: “No, no, no. I’m doing what I’m told. It’s difficult for me. It’s difficult . . . I don’t . . . lots of the language . . . The language, the “things” that you say . . . It is true. I have problems . . . I come from a different social . . . a different economic . . . No. I: when I came to this school: . . . does that mean nothing . . . ?” (702-703). What is Carol trying to say? Are her points legitimate? (Consider the context in which she’s offering them). Why or why not?
3. Given the fact that the proposed lawsuit is based on the entire Act 1 interaction, discuss the events and comments that make up this interaction. Has Carol twisted John’s words? Is her lawsuit legitimate? Would it be legimitate in “real” life? On the other hand, has John, intentionally or otherwise, overstepped his bounds? How so? Remember that Carol’s accusations are not simply a matter of sexual harassment but of a perceived elitist, classist, and economic bias and privileging she feels John misuses.
4. Why do you think Mamet allows us a window into John’s life (signaled by the constantly ringing telephone, an apt metaphor for his connection to the outside world) but none into Carol’s (we have no sense of who she is or her life outside of this series of exchanges with her professor nor any events leading up to them)? Is Mamet empathizing with John by developing his character more than Carol’s? Do YOU sympathize with John and think perhaps the development of John’s character (as a professor, husband, father, recipient of a surprise party, etc.) might have something to do with where your empathy lies?
5. What do you think of John’s decision to “reveal” himself to Carol, to confess weaknesses and sins? Are these revelations part of a genuine attempt to identify with Carol gone wrong? Conversely, are they
disingenuous rhetorical moves designed to maneuver Carol where John wants her?
6. Carol repeatedly, almost doggedly, accuses John of failing to understand her and the position she takes. This inability to understand, as Carol perceives it, comes to a head in Act Three, as Carol exclaims, YOU FOOL. Who do you think I am? To come here and be taken in by a smile. You little yapping fool. You think I want “revenge”. I don’t want revenge. I WANT UNDERSTANDING” (725). What does she mean?
7. And where/how does John go wrong by lamenting that his job is “over” immediately following this outburst? Consider Carol’s response to this: “Oh. Your job. That’s what you want to talk about” (725). What does John’s response clarify about his motives and values? What does Carol’s response (to his words) say about hers?
8. On the playbill distributed at various performances of Oleanna, theatregoers were treated to TWO rather than the traditional one picture: one featuring Carol, one featuring John. A version of the words “Whatever you think/Whichever side you choose, you’re wrong” was imprinted on the program. What do you make of this statement? What does it mean? Do you agree or disagree?
9. Consider Carol’s most serious accusation: “You tried to rape me. According to the law. . . . You tried to rape me. I was leaving this office, you “pressed” yourself into me. You “pressed” your body into me. . . . under the statute. I am told. It was battery. . . . Yes. And attempted rape. That’s right” (728). Discuss your reaction to this accusation. As you do, consider carefully Carol’s addition of “according to the law”. Is she, at some or any level, in the right? Is John right to be undone by this accusation?
10. The first time John orders Carol to leave his office, with some force, he has just called his wife “baby”, a term we have not yet heard in the other one-side conversations to which we are privy. This is significant, as is Carol’s ordering John not to “call [his] wife “baby”’ (728). Why do you think it is this comment that fully engages his wrath and destroys his self-control?
11. All is decided in terms of John’s career and reputation once he physically attacks her. Carol seems to reiterate as much when she says, “Yes. That’s right. . . . yes. That’s right”’. Theatregoers, time and again, have cheered when John attacks her. Cheering and encouraging the physical attack of a woman on the part of a man is a dangerous maneuver, and much has been made critically about audience’s reactions to this moment. In many ways, though, the act offers a catharsis, and it certainly does provide the resolution to the debate at large here. What do you think of Mamet’s conclusion? Are they both, ultimately, responsible for how things play out? Why or why not?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
From the Broadway performance with Julia Stiles and Bill Pullman
Opening night of Oleanna at the Mark Taper Forum (various stars discuss their reactions to the play)
Julia Stiles on The View discussing her role
From the film:
Part of Act 1
"Fight Scene"
Interview with director (of the Broadway show) Doug Hughes
1. Consider John and Carol’s first interaction (not the entire interaction, but up to point at which Carol mentions her background in relation to her performance in the professor’s class). What do you think is established in this interaction? Who and what do the characters reveal themselves to be? In such revealing, then, do you identify any miscommunication, non-communication, or a simple lack of communication? (In your discussion, consider particularly the “term of art” (701) exchange, the way in which John tells Carol she’s failing his class, and/or Carol’s offerings with regard to her performance (the language John uses, her socio-economic background, etc.).
2.Consider the portion of the conversation (the first meeting) in which Carol offers up her reasoning, as it’s implied, for her performance in the class: “No, no, no. I’m doing what I’m told. It’s difficult for me. It’s difficult . . . I don’t . . . lots of the language . . . The language, the “things” that you say . . . It is true. I have problems . . . I come from a different social . . . a different economic . . . No. I: when I came to this school: . . . does that mean nothing . . . ?” (702-703). What is Carol trying to say? Are her points legitimate? (Consider the context in which she’s offering them). Why or why not?
3. Given the fact that the proposed lawsuit is based on the entire Act 1 interaction, discuss the events and comments that make up this interaction. Has Carol twisted John’s words? Is her lawsuit legitimate? Would it be legimitate in “real” life? On the other hand, has John, intentionally or otherwise, overstepped his bounds? How so? Remember that Carol’s accusations are not simply a matter of sexual harassment but of a perceived elitist, classist, and economic bias and privileging she feels John misuses.
4. Why do you think Mamet allows us a window into John’s life (signaled by the constantly ringing telephone, an apt metaphor for his connection to the outside world) but none into Carol’s (we have no sense of who she is or her life outside of this series of exchanges with her professor nor any events leading up to them)? Is Mamet empathizing with John by developing his character more than Carol’s? Do YOU sympathize with John and think perhaps the development of John’s character (as a professor, husband, father, recipient of a surprise party, etc.) might have something to do with where your empathy lies?
5. What do you think of John’s decision to “reveal” himself to Carol, to confess weaknesses and sins? Are these revelations part of a genuine attempt to identify with Carol gone wrong? Conversely, are they
disingenuous rhetorical moves designed to maneuver Carol where John wants her?
6. Carol repeatedly, almost doggedly, accuses John of failing to understand her and the position she takes. This inability to understand, as Carol perceives it, comes to a head in Act Three, as Carol exclaims, YOU FOOL. Who do you think I am? To come here and be taken in by a smile. You little yapping fool. You think I want “revenge”. I don’t want revenge. I WANT UNDERSTANDING” (725). What does she mean?
7. And where/how does John go wrong by lamenting that his job is “over” immediately following this outburst? Consider Carol’s response to this: “Oh. Your job. That’s what you want to talk about” (725). What does John’s response clarify about his motives and values? What does Carol’s response (to his words) say about hers?
8. On the playbill distributed at various performances of Oleanna, theatregoers were treated to TWO rather than the traditional one picture: one featuring Carol, one featuring John. A version of the words “Whatever you think/Whichever side you choose, you’re wrong” was imprinted on the program. What do you make of this statement? What does it mean? Do you agree or disagree?
9. Consider Carol’s most serious accusation: “You tried to rape me. According to the law. . . . You tried to rape me. I was leaving this office, you “pressed” yourself into me. You “pressed” your body into me. . . . under the statute. I am told. It was battery. . . . Yes. And attempted rape. That’s right” (728). Discuss your reaction to this accusation. As you do, consider carefully Carol’s addition of “according to the law”. Is she, at some or any level, in the right? Is John right to be undone by this accusation?
10. The first time John orders Carol to leave his office, with some force, he has just called his wife “baby”, a term we have not yet heard in the other one-side conversations to which we are privy. This is significant, as is Carol’s ordering John not to “call [his] wife “baby”’ (728). Why do you think it is this comment that fully engages his wrath and destroys his self-control?
11. All is decided in terms of John’s career and reputation once he physically attacks her. Carol seems to reiterate as much when she says, “Yes. That’s right. . . . yes. That’s right”’. Theatregoers, time and again, have cheered when John attacks her. Cheering and encouraging the physical attack of a woman on the part of a man is a dangerous maneuver, and much has been made critically about audience’s reactions to this moment. In many ways, though, the act offers a catharsis, and it certainly does provide the resolution to the debate at large here. What do you think of Mamet’s conclusion? Are they both, ultimately, responsible for how things play out? Why or why not?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
From the Broadway performance with Julia Stiles and Bill Pullman
Opening night of Oleanna at the Mark Taper Forum (various stars discuss their reactions to the play)
Julia Stiles on The View discussing her role
From the film:
Part of Act 1
"Fight Scene"
Interview with director (of the Broadway show) Doug Hughes
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Discussion Questions
2. Do you think the grotesque elements present in either or both stories makes the characters more or less sympathetic? Do you find them alienating, or do they help render the characters more fully human and understandable?
At first, all characters in both these stories are presented in a way to make the reader uncomfortable and therefore, causes the reader to dislike them. But, time goes on and the reader is given more time to get to know these characters, and because of that, it is easy to sympathize with characters that in the beginning, the reader would've been set up to dislike. O'Connor does this really well, and both stories sort of knock the reader out, for lack of a better term. In both stories, the elements that are grotesque make the characters fully human. There's no questions about that. In the beginning, Hulga is made out to be a cold, Atheistic philosopher. But after the Bible salesmen turns his back on her, the reader is forced to sympathize, because she went from being on top, to being as low as possible, just like the Grandmother in "A Good Man is Hard to Find."
12.Consider the poem’s title – Do you think it references his commitments to his family … or theirs to whom? What is the substance of these commitments?
In this poem, it is clear the Hemphill's commitments are to his family, because there is no explanation of his family having an commitments to anything. He spells it out plainly for the reader when he says, "I am always there / for critical emergencies, / graduations, / the middle of the night." But the tone of and other aspects of the poem put the audience under the impression that he is not appreciated, meaning that his commitments don't really seem to phase his family because they are blinded by his homosexuality, either that, or they just don't bother to notice.
At first, all characters in both these stories are presented in a way to make the reader uncomfortable and therefore, causes the reader to dislike them. But, time goes on and the reader is given more time to get to know these characters, and because of that, it is easy to sympathize with characters that in the beginning, the reader would've been set up to dislike. O'Connor does this really well, and both stories sort of knock the reader out, for lack of a better term. In both stories, the elements that are grotesque make the characters fully human. There's no questions about that. In the beginning, Hulga is made out to be a cold, Atheistic philosopher. But after the Bible salesmen turns his back on her, the reader is forced to sympathize, because she went from being on top, to being as low as possible, just like the Grandmother in "A Good Man is Hard to Find."
12.Consider the poem’s title – Do you think it references his commitments to his family … or theirs to whom? What is the substance of these commitments?
In this poem, it is clear the Hemphill's commitments are to his family, because there is no explanation of his family having an commitments to anything. He spells it out plainly for the reader when he says, "I am always there / for critical emergencies, / graduations, / the middle of the night." But the tone of and other aspects of the poem put the audience under the impression that he is not appreciated, meaning that his commitments don't really seem to phase his family because they are blinded by his homosexuality, either that, or they just don't bother to notice.
DB week 5
QUESTION 12
The title commitments do not think just applies to his family. But I think it also applies to society. The commitment is to be in photos as a single man without letting anyone know who he truley is. To always seem happy even though inside he feels like invisible. But he has a commitment to his family and obviously to himself to maintain this image.
QUESTION 13
In A Chinese banquet the author uses the metophor my home is in her arms because when she is most comfortable with her lover. It doesnt matter where they are at but if they are together home can be anywhere. When she says the bedroom ceiling is wide open sky she is saying the sky is the limits. The do not have to be supressed and she symbolizes this with a ceiling.
The title commitments do not think just applies to his family. But I think it also applies to society. The commitment is to be in photos as a single man without letting anyone know who he truley is. To always seem happy even though inside he feels like invisible. But he has a commitment to his family and obviously to himself to maintain this image.
QUESTION 13
In A Chinese banquet the author uses the metophor my home is in her arms because when she is most comfortable with her lover. It doesnt matter where they are at but if they are together home can be anywhere. When she says the bedroom ceiling is wide open sky she is saying the sky is the limits. The do not have to be supressed and she symbolizes this with a ceiling.
English 103 Week 5 Blog
English 103 - Blog #4
Discussion Questions
"A Good Man is Hard to Find"
Discussion Question #4
4) Discuss the title of “A Good Man is Hard to Find” – how does it relate to the story? Does this title provide a particular kind of insight into the text?
The short story, “A Good Man is Hard to Find,” written by Flannery O’ Connor, is a Southern story that has strong Christian aspects, along with strong, grotesque features with it. However, it also has another message that it seeping through its pages – that good people are getting harder and harder to find every day. The title of the story and the story are interconnected with one another like pieces of a puzzle – there cannot be one without another. At the beginning of the story, the grandmother and her family are getting ready to go to Florida. However, the grandmother does not want to go there and begs to go to Tennessee because a criminal named, The Misfit, escaped from prison. The grandmother does not want the family to be in any type of danger with this criminal on the loose. However, the family goes against the grandmother’s wishes and goes forward with their plans. From the beginning of the story, readers can surmise that the title of the story and the grandmother’s fear of The Misfit are related to one another in some way. There are a couple of other examples of how the title and the story fit perfectly together. When the family stops at Red Sammy’s for dinner, the grandmother has a conversation with Red Sammy about how people used to be: “A good man is hard to find,” Red Sammy said. “Everything is getting terrible. I remember the day you could go off and leave your screen door unlatched. Not no more” (qtd. in Schilb and Clifford 1254). Lastly, the Misfit’s actions at the end of the story prove how he is not a good man, and that his actions prove the title’s point: “The Misfit sprang back as if a snake had bitten him and shot her three times through the chest. Then he put his gun down on the ground and took off his glasses and began to clean them” (qtd. in Schilb and Clifford 1261). By examining these examples from the story, it is easy to see how the title and the story complement each other. Throughout the story, the grandmother talks to other characters about how the world has changed and that people are not nice or civilized the way they used to be back in the “old days.” The title of a story often is significant, and should be paid attention to. When O’Connor wrote this story, she probably wanted the right title to speak for the story. “A Good Man is Hard to Find” is the perfect title for this story, and offers the balance that O’Connor was seeking for this short story.
Yes, the title of this short story does provide a particular kind of insight into the text. The short story is basically about this whole idea – how good people are lost to the world. O’Connor did an excellent job at choosing a title that makes a lasting impression on her readers and really makes the wheels in the mind turn. Readers of this short story also have the advantage of being able to foreshadow possible events, as the title makes it very easy to come up with many possible scenarios. However, the main message that the title suggests to its readers is that good people are becoming harder and harder to find, and that the world is becoming more dangerous because of it. Back in the “old days” as Red Sammy was explaining to the grandmother, people did not have to lock their doors or fear their neighbors. Everybody knew everybody, and the world was a safer and more delightful place to live in. However, as the times have changed so have the people and some people have become more dangerous to live around – a universal fact that many people seem to accept. It is this important insight that many readers may gain as they dive into this grotesque, yet powerful story.In the short story, “A Good Man is Hard to Find,” written by Flannery O’Connor, the title of the story and the story complement each other nicely, and the title of the story also provides a particular kind of insight into the text.
The short story, “A Good Man is Hard to Find,” written by Flannery O’ Connor, is a Southern story that has strong Christian aspects, along with strong, grotesque features with it. However, it also has another message that it seeping through its pages – that good people are getting harder and harder to find every day. The title of the story and the story are interconnected with one another like pieces of a puzzle – there cannot be one without another. At the beginning of the story, the grandmother and her family are getting ready to go to Florida. However, the grandmother does not want to go there and begs to go to Tennessee because a criminal named, The Misfit, escaped from prison. The grandmother does not want the family to be in any type of danger with this criminal on the loose. However, the family goes against the grandmother’s wishes and goes forward with their plans. From the beginning of the story, readers can surmise that the title of the story and the grandmother’s fear of The Misfit are related to one another in some way. There are a couple of other examples of how the title and the story fit perfectly together. When the family stops at Red Sammy’s for dinner, the grandmother has a conversation with Red Sammy about how people used to be: “A good man is hard to find,” Red Sammy said. “Everything is getting terrible. I remember the day you could go off and leave your screen door unlatched. Not no more” (qtd. in Schilb and Clifford 1254). Lastly, the Misfit’s actions at the end of the story prove how he is not a good man, and that his actions prove the title’s point: “The Misfit sprang back as if a snake had bitten him and shot her three times through the chest. Then he put his gun down on the ground and took off his glasses and began to clean them” (qtd. in Schilb and Clifford 1261). By examining these examples from the story, it is easy to see how the title and the story complement each other. Throughout the story, the grandmother talks to other characters about how the world has changed and that people are not nice or civilized the way they used to be back in the “old days.” The title of a story often is significant, and should be paid attention to. When O’Connor wrote this story, she probably wanted the right title to speak for the story. “A Good Man is Hard to Find” is the perfect title for this story, and offers the balance that O’Connor was seeking for this short story.
Yes, the title of this short story does provide a particular kind of insight into the text. The short story is basically about this whole idea – how good people are lost to the world. O’Connor did an excellent job at choosing a title that makes a lasting impression on her readers and really makes the wheels in the mind turn. Readers of this short story also have the advantage of being able to foreshadow possible events, as the title makes it very easy to come up with many possible scenarios. However, the main message that the title suggests to its readers is that good people are becoming harder and harder to find, and that the world is becoming more dangerous because of it. Back in the “old days” as Red Sammy was explaining to the grandmother, people did not have to lock their doors or fear their neighbors. Everybody knew everybody, and the world was a safer and more delightful place to live in. However, as the times have changed so have the people and some people have become more dangerous to live around – a universal fact that many people seem to accept. It is this important insight that many readers may gain as they dive into this grotesque, yet powerful story.In the short story, “A Good Man is Hard to Find,” written by Flannery O’Connor, the title of the story and the story complement each other nicely, and the title of the story also provides a particular kind of insight into the text.
"A Chinese Banquet"
Discussion Question #13
13) Kitty Tsui’s poem is dedicated is “for the one who was not invited,” which we take to be the narrator’s same-sex lover. In the end, the narrator wishes to tell her family that [her] back is healing/she dream[s] of dragons and water/my home is in her arms/our bedroom ceiling the wide open sky” (Lines 49-52). Analyze these metaphors as they relate to the space between her relationship with her lover and her relationship with her family, two relationships that appear will not cross over one another.
The poem, “A Chinese Banquet,” written by Kitty Tsui, is a poem about the narrator’s conflict between her love for her partner and her desire to have her family accept her and her lover with open arms. I thought this was a good poem to read as it truly exposed the internal conflict that many same-sex couples face when trying to integrate their lives with the lives of their families – especially if their families are not very open-minded. If it turns out their families are not open-minded and refuse to accept their son or daughter as part of the homosexual community, then it can be extremely difficult for these individuals as they want to defend their chosen lifestyle, but do not want to dissolve ties with their family. However, sometimes this has to be the solution – their family or their partners. Usually, same-sex couples get tired of the extreme discrimination and hatred from the outside world, and if they do not get support from their families, then they will sever ties from their families as well. The narrator made this choice in the poem, and is freeing herself from her family and her family’s prejudices. This powerful choice can be seen in the metaphors that are made in the last few lines of the poem.
The last lines of the poem state the following: “i want to tell them: my back is healing. i dream of dragons and water. my home is in her arms, our bedroom ceiling the wide open sky” (qtd. in Schilb and Clifford 556). These powerful metaphors tell readers the important decision that the narrator has made in her life. The first line where the narrator states, “i want to tell them: my back is healing,” is where the narrator wants to tell her family that she no longer wishes to be involved with them because they will not accept her and her lover, and she is willing to leave them behind. Dissolving ties with family is a painful process that can wound an individual, and the narrator probably has gone through this pain. However, she is healing from this emotional pain because she has to – for her sake and for her lover’s sake. The narrator could not handle the prejudice from her family any longer, and as painful as it was to break these ties, it was necessary. However, her “back,” or emotional life is now healing, and is glad about this. She wants to tell her family this, but cannot because she knows that they would never understand. The second metaphor, “i dream of dragons and water,” has to do with the relationship with her family and her lover that will never collide with each other because it is impossible. Just as dragons cannot exist with water because they breathe fire, her relationship with her lover cannot exist with her family because they do not approve of her lover. Therefore, these two relationships cannot coexist with each other. The last metaphor of the poem, which is also the last line of the poem, states the following: “my home is in her arms, our bedroom ceiling the wide open sky.” This is the narrator’s declaration that her happiness, and the happiness of her lover, is more important to her than her family. Her family does not accept and love her for who she is, but her lover does. Her lover loves her unconditionally, and that is all that the narrator wants in life. Therefore, the narrator has made the decision that her home is with her lover, and has declared that they feel safe and secure in the comfort of their own home without the prejudice of the world suffocating them. The metaphors that the author places at the end of the poem are very powerful because they speak profoundly about the distance between the narrator’s love life and her relationship with her family – two distances that can never cross. They can never mix with each other because they are chemically unstable, and to mix them together would cause utter destruction. However, keeping these two elements apart keeps them in their pure and stable state, making them easier to handle. It is amazing how a couple of metaphors can speak volumes about a life-changing subject.
In the poem, “A Chinese Banquet,” written by Kitty Tsui, the narrator explains in the last metaphors of the poem how her relationship with her lover and her family can never coexist with one another.
The poem, “A Chinese Banquet,” written by Kitty Tsui, is a poem about the narrator’s conflict between her love for her partner and her desire to have her family accept her and her lover with open arms. I thought this was a good poem to read as it truly exposed the internal conflict that many same-sex couples face when trying to integrate their lives with the lives of their families – especially if their families are not very open-minded. If it turns out their families are not open-minded and refuse to accept their son or daughter as part of the homosexual community, then it can be extremely difficult for these individuals as they want to defend their chosen lifestyle, but do not want to dissolve ties with their family. However, sometimes this has to be the solution – their family or their partners. Usually, same-sex couples get tired of the extreme discrimination and hatred from the outside world, and if they do not get support from their families, then they will sever ties from their families as well. The narrator made this choice in the poem, and is freeing herself from her family and her family’s prejudices. This powerful choice can be seen in the metaphors that are made in the last few lines of the poem.
The last lines of the poem state the following: “i want to tell them: my back is healing. i dream of dragons and water. my home is in her arms, our bedroom ceiling the wide open sky” (qtd. in Schilb and Clifford 556). These powerful metaphors tell readers the important decision that the narrator has made in her life. The first line where the narrator states, “i want to tell them: my back is healing,” is where the narrator wants to tell her family that she no longer wishes to be involved with them because they will not accept her and her lover, and she is willing to leave them behind. Dissolving ties with family is a painful process that can wound an individual, and the narrator probably has gone through this pain. However, she is healing from this emotional pain because she has to – for her sake and for her lover’s sake. The narrator could not handle the prejudice from her family any longer, and as painful as it was to break these ties, it was necessary. However, her “back,” or emotional life is now healing, and is glad about this. She wants to tell her family this, but cannot because she knows that they would never understand. The second metaphor, “i dream of dragons and water,” has to do with the relationship with her family and her lover that will never collide with each other because it is impossible. Just as dragons cannot exist with water because they breathe fire, her relationship with her lover cannot exist with her family because they do not approve of her lover. Therefore, these two relationships cannot coexist with each other. The last metaphor of the poem, which is also the last line of the poem, states the following: “my home is in her arms, our bedroom ceiling the wide open sky.” This is the narrator’s declaration that her happiness, and the happiness of her lover, is more important to her than her family. Her family does not accept and love her for who she is, but her lover does. Her lover loves her unconditionally, and that is all that the narrator wants in life. Therefore, the narrator has made the decision that her home is with her lover, and has declared that they feel safe and secure in the comfort of their own home without the prejudice of the world suffocating them. The metaphors that the author places at the end of the poem are very powerful because they speak profoundly about the distance between the narrator’s love life and her relationship with her family – two distances that can never cross. They can never mix with each other because they are chemically unstable, and to mix them together would cause utter destruction. However, keeping these two elements apart keeps them in their pure and stable state, making them easier to handle. It is amazing how a couple of metaphors can speak volumes about a life-changing subject.
In the poem, “A Chinese Banquet,” written by Kitty Tsui, the narrator explains in the last metaphors of the poem how her relationship with her lover and her family can never coexist with one another.
Discussion Week 5
4.
The title “A Good Man is Hard to Find” is sort of ironic. The family that leaves for vacation has no idea that they are about to encounter The Misfit and his partners. The family is aware of The Misfit, but what are the odds they would run into him somewhere? Very good apparently. The idea of bad men being easier to find then good men is unsettling. And the grandmother in the story tries her best to convince The Misfit that he is a good man. Just the title of this story tells the reader it will not have a happy ending. It adds suspense to the story as well, reading through almost the entire story waiting for this “man” to appear. It starts the reader wondering, “Why is it so hard to find a good man? Is the father not a good man? Who is this story's real focus on?” And even after The Misfit is revealed in the story, after he's had the rest of the family killed, you wonder if he is really going to kill the grandmother too or if he will have a change of heart. The title suggests that good men do exist but you have to look hard. Which seems to be the obvious thing you have to do but people might forget that.
12.
I feel the title references his commitments to his own family. We see it especially in the last line, “I smile as I serve my duty.” He has to be there with his family and participate in all the same activities and put on a happy face for them. He feels obligated but he does care about them, as seen in the line, “I am always there for critical emergencies, graduations, the middle of the night.” He is there when they need him. His biggest commitment is to his family, to be a part of it. So he hides his true feelings to keep them happy.
The title “A Good Man is Hard to Find” is sort of ironic. The family that leaves for vacation has no idea that they are about to encounter The Misfit and his partners. The family is aware of The Misfit, but what are the odds they would run into him somewhere? Very good apparently. The idea of bad men being easier to find then good men is unsettling. And the grandmother in the story tries her best to convince The Misfit that he is a good man. Just the title of this story tells the reader it will not have a happy ending. It adds suspense to the story as well, reading through almost the entire story waiting for this “man” to appear. It starts the reader wondering, “Why is it so hard to find a good man? Is the father not a good man? Who is this story's real focus on?” And even after The Misfit is revealed in the story, after he's had the rest of the family killed, you wonder if he is really going to kill the grandmother too or if he will have a change of heart. The title suggests that good men do exist but you have to look hard. Which seems to be the obvious thing you have to do but people might forget that.
12.
I feel the title references his commitments to his own family. We see it especially in the last line, “I smile as I serve my duty.” He has to be there with his family and participate in all the same activities and put on a happy face for them. He feels obligated but he does care about them, as seen in the line, “I am always there for critical emergencies, graduations, the middle of the night.” He is there when they need him. His biggest commitment is to his family, to be a part of it. So he hides his true feelings to keep them happy.
DQ Week 5
“A Good Man is Hard to Find”
4. Discuss the title of “A Good Man is Hard to Find” – how does it relate to the story? Does this title provide a particular kind of insight into the text?
By Flannery O'Connor‘s title, “A Good Man is Hard to Find,” the reader can easily think that this short story is about a women who cannot find a good man in her life or for her. As the story is read, the title can be related to the story. The story is about a grandmother and her son and family. The grandmother has a very ‘the olden days’ were type of attitude who believes that there are no good men and that all people are untrustworthy. Along the way the family meets up with The Misfit, who is an escaped convict. The Misfit does relate to the title as well as what the grandmother feels. Encountering with this man gives truth to the title because this man ends up killing the whole family. Not every man can be a the ‘bad man’ but as for the story there was no good man. The title then does give insight into the text because it is about how a good man is hard to find.
“Heritage”
9. “The last sentence seems to contain a contradiction. “From my family I have learned the secrets” might lead you to expect something positive. But maybe the last phrase is not meant to be positive. What is your reading of Hogan’s conclusion?” (492)
“Heritage” by Linda Hogan is about the speakers family. She tells about what her family has taught not just about her but also in relation to her heritage. Her mother, father, uncle, and grandfather have all taught mainly about herself, her distinct features that make her apart of her Chickasaw heritage. As for her Grandmother, she has taken the roll of teaching her about her heritage and how important it is. Hogan ends with “From my family I have learned the secret,” which can seem like a positive conclusion because learning about ones family is important, but sometimes learning the truth is not always positive. “She told me how our tribe has always followed a stick,” indicates how her tribe has always had to move away. Learning that your family has never been able to be stable because they have been forced to move is not positive, especially because of other groups of people. She learns that there is negative relationships with outsiders. “It was the brown stain/that covered my white shirt./my whiteness a shame,” is a very important line. It can be understood that the ‘white’ people are the ones who could have that negative tension between their families. Their tribe can symbolize the brown stain that seems to always be in the way and having to move along. Thus, “never having a home.”
4. Discuss the title of “A Good Man is Hard to Find” – how does it relate to the story? Does this title provide a particular kind of insight into the text?
By Flannery O'Connor‘s title, “A Good Man is Hard to Find,” the reader can easily think that this short story is about a women who cannot find a good man in her life or for her. As the story is read, the title can be related to the story. The story is about a grandmother and her son and family. The grandmother has a very ‘the olden days’ were type of attitude who believes that there are no good men and that all people are untrustworthy. Along the way the family meets up with The Misfit, who is an escaped convict. The Misfit does relate to the title as well as what the grandmother feels. Encountering with this man gives truth to the title because this man ends up killing the whole family. Not every man can be a the ‘bad man’ but as for the story there was no good man. The title then does give insight into the text because it is about how a good man is hard to find.
“Heritage”
9. “The last sentence seems to contain a contradiction. “From my family I have learned the secrets” might lead you to expect something positive. But maybe the last phrase is not meant to be positive. What is your reading of Hogan’s conclusion?” (492)
“Heritage” by Linda Hogan is about the speakers family. She tells about what her family has taught not just about her but also in relation to her heritage. Her mother, father, uncle, and grandfather have all taught mainly about herself, her distinct features that make her apart of her Chickasaw heritage. As for her Grandmother, she has taken the roll of teaching her about her heritage and how important it is. Hogan ends with “From my family I have learned the secret,” which can seem like a positive conclusion because learning about ones family is important, but sometimes learning the truth is not always positive. “She told me how our tribe has always followed a stick,” indicates how her tribe has always had to move away. Learning that your family has never been able to be stable because they have been forced to move is not positive, especially because of other groups of people. She learns that there is negative relationships with outsiders. “It was the brown stain/that covered my white shirt./my whiteness a shame,” is a very important line. It can be understood that the ‘white’ people are the ones who could have that negative tension between their families. Their tribe can symbolize the brown stain that seems to always be in the way and having to move along. Thus, “never having a home.”
DB# 5 Question # 13 & 14"A Chinese Banquet."
13. The metaphors are described, for living an open homosexual relationship without any complications. " Our bedroom ceiling the wide open sky," sends the massage of the need to not hide there love any longer. Because the suppression of discretion in there relationship,there life would be worry free, and they could overcome any challenge together.
14.In the small talk,that continues throughout the poem provides, a definition of simplicity that is missing from her own life. I think the example of a vacation and of eating exotic foods provides an example of a worry free life. The girl within the story lacks simplicity in her relationships, and a worry free lifestyle. In this instance I feel as though she is pointing these examples out, due to envy.
14.In the small talk,that continues throughout the poem provides, a definition of simplicity that is missing from her own life. I think the example of a vacation and of eating exotic foods provides an example of a worry free life. The girl within the story lacks simplicity in her relationships, and a worry free lifestyle. In this instance I feel as though she is pointing these examples out, due to envy.
DB Questions Week 5
A Good Man is Hard to Find
2. Do you think the grotesque elements present in either or both stories makes the characters more or less sympathetic? Do you find them alienating, or do they help render the characters more fully human and understandable?
In "A Good Man is Hard to Find", the reader often recognizes the obvious, and depending on their perspective, background, upbringing, etc. can see the difference between right and wrong. However, this piece presents grotesque elements such as the violent act of murder as a means of acceptance and understanding of the world. In my opinion, the grandmother is the person I am least sympathetic towards. Up until the last moments of her life, she is selfish, condescending, and unforgiving. She presents herself as a woman of grace, faith, and poise, when in reality, she acts and reacts in a completely different light. The Misfit, he readily accepts the world, with its violence and fear, and takes it for what it is. I am NOT saying that murder is justifiable in a situation. However, the Misfit presents the idea that grace is not measured by how good you try to make your life and the lives of others around you, but by how you accept your life for what it is, less struggle and resistance. Whether or not this makes a character more human is based upon perspective. From my view, being "human" involves acceptance, humility, forgiveness, strength, and the courage to accept an otherwise unacceptable fate.
6. Another thematic element at work in much of O'Connor's fiction is "grace", the concept of undeserved forgiveness and/or acceptance. Consider her own statement about her characters:
"Our age not only does not have a very sharp eye for the almost imperceptible intrusions of grace, it no longer has much feeling for the nature of the violences which precede and follow them...I have found that violence is strangely capable of returning my characters to reality and preparing them to accept their moment of grace. Their heads are so hard that almost nothing else will do the work. This idea, that reality is something to which we must be returned at considerable cost, is one which is seldom understood by the casual reader, but is one which is implicit in the Christian view of the world" (1392-1393)
The violence in O'Connor's piece brings a realness to the characters. With fear instilled in them, the reader has a better understanding of the intentions of each character and what they value most. When the grandmother is threatened with losing her life, she reluctantly seeks forgiveness, but only after she is unrepentant. The Misfit, seeing how long it took for her to become accepting of her fate, and how much it took for her to stop struggling, acts in repulsion by murdering her. In a way, the Misfit can be seen showing more grace than the grandmother by his "undeserved forgiveness and/or acceptance" of violence, his fate, and the way of the world. O'Connor's usage of grace and violence can also be seen during the period in which she lived in. She was raised during the Great Depression and died during WWII. To be surrounded by violence, grief, tragedy, loss almost all of your life, usage of these elements within her writing seems only fitting to reveal truths within our society and our nature as human beings, individually and as a whole.
2. Do you think the grotesque elements present in either or both stories makes the characters more or less sympathetic? Do you find them alienating, or do they help render the characters more fully human and understandable?
In "A Good Man is Hard to Find", the reader often recognizes the obvious, and depending on their perspective, background, upbringing, etc. can see the difference between right and wrong. However, this piece presents grotesque elements such as the violent act of murder as a means of acceptance and understanding of the world. In my opinion, the grandmother is the person I am least sympathetic towards. Up until the last moments of her life, she is selfish, condescending, and unforgiving. She presents herself as a woman of grace, faith, and poise, when in reality, she acts and reacts in a completely different light. The Misfit, he readily accepts the world, with its violence and fear, and takes it for what it is. I am NOT saying that murder is justifiable in a situation. However, the Misfit presents the idea that grace is not measured by how good you try to make your life and the lives of others around you, but by how you accept your life for what it is, less struggle and resistance. Whether or not this makes a character more human is based upon perspective. From my view, being "human" involves acceptance, humility, forgiveness, strength, and the courage to accept an otherwise unacceptable fate.
6. Another thematic element at work in much of O'Connor's fiction is "grace", the concept of undeserved forgiveness and/or acceptance. Consider her own statement about her characters:
"Our age not only does not have a very sharp eye for the almost imperceptible intrusions of grace, it no longer has much feeling for the nature of the violences which precede and follow them...I have found that violence is strangely capable of returning my characters to reality and preparing them to accept their moment of grace. Their heads are so hard that almost nothing else will do the work. This idea, that reality is something to which we must be returned at considerable cost, is one which is seldom understood by the casual reader, but is one which is implicit in the Christian view of the world" (1392-1393)
The violence in O'Connor's piece brings a realness to the characters. With fear instilled in them, the reader has a better understanding of the intentions of each character and what they value most. When the grandmother is threatened with losing her life, she reluctantly seeks forgiveness, but only after she is unrepentant. The Misfit, seeing how long it took for her to become accepting of her fate, and how much it took for her to stop struggling, acts in repulsion by murdering her. In a way, the Misfit can be seen showing more grace than the grandmother by his "undeserved forgiveness and/or acceptance" of violence, his fate, and the way of the world. O'Connor's usage of grace and violence can also be seen during the period in which she lived in. She was raised during the Great Depression and died during WWII. To be surrounded by violence, grief, tragedy, loss almost all of your life, usage of these elements within her writing seems only fitting to reveal truths within our society and our nature as human beings, individually and as a whole.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
DQ Week 5
10. Hogan's use figurative images through the use of metaphors and similes are compared to herself and to her ancestors explain her heritage. In the first stanza she uses the metaphor of a mirror to say that she looks like her mother: "From my mother, the antique mirror/ where I watch my face taker on her lines" (1-2). The lines on her face are obviously wrinkles but they could also represent the hardship that brought on those wrinkles. Hogan is simply sayinf that her life reflects her mother's in the sense that they have seen hardship. "From my father I take is brown eyes/the plague of locusts that leveled our crops/ they flew in formation like buzzards" (7-9). Buzzards are definably a symbol of death. Brown is a natural and dull color. Hogan is saying that her eyes have grown desensitized to famine, hardship, and death like her father. In lines 28-30 she says "It was the brown stain/ that covered my white shirt,/my whiteness a shame" Here white shirt is a metaphor for here innocents and the brown stain a loss of that innocents. It also suggest that she is ashamed of half white. Line five supports this idea of being ashamed of being a half blood " she left the large white breasts that weigh down my body". Being two different races makes her feel disconnected and connected to her family at the same time because Indians are people that have not home. "From my family I have learned the secrets/ of never having a home" (44-45).
11)Yes literally Hemphill is present in the pictures, but he is only there to fill the gap of where he should be in is family. He is fulfilling his commitment to his family by being there, but he feels invisible because even though he is present his family does not really see him for who his is. They only see for who they expect him to be. "My arms are empty, or around/ the shoulders of unsuspecting aunt/ expecting to through rice at me someday" (16-18). They are expecting him to live a normal heterosexual and it seems as though they are unaware of his homosexuality. He has not yet come out to his family in the poem, and his homosexuality is invisible, thus he is invisible with him. "I am the invisible son./In the family photos/nothing appears out of character/ I smile as I see my duty" (32-35). He is present in the family life as being normal but no one sees him for who is really is.
11)Yes literally Hemphill is present in the pictures, but he is only there to fill the gap of where he should be in is family. He is fulfilling his commitment to his family by being there, but he feels invisible because even though he is present his family does not really see him for who his is. They only see for who they expect him to be. "My arms are empty, or around/ the shoulders of unsuspecting aunt/ expecting to through rice at me someday" (16-18). They are expecting him to live a normal heterosexual and it seems as though they are unaware of his homosexuality. He has not yet come out to his family in the poem, and his homosexuality is invisible, thus he is invisible with him. "I am the invisible son./In the family photos/nothing appears out of character/ I smile as I see my duty" (32-35). He is present in the family life as being normal but no one sees him for who is really is.
5 down, 13 to go......
1. Discuss the title of “A Good Man is Hard to Find” – how does it relate to the story? Does this title provide a particular kind of insight into the text?
Well, I don’t think the title offers much insight. I had to laugh though when I was reading it, thinking of how the grandmother was talking to Red Sammy about “better times”. I laughed, I talk about “better times” (pre-video game era) to my son all the time! If only she knew what was to become of her, not to mention me as a reader…I was so ill prepared for the rest of the story! I don’t think the title alludes to the story at all. Maybe in a sense it could, for instance when the family gets into their accident and is suddenly faced with death by a known criminal, the grandmother and the Misfit talk at length about being a good man….she tries so hard to convince him that because he comes from good people, he must too be good. Not the case, he lacks any kind of remorse but certainly has her fooled to thinking otherwise.
2. Hogan’s poem is heavy-handed in terms of figurative images; she relies on similes and metaphors. Explain how these concrete, often visual representations explain more abstract ideas.
I love the face that Hogan uses these representations in trying to project her vision to her readers. She uses the fact that she represents her familial heritage in physical traits but in moral ones as well. She’s learned to fear silence as she stated from her grandfather. The most concrete visual of the entire poem I think is when she mentions her grandmothers spit can spilling on her, almost as though it was done on purpose, to darken her skin. Hogan feels her tone is shameful, not worthy of her roots. These metaphors make her poem special, something as a reader; I can get in touch with. Some of the lines lead me to trust what she’s saying, challenging my mind to imagine how she must feel.
1. Essex Hemphill’s poem “Commitments” is rather straightforward in terms of its diction and structure. As such, we can easily ascertain that he is speaking of his place in the equation of his family. Hemphill uses a major paradox to communicate his feelings about his familial identity: he spends much of the poem reiterating his presence (as represented in family photographs) but also suggests he is “invisible” (Line 32). This major tension, or conflict, is something a New Critic would focus upon in an analysis, and certainly, it drives this verse. Such tensions are ultimately resolved by the conclusion of the poem: ultimately, is Hemphill visible or invisible, and in what sense?
This question is so hard to answer!!! Ok, I’m sure we can all agree that he’s physically visible…as in he is a member of his family, not having drifted away or distanced himself so much that his presence is unknown. However, he is without a doubt invisible, in his mind and suggests that he is also to his family. They don’t know his secret, they might not welcome his lifestyle into their family in the same manner they welcome him assuming and picturing a more traditional role that a young man might carry. I think he feels invisible also because in the part where he mentions the small kids held by their parents, he feels empty like he’s missing a precious gem life offers when one reproduces….he won’t have that opportunity. I guess he’s more invisible…..how sad. How many others possibly feel as he does?
3. What is the purpose and the effect of the preservation of “small talk” throughout the poem? Why, for example, do we need to know that one is “sitting down for shark fin soup” (Line 12) or that “they talk about buying a house/taking a two-week vacation in Beijing” (Lines 13 and 14)? Consider the contrast between these anecdotal moments and the internal conflict the narrator seems to be experiencing as she participates in the banquet.
I think Kitty is referring to people in her family trudging through life, one always trying to be better than the Jones’s. I think she constantly feels “one up-ed”, unaccepted, even unloved. The reference to small talk throughout to me, symbolizes her own isolation. She can’t discuss her dreams, can’t have a regular small talk conversation for fear that her loved ones will shut her down. Her internal conflict stems from being excluded from nearly everything and merely desires to be accepted as a gay woman in her family.
Well, I don’t think the title offers much insight. I had to laugh though when I was reading it, thinking of how the grandmother was talking to Red Sammy about “better times”. I laughed, I talk about “better times” (pre-video game era) to my son all the time! If only she knew what was to become of her, not to mention me as a reader…I was so ill prepared for the rest of the story! I don’t think the title alludes to the story at all. Maybe in a sense it could, for instance when the family gets into their accident and is suddenly faced with death by a known criminal, the grandmother and the Misfit talk at length about being a good man….she tries so hard to convince him that because he comes from good people, he must too be good. Not the case, he lacks any kind of remorse but certainly has her fooled to thinking otherwise.
2. Hogan’s poem is heavy-handed in terms of figurative images; she relies on similes and metaphors. Explain how these concrete, often visual representations explain more abstract ideas.
I love the face that Hogan uses these representations in trying to project her vision to her readers. She uses the fact that she represents her familial heritage in physical traits but in moral ones as well. She’s learned to fear silence as she stated from her grandfather. The most concrete visual of the entire poem I think is when she mentions her grandmothers spit can spilling on her, almost as though it was done on purpose, to darken her skin. Hogan feels her tone is shameful, not worthy of her roots. These metaphors make her poem special, something as a reader; I can get in touch with. Some of the lines lead me to trust what she’s saying, challenging my mind to imagine how she must feel.
1. Essex Hemphill’s poem “Commitments” is rather straightforward in terms of its diction and structure. As such, we can easily ascertain that he is speaking of his place in the equation of his family. Hemphill uses a major paradox to communicate his feelings about his familial identity: he spends much of the poem reiterating his presence (as represented in family photographs) but also suggests he is “invisible” (Line 32). This major tension, or conflict, is something a New Critic would focus upon in an analysis, and certainly, it drives this verse. Such tensions are ultimately resolved by the conclusion of the poem: ultimately, is Hemphill visible or invisible, and in what sense?
This question is so hard to answer!!! Ok, I’m sure we can all agree that he’s physically visible…as in he is a member of his family, not having drifted away or distanced himself so much that his presence is unknown. However, he is without a doubt invisible, in his mind and suggests that he is also to his family. They don’t know his secret, they might not welcome his lifestyle into their family in the same manner they welcome him assuming and picturing a more traditional role that a young man might carry. I think he feels invisible also because in the part where he mentions the small kids held by their parents, he feels empty like he’s missing a precious gem life offers when one reproduces….he won’t have that opportunity. I guess he’s more invisible…..how sad. How many others possibly feel as he does?
3. What is the purpose and the effect of the preservation of “small talk” throughout the poem? Why, for example, do we need to know that one is “sitting down for shark fin soup” (Line 12) or that “they talk about buying a house/taking a two-week vacation in Beijing” (Lines 13 and 14)? Consider the contrast between these anecdotal moments and the internal conflict the narrator seems to be experiencing as she participates in the banquet.
I think Kitty is referring to people in her family trudging through life, one always trying to be better than the Jones’s. I think she constantly feels “one up-ed”, unaccepted, even unloved. The reference to small talk throughout to me, symbolizes her own isolation. She can’t discuss her dreams, can’t have a regular small talk conversation for fear that her loved ones will shut her down. Her internal conflict stems from being excluded from nearly everything and merely desires to be accepted as a gay woman in her family.
Week Five
Question 2
I was not expecting the ending. I found some of the authors word choices as grotesque, but could deal with it. Murder happens every second, every minute, of every day. Sometimes I think society has accepted murder for less than it is. There is not a lot of information provided by the author about the details of the killings, but there is enough information provided to the events to keep the reader interested.
Question 4
The title would make me to think that the writing would be about a love story of a woman in search of " A Good Man", but is just the opposite. As we can see by the charterers "Bobby Lee" and "The Misfit" they were not good men. So, I would say the author is correct when she stated, "A Good Man is Hard to Find".
I was not expecting the ending. I found some of the authors word choices as grotesque, but could deal with it. Murder happens every second, every minute, of every day. Sometimes I think society has accepted murder for less than it is. There is not a lot of information provided by the author about the details of the killings, but there is enough information provided to the events to keep the reader interested.
Question 4
The title would make me to think that the writing would be about a love story of a woman in search of " A Good Man", but is just the opposite. As we can see by the charterers "Bobby Lee" and "The Misfit" they were not good men. So, I would say the author is correct when she stated, "A Good Man is Hard to Find".
blog week 5
Commitments
Invisible or Visible? Mr. Hemphill seems to be both. Although he doesn't mention it, one would assume that he was visible to his family. He is also visible in the photographs that hang upon the wall. Although he is visible to the eye, his presence within himself is invisible. Whats the point of attending an event if you feel alone and can't share your real self. To himself in the photos you see Essex Hemphill the flesh and bone, but what is invisible is the real Essex Hemphill. Thoughts, true self, ego, feelings, the longing of a partner that he probably wants to bring to the events but cannot because he believes that he should remain silent about his true self.
"I smile as I serve my duty." This last line explains the poem's title. He is committed to being there for his family. Waking up in the middle of the night to help them, emergencies, and graduations. I would also assume that it is his duty to keep the family connected by not coming out with his gay nature. Many families have embraced their gay family members, yet many more have rejected and isolated their gay family members. Whole families have been torn apart because someone "came out the closet". So he believes his duty is to take care of his family and not tear it apart. Those are his commitments.
Heritage
I read the poem over and over again. I can't see how one would think that last sentence contains a contradiction. It may to me worded in the best way but I wouldn't expect anything positive to end that statement. The poem is littered with negativity and don't's. Plus, how could they have had a home if the tribe was always traveling. She learned the secret of not having a home in two respect. In one respect, with the traveling tribe she never had a home as in a an abode. In the other respect, with the negativity of being told not to remember, fears of silence, and a crystal clear image of snuff spilling on her, she has not had a home in the respect of a loving family that is close to each other. I also gathered that she had a lighter skin tone than the rest of her family and most likely felt ashamed of it. You can't have shame unless someone disapproves of it.
Some times we want to describe something to someone else but the meanings could possibly be lost. It is must simpler when two people can relate on a single image to describe another image that the other person has never seen. If I told you my frog was black and white speckled versus it looks just like the granite that covers our street. We have all seen the street and know it. But you have never seen my frog. So if you picture a piece of street granite in the shape of a frog, you are one step closer to knowing what my frog looks like.
Invisible or Visible? Mr. Hemphill seems to be both. Although he doesn't mention it, one would assume that he was visible to his family. He is also visible in the photographs that hang upon the wall. Although he is visible to the eye, his presence within himself is invisible. Whats the point of attending an event if you feel alone and can't share your real self. To himself in the photos you see Essex Hemphill the flesh and bone, but what is invisible is the real Essex Hemphill. Thoughts, true self, ego, feelings, the longing of a partner that he probably wants to bring to the events but cannot because he believes that he should remain silent about his true self.
"I smile as I serve my duty." This last line explains the poem's title. He is committed to being there for his family. Waking up in the middle of the night to help them, emergencies, and graduations. I would also assume that it is his duty to keep the family connected by not coming out with his gay nature. Many families have embraced their gay family members, yet many more have rejected and isolated their gay family members. Whole families have been torn apart because someone "came out the closet". So he believes his duty is to take care of his family and not tear it apart. Those are his commitments.
Heritage
I read the poem over and over again. I can't see how one would think that last sentence contains a contradiction. It may to me worded in the best way but I wouldn't expect anything positive to end that statement. The poem is littered with negativity and don't's. Plus, how could they have had a home if the tribe was always traveling. She learned the secret of not having a home in two respect. In one respect, with the traveling tribe she never had a home as in a an abode. In the other respect, with the negativity of being told not to remember, fears of silence, and a crystal clear image of snuff spilling on her, she has not had a home in the respect of a loving family that is close to each other. I also gathered that she had a lighter skin tone than the rest of her family and most likely felt ashamed of it. You can't have shame unless someone disapproves of it.
Some times we want to describe something to someone else but the meanings could possibly be lost. It is must simpler when two people can relate on a single image to describe another image that the other person has never seen. If I told you my frog was black and white speckled versus it looks just like the granite that covers our street. We have all seen the street and know it. But you have never seen my frog. So if you picture a piece of street granite in the shape of a frog, you are one step closer to knowing what my frog looks like.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Week 5: Discussion Questions
12. Consider the poem's title - Do you think it references his commitments to his family ... or theirs to whom? What is the substance of the commitments?
I feel that he feels as if he has major commitments to his family. He is a placeholder in the family pictures, and most of the time he is left empty handed. At the same time though, this all could mean that his family feels they have a commitment to him. They keep putting him in the background of the photographs, and they never give him anything to hold. He feels he needs to be the "normal" son for his parents, while his parents feel they need to keep acting like there is nothing wrong with him even if they believe him to be wrong in some ways. The end of the poem, he mentions that in the pictures there is nothing out of the norm, but he smiles as he "serve my duty". Everyone feels as if they have commitments to each other, since they are a family.
13. Kitty Tsui's poem is dedicated "for the one who was not invited", which we take to be the narrator's same-sex lover. In the end, the narrator wishes to tell her family that [her] back is healing/she dreams[s] of dragons and water/my home is in her arms/our bedroom ceiling the wide open sky" (Lines 49-52). Analyze these metaphors as they relate to the space between her relationship with her lover and her relationship with her family, two relationships that appear will not cross over one another.
Due to her being a lesbian, home with her family has never actually been home to her. Her back healing could mean that her family has turned from her or stabbed her in the back. She is healing now that she has found a girlfriend. The home that she feels most comfortable with is her girlfriend. She feels safe and at ease in the arms in her arms. They have the freedom of enjoying the wide open sky, and their bedroom ceiling is wherever they want it to be. I am not sure what the dreams represent, but dragons have often represented good luck or fortune to the Chinese, and water overcomes fire in the Chinese zodiac. The narrator has a new found freedom of being herself and she is going to overcome the anger that her family contains. The two relationships in her life will never cross over, because her family will never accept the real her or her relationship with a woman. Her mother will always just shake her head as a response to what the narrator is saying, and she will never actually listen to her daughter and finally accept her.
I feel that he feels as if he has major commitments to his family. He is a placeholder in the family pictures, and most of the time he is left empty handed. At the same time though, this all could mean that his family feels they have a commitment to him. They keep putting him in the background of the photographs, and they never give him anything to hold. He feels he needs to be the "normal" son for his parents, while his parents feel they need to keep acting like there is nothing wrong with him even if they believe him to be wrong in some ways. The end of the poem, he mentions that in the pictures there is nothing out of the norm, but he smiles as he "serve my duty". Everyone feels as if they have commitments to each other, since they are a family.
13. Kitty Tsui's poem is dedicated "for the one who was not invited", which we take to be the narrator's same-sex lover. In the end, the narrator wishes to tell her family that [her] back is healing/she dreams[s] of dragons and water/my home is in her arms/our bedroom ceiling the wide open sky" (Lines 49-52). Analyze these metaphors as they relate to the space between her relationship with her lover and her relationship with her family, two relationships that appear will not cross over one another.
Due to her being a lesbian, home with her family has never actually been home to her. Her back healing could mean that her family has turned from her or stabbed her in the back. She is healing now that she has found a girlfriend. The home that she feels most comfortable with is her girlfriend. She feels safe and at ease in the arms in her arms. They have the freedom of enjoying the wide open sky, and their bedroom ceiling is wherever they want it to be. I am not sure what the dreams represent, but dragons have often represented good luck or fortune to the Chinese, and water overcomes fire in the Chinese zodiac. The narrator has a new found freedom of being herself and she is going to overcome the anger that her family contains. The two relationships in her life will never cross over, because her family will never accept the real her or her relationship with a woman. Her mother will always just shake her head as a response to what the narrator is saying, and she will never actually listen to her daughter and finally accept her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)