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.