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.
Hi Miss Jillian :)
ReplyDeleteI love reading your blogs; they're always so thorough and informed. Your answer to the first question gave me an entirely new perspective on the interaction between Carol and John. I would never have even come up with the idea that Carol was abused without reading your thoughts on her and I have to say I think your point has merit. I'm not entirely sure I agree, but I think you did a great job backing yourself up and contextualizing your argument.
Great job :)