week 6 questions 2 and 4

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?
At first, I didn’t empathize with John. I thought he was being rather full of himself, acting like he was trying to help…I honestly think he was….but I thought he went about it in an i-know-all-im-the-professor-you-are-the-pee-on approach. With that said, I think Mamet’s intentions were to allow the reader to see that John was human; he had a life outside his role as a professor. We as readers did not have the fortune to have immediate insight to John’s life. I wish Mamet would have let us into Carol’s life a little bit more but with her, its easier to gather more about her, her past, her general attitude about men in general. My empathy is with both characters….I feel for Carol, she needs guidance but I empathize with John too, I still think he was set up.
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?
I feel that Carol is trying to say that she’s not getting what she came for. She may have came to that school knowing about John as an instructor and the class he offered in critical thinking. I don’t think she’s legitimate in her points, she’s crying wolf. Her economic reference is of little relevance. I feel that her points don’t matter a whole lot because I think she’s trying to open a whole different can of worms