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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Lisa,
ReplyDeleteYou 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 wanted to respond to this question as well and agree with your points about poor choices on the part of both people involved. What is important to remember about this play is the social impact and impressions that it made in the early 1990's when it came out. The sexual harassment and political "correctness" issues were just being unveiled and what a capitalization Mamet made with this work.
ReplyDeleteThanks and great job.
Rachel Holdt