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”.