In act 1 I do think Carol has twisted Johns words, it was the way he worded it that made him look bad in the situation. However, as the play progresses John did not make his character look any better. As of Carol's lawsuit being legitimate, I do believe it is legitimate to a certain extent because she accuses John of many things that he implied even if it wasn't his intention. However, accusing John of sexual harassment based on his actions on act 1 I don't think is correct. Accusing him of solely harassment would be more suitable. Even if John's intentions were good, if a student or anyone feels uncomfortable it could be considered as harassment, and in Carol's case I thought it was. John has definitely overstepped his boundaries in act 1 by being an elitist and classicist.
Only analyzing act 1 I would say that John is at fault, however, analyzing the whole play I think it is a mix of both. Carol seems to be hiding something about her past since she interprets the action of John touching her shoulder as sexual harassment, and John feels that he has so much power that nothing could go wrong, he eventually realizes that things could back fire on him but it was too late to fix things. We should have foreseen that this combinationg of student and professor relationship was going to be a bad one.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Blog question #9
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 is only right on the fact that John did grab her to keep her from leaving his office. She told him that she was going to leave and when he could not convince her to stay he forcefully grabs her to keep her from exiting his office. As for Carol's accusation of rap, I think that was just a tactic to get John worked up, so he would come unhinged. This statement "Yes, according to the law.... You tried to rape me" is Carol saying no, I don't feel you tried to rape me but the law states that you did and I am going to press charges on you despite the truth. It seems to me that her "According to the law" statement is a way to get another fight out of John! Yes, in a small way John was right to be angry about the HUGE accusation of rap, he was just keeping her against her will. NOT THAT IT WAS RIGHT! This play was bad, it was so back and forth that at no real point was either party in the wrong at all. She does something, he does something! It is a very off the way play that I would never want to go see.
Oleanna #11
David Mamet is turning a spot light on human relationship between the modern individuals in his play; Oleanna. The modern individuals are logical and rational and also use much of oppressive tones and behavior in order to exorbitantly pack up their identities and images. However, ironically their logic also strongly appears to reader as an emphasis implying that their values and the way of living in their lives are immoral and inhumane. From the conversations of John and Carol I saw a particular form of the frame. Perhaps, I would want to say “power mechanism”, in which people have different positions and conflicts in terms of looking at the development of their conversations in the play from common conversations to a serious sexual and physical harassment. And I believe that this development also shows how the power can be misused in the frame of “power mechanism” in the modern society. The reason why I chose question # 11 is that the ending scene gave me so much of catharsis, not that it was a trial to solve the issue, but it was to relieve reader’s concerns about the problem of power mechanism. When Carol said, “Yes. That’s right. . . . yes. That’s right”, it was an affirmation of what John previously asked in excited condition; JOHN: You vicious little bitch. You think you can come in here with your political correctness and destroy my life? After how I treated you…? You should be … Rape you
…? Are you kidding me…? From my point of view, Carol’s response by saying, “Yes, That’s right” was the best answer to readers as she did not directly get involved in what John did to her (physical attack) and provided a small size of example that ultimately broke John’s power mechanism. This is significant because in Act 1, John was oppressing Carol with his higher superiority over her, who showed a frightened looking with less logical speaking tone. In Act 2 and 3, their level of positions dramatically become reconstructed and Carol obtains the power as she learned how to display the power by performing more “polished” linguistic expression with clear and decisive tone. And on the other hand, John shows how the power can be easily lost in a minute with its characteristics; variable and fictive.
Carol: Sufficient? Sufficient? Yes. It is a fact ... and that story, which I quote, is vile and classist, and manipulative and pornographic. It...
John: ...it's pornograghic...?
Carol: What gives you the right. Yes. To speak to a woman in your private... Yes. Yes. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You feel yourself empowered...
In conclusion, I learned from Oleanna about a contradiction between human, which is ruled by the frame of power. I do not think that we will be able to make a Utopia (an ideal society) with the power mechanism as there exists either physical or mental criminal due to the fact that people who hold higher level of positions might have more power of control over people who hold lower level of positions in education, finance, and the origin of birth, etc. What we, readers need to know and should do is to realize the existence of the power mechanism as an obstacle to make a better society and practice to prevent and void applying this system.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Oleanna
If asked immediately after reading Oleanna, I would have said that I hated this play. I would have continued that both of the characters were extremely un-likeable, and that both sides were so over the top that it bordered on ridiculous. I still believe these things to be true, but the more time that I have spent thinking about it, the more I think it was exactly what Mamet was shooting for. I am not supposed to like them. I think it was purposely written in a manner that we would not know who to root for, where we are so accustomed to having a definitive good guy or bad guy in our entertainment. You mentioned that some of the Playbills stated, “Whatever you think/Whichever side you choose, you’re wrong”, I understand that, both are John and Carol are right and both are wrong to extent, you really can’t make a valid argument on behalf of either. There is a hint of truth to everything that Carol alleges about John, word for word, she never lies, but she so wildly misstates the truth that it is nearly impossible to take her side. John loses any empathy he might have gained in being wrongly accused, at the end, when he attacks her. The purpose of this play, in my opinion, was not to provide answers, but make you ask questions that can’t be answered.
In the first act, Carol seems to mention where she comes from, social and economic background, never specifically saying what or where, but leading you to believe that it is less than privileged, she also says things like, “It’s difficult for me” , “I have problems”, or “I can’t understand.” We are supposed to feel for her at this point, in many ways she has declared herself the victim, and John helps this along with his endless interruptions, and lack of regard for what she has to say. I never felt any empathy for Carol, throughout the entire play, even at the end when he attacked her, maybe because it seemed to me that she was using her background as an excuse for her failure. I realize that my personal biases are coming into play here, but everyone comes from somewhere, and has there hurdles. What is he supposed to do with this information? Is he supposed to give her a pass because of her circumstances?
John likes to hear himself talk, constantly interrupting Carol’s explanations with his stories, experiences and opinions. He offers her an ‘A’, if she’ll agree to come back a few times and talk with him, though I never got the feeling that he had much concern for her predicament, it comes across as being innocent. Regardless of his motives, he chose to help her, asking what seemed to be, very little from her. I keep coming back to the fact that his life would have been a whole lot better if he had just made her keep the ‘F’ and been done with it. I found him to be an un-likeable man, but not a bad man.
In the second act and third acts, I am frustrated along with him, I feel bad for him. The allegations seemed so inconceivable that I was waiting for a punch line, or some kind of justice. I wondered if this is what she wanted, or was it the idea of the group she kept talking about, her motives were always unclear to me. Why was she okay with destroying this man’s life? Did she believe it was for a greater good? Does she believe her accusations to be true?
John had me on his side for a while, because his intent never seemed malicious, and even when he violently attacks her at the end, he does not lose me completely. I get why audiences applauded when John attacks her. It is that building up of frustration, when you know you’re right, and no matter how hard you try, it is being twisted into something wrong. There is nothing right, or justifiable about his actions, but I don’t believe that they applaud because they think John is right, I think they cheer, for the same reason John attacks her, it relieved the tension.
In the first act, Carol seems to mention where she comes from, social and economic background, never specifically saying what or where, but leading you to believe that it is less than privileged, she also says things like, “It’s difficult for me” , “I have problems”, or “I can’t understand.” We are supposed to feel for her at this point, in many ways she has declared herself the victim, and John helps this along with his endless interruptions, and lack of regard for what she has to say. I never felt any empathy for Carol, throughout the entire play, even at the end when he attacked her, maybe because it seemed to me that she was using her background as an excuse for her failure. I realize that my personal biases are coming into play here, but everyone comes from somewhere, and has there hurdles. What is he supposed to do with this information? Is he supposed to give her a pass because of her circumstances?
John likes to hear himself talk, constantly interrupting Carol’s explanations with his stories, experiences and opinions. He offers her an ‘A’, if she’ll agree to come back a few times and talk with him, though I never got the feeling that he had much concern for her predicament, it comes across as being innocent. Regardless of his motives, he chose to help her, asking what seemed to be, very little from her. I keep coming back to the fact that his life would have been a whole lot better if he had just made her keep the ‘F’ and been done with it. I found him to be an un-likeable man, but not a bad man.
In the second act and third acts, I am frustrated along with him, I feel bad for him. The allegations seemed so inconceivable that I was waiting for a punch line, or some kind of justice. I wondered if this is what she wanted, or was it the idea of the group she kept talking about, her motives were always unclear to me. Why was she okay with destroying this man’s life? Did she believe it was for a greater good? Does she believe her accusations to be true?
John had me on his side for a while, because his intent never seemed malicious, and even when he violently attacks her at the end, he does not lose me completely. I get why audiences applauded when John attacks her. It is that building up of frustration, when you know you’re right, and no matter how hard you try, it is being twisted into something wrong. There is nothing right, or justifiable about his actions, but I don’t believe that they applaud because they think John is right, I think they cheer, for the same reason John attacks her, it relieved the tension.
Oleanna #9
Oleanna is an intriguing play of “he said, she said”. The story of this play seems to elicit a spectrum of human emotions. Everything from sympathy to anger, there seems to be a different response for different people. The subjective emotions also seem to compliment the characters’ subjective interpretations of what transpires throughout the play. John and Carol are the two characters that claim two entirely different perspectives on the same situation. In essence it seems as if they are practicing and applying literary theory in a real life situation, which in the end leads to John’s unraveling. It is this matter of perspective and subjectivity that makes Carol accuse John of rape and battery, “according to the law”, while John seems to be strongly offended and taken aback by such accusations. The subtle nature of character interactions in scene one and parts of scene two of this play leads to controversial disputes of what really happened between the characters.
When Carol accuses John of rape and battery, it is not a black and white, clearly explicit accusation of such. Rather, very subtly, she slips in the words “according to the law” it was an act of battery and attempted rape. The nuances of the entire play seem to run on subtleties. There seems to be no clear black and white answer to anything but rather a gray area dispute for everything. In essence it seems that Carol attempts to point out to John that he is in the wrong by using the statement, “according to the law”, which seems to have an entirely different connotation than just saying her body was being pressed and therefore that was an act of battery and attempted rape. Subjectively speaking, if the claim were actually the latter, John may dismiss it as an inane accusation that lacks a forceful punch when said aloud. It may almost seem as if Carol is arbitrarily and maybe even foolishly accusing John of battery and rape. However his reaction is one that resembles fear as well as uncertainty and eventually crescendos into a violent episode as the words, “according to the law” bring about force and even merit the legitimacy of Carol’s accusation on a legal level. Carol brings out a John that is emotionally charged and a John that is molded into a monster with the power of her subtlety and her subjectivity. Personally speaking, Carol seems to manipulate the truth in some ways for her cause and as a reader I would objectively want to sympathize with both characters, yet this is a very deeply layered situation that leaves “more questions than answers”.
The innuendos and subtle acts that John present to Carol, i.e. physically touching her and verbally stating that he “likes her” among other things, can become subjective for some but entirely objective for others. People that have had unfortunate experiences in the past may take offense to John’s actions whereas others may see John as being a personal individual that truly cares for Carol as his student. The matter of perspective and past experiences can shape one’s framework. If Carol were a previous victim of abuse or rape, this would give her the right to take offense to John’s actions. If she also feared the possibility of abuse in any form, one can see that John may be right to be undone by her accusation. Simultaneously, John may be entirely oblivious of his actions, yet on the other hand, he may be fully conscious of his actions and attempting to see how far his innuendos and subtle actions can push the envelope. In essence, because we don’t know the mindset and intentions of the characters, it is hard to say fully who is or is not in the right. As far as one can tell, John did not partake in the true physical action of abusing or attempting to rape Carol, however her statement, “according to the law” and a culmination of other things did push him over the edge to eventually abuse her. It really is a matter of perspective that leaves readers and audiences taking one side over the other. In contrast this can also be seen as an incredibly heavily layered play that is so subtle and subjective in content that it leaves some readers, such as myself, unable to take a side.
When Carol accuses John of rape and battery, it is not a black and white, clearly explicit accusation of such. Rather, very subtly, she slips in the words “according to the law” it was an act of battery and attempted rape. The nuances of the entire play seem to run on subtleties. There seems to be no clear black and white answer to anything but rather a gray area dispute for everything. In essence it seems that Carol attempts to point out to John that he is in the wrong by using the statement, “according to the law”, which seems to have an entirely different connotation than just saying her body was being pressed and therefore that was an act of battery and attempted rape. Subjectively speaking, if the claim were actually the latter, John may dismiss it as an inane accusation that lacks a forceful punch when said aloud. It may almost seem as if Carol is arbitrarily and maybe even foolishly accusing John of battery and rape. However his reaction is one that resembles fear as well as uncertainty and eventually crescendos into a violent episode as the words, “according to the law” bring about force and even merit the legitimacy of Carol’s accusation on a legal level. Carol brings out a John that is emotionally charged and a John that is molded into a monster with the power of her subtlety and her subjectivity. Personally speaking, Carol seems to manipulate the truth in some ways for her cause and as a reader I would objectively want to sympathize with both characters, yet this is a very deeply layered situation that leaves “more questions than answers”.
The innuendos and subtle acts that John present to Carol, i.e. physically touching her and verbally stating that he “likes her” among other things, can become subjective for some but entirely objective for others. People that have had unfortunate experiences in the past may take offense to John’s actions whereas others may see John as being a personal individual that truly cares for Carol as his student. The matter of perspective and past experiences can shape one’s framework. If Carol were a previous victim of abuse or rape, this would give her the right to take offense to John’s actions. If she also feared the possibility of abuse in any form, one can see that John may be right to be undone by her accusation. Simultaneously, John may be entirely oblivious of his actions, yet on the other hand, he may be fully conscious of his actions and attempting to see how far his innuendos and subtle actions can push the envelope. In essence, because we don’t know the mindset and intentions of the characters, it is hard to say fully who is or is not in the right. As far as one can tell, John did not partake in the true physical action of abusing or attempting to rape Carol, however her statement, “according to the law” and a culmination of other things did push him over the edge to eventually abuse her. It really is a matter of perspective that leaves readers and audiences taking one side over the other. In contrast this can also be seen as an incredibly heavily layered play that is so subtle and subjective in content that it leaves some readers, such as myself, unable to take a side.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Blog 1 Discussion Question Choices
The links to film clips and Broadway performances (video links) are listed and linked in the schedule. You might find these supplements quite interesting! I've included a few here as well, but you'll want to read the play in its entirety before watching them -- much of the play's success relies upon the suspense and cathartic conclusion.
Conclusion/Fight Scene
Director of Broadway version discusses the impact of Oleanna
Oleanna opening night at Mark Taper; various celebrities react
Opening night reactions from the Triad Stage
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?
Conclusion/Fight Scene
Director of Broadway version discusses the impact of Oleanna
Oleanna opening night at Mark Taper; various celebrities react
Opening night reactions from the Triad Stage
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?
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Sample Blog Post
English 103
Research Blog #1
Pride and Prejudice
The critical lens that I am that I am thinking about using is Marxism. I am using this particular literary lens to view my favorite novel, Pride and Prejudice, written by Jane Austen. In our textbook, Making Literature Matter: An Anthology for Readers and Writers, complied by John Schilb and John Clifford, it states that Marxist criticism is “based on the political and economic theories of Karl Marx. Marxists think a society is propelled by its economy, which is manipulated by a class system. Most people, especially blue-collar workers (the proletariat), do not understand the complex ways their lives are subject to economic forces beyond their control. This false consciousness about history and material well-being prevents workers from seeing that their values have been socially constructed to keep them in their place” (1602).
After reading the textbook’s explanation of Marxist criticism, it is easy to decipher the concerns and interests of this theoretical school. Marxism is a theoretical school of thought that is based mainly on the economy, and held in place by a social class system. Marxism also explains that most people do not understand the “complex ways their lives are subject to economic forces beyond their control,” and that this obliviousness to understanding the strong economic forces “prevents workers from seeing that their values have been socially constructed to keep them in their place” (1602). I studied Marxism a little bit when I was in high school, but I never jumped into what it meant. However, now I what Marxism is, and thus, I am able to use this definition and apply it accordingly to Pride and Prejudice.
I think that Marxism is the best methodology for me to use for Pride and Prejudice because it fits perfectly with the ideas that Austen weaves into the story. Mrs. Bennet – Elizabeth’s mother – is constantly concerned for her daughters’ welfare and is therefore always on the lookout for a potential wealthy husbands. Women did not marry for love; rather, they married to secure their financial futures. Women were tied to this strong belief system, and they let it run their lives. They never challenged it, and because of this, women were essentially “kept in their place.” Women could not be independent – they were dependent on men for everything. They had to be – it just was not normal for women to be earning their own paychecks back in the 1800s. Furthermore, men held women up to certain standards as well – once they became husband and wife, they were expected to do their “duties” that a proper wife would be expected to perform, such as being knowledgeable in certain subjects, such as music, literature, fine dining, etc. This “social” and “financial” system that was in place was a common feature of everyday life that Austen observed, and she incorporated this into Pride and Prejudice. Marxism is the perfect critical methodology to use for Pride and Prejudice of the structured, economical order of society that kept “everyone in their place.”
Research Blog #1
Pride and Prejudice
The critical lens that I am that I am thinking about using is Marxism. I am using this particular literary lens to view my favorite novel, Pride and Prejudice, written by Jane Austen. In our textbook, Making Literature Matter: An Anthology for Readers and Writers, complied by John Schilb and John Clifford, it states that Marxist criticism is “based on the political and economic theories of Karl Marx. Marxists think a society is propelled by its economy, which is manipulated by a class system. Most people, especially blue-collar workers (the proletariat), do not understand the complex ways their lives are subject to economic forces beyond their control. This false consciousness about history and material well-being prevents workers from seeing that their values have been socially constructed to keep them in their place” (1602).
After reading the textbook’s explanation of Marxist criticism, it is easy to decipher the concerns and interests of this theoretical school. Marxism is a theoretical school of thought that is based mainly on the economy, and held in place by a social class system. Marxism also explains that most people do not understand the “complex ways their lives are subject to economic forces beyond their control,” and that this obliviousness to understanding the strong economic forces “prevents workers from seeing that their values have been socially constructed to keep them in their place” (1602). I studied Marxism a little bit when I was in high school, but I never jumped into what it meant. However, now I what Marxism is, and thus, I am able to use this definition and apply it accordingly to Pride and Prejudice.
I think that Marxism is the best methodology for me to use for Pride and Prejudice because it fits perfectly with the ideas that Austen weaves into the story. Mrs. Bennet – Elizabeth’s mother – is constantly concerned for her daughters’ welfare and is therefore always on the lookout for a potential wealthy husbands. Women did not marry for love; rather, they married to secure their financial futures. Women were tied to this strong belief system, and they let it run their lives. They never challenged it, and because of this, women were essentially “kept in their place.” Women could not be independent – they were dependent on men for everything. They had to be – it just was not normal for women to be earning their own paychecks back in the 1800s. Furthermore, men held women up to certain standards as well – once they became husband and wife, they were expected to do their “duties” that a proper wife would be expected to perform, such as being knowledgeable in certain subjects, such as music, literature, fine dining, etc. This “social” and “financial” system that was in place was a common feature of everyday life that Austen observed, and she incorporated this into Pride and Prejudice. Marxism is the perfect critical methodology to use for Pride and Prejudice of the structured, economical order of society that kept “everyone in their place.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)