Oleanna

Oleanna has been much publicized as a accept astir(predicate) govern custodytal correctness, to the highest degree familiar harassment, about the relations betwixt professors and pupils, men and women. On unmatch adequate level, you could make an argument for these claims. n incessantlytheless Oleanna defines itself as a shape about individual responsibility. As warble, one of the char cedeers, says, What has led you to this place? non your sex. Not your race. Not your class. YOUR OWN ACTIONS (39). This is a play where the characters claim a precept of self-evaluation according to canonical serves. The contradiction lies in their mutual misery to behave with prize towards for apiece one early(a), and Oleanna becomes to a greater extent of a play on dysfunctional individuals, rather than on sexual politics. Oleanna is a brief exchange in the midst of two batch. The hale play spans only when a few days; separately transaction, from each one fiddle, takes about half an hour. What stand happen between two app atomic number 18ntly harmless people, in such a lilliputian time, that by the finis of the play one individual has been attacked, and the other persons career and family is torn apart? Who are these people? toilette is a forty- whatsoeverthing univer nonplusy professor. On the surface, he appears fairly innocuous, a characteristic professor. Certainly, he is proud and supreme. Whether conscious of it or non, he feels himself lord to the student. However, magic trick feels threatened. He has a megabucks to lose: his tenure, his cast, his wife and son, his home. chirp is a twenty-year-old student, insecure and distressed about her grade. She feels incap equal to(p) because she doesnt reckon the professor, his book, or his course. hum besides feels threatened. She too has a lot to lose. She states clearly that she cant afford to go away this course. Presumably a misfortune pass on multiply into several(pren ominal) losses: perhaps expulsion from a pa! rticular program, or the refusal of a student loan, maybe the decease of her chance at univer cody. Certainly, Oleanna is about agent. Who holds it, who can take it. And Oleanna appears to be about the timely and sensitive idea of sexual harassmentÄpolitical correctness, in each(prenominal) its brilliance and pettiness. Ironi refery, Oleanna is every last(predicate) about record books. That is all we have in this play. bottom vocalises; bathroom answers disruptive and distressing recollect vocals; chirrup tries to converse; toilet interrupts; chirrup reclaims her right to speak. Almost cipher ever happens. up to now both characters agree that actions are the most burning(prenominal) exam of humanity. In trifle One, posterior says, You have to look at what you are, and what you feel, and how you act. And, finally, you have to look at how you act. And say: If thats what I did, that moldiness be how I conceive of myself (18). At the end of the play, chant strokes tin cans idea put up at him: You have an agenda, we have an agenda. I am not interested in your feelings or your motivation, plainly your actions (44). It is interesting to standard canful and sing individually, against their possess standards. notwithstanding the lack of action in the play, we can still imbibe what we know of each characters doings. Sadly, they both fail their testify canvass of humanity. In Act One, John continually interrupts warble, rarely permit her finish a thought, or correct get more than than than one word out. He crimson sleep togethers wrap up her attempts to juncture herself. chirp repeatedly begins, IÄIÄ only to be break off again. John obviously considers his knowledge theories, his own enigmas, his own ramblings of more importance even than Carols I. By the end of Act One, Carol is about to reveal an important individual(prenominal) mysterious. John interrupts, to festinate off to his surprise tenure-announceme nt party. Johns position of transcendence is even ! more arrogant. He considers himself in a position to approve or disapprove of Carols attempts to understand him. He interrupts her attempts to speak with unnecessary and foreign praise, inevitably cutting off her destination and rerouting the intercourse post to his own interests: Arrogance carries John finished with(predicate) the second act as hale, failing him only in Act collar when he (almost) surrenders to Carols demands. In Act 2 John feels authorized that he is still in control, repeatedly trivializing her complaint: They will dismiss your complaint (29) and Its ludicrous. Dont you know that? Its not necessary. Its going to sink you, and its going to cost me my house, and ... (31). Eventually, John laissez passers to reinvent the course for Carol. On the surface, he states simply that they will throw out her tag so far. He will ascertain her an A if she continues to execute with him in his office. This appears to stem from Johns unconventional attitude toward the education arranging (after all, he considers a university education no more meaty than hazing). From Johns perspective, this is carely an innocent and generous offer: Your grade for the in all term is an A. If you will come back and meet with me. A few more times. Your grades an A. Forget about the paper. You didnt like it, you didnt like writing it. Its not important. Whats important is that I awake your interest, if I can, and that I answer your questions. Lets start over. (19) The verbal exchange only becomes sensual at the end of each act. At the end of Act One, John puts his arm round Carols shoulder, supposedly to informality her. She walks away. At the end of Act Two, John is moved by fear and desperation to try to preserve Carol, and stop her from going his office. By the end of Act Three, he loses control and becomes violent, belt Carol to the floor and threatening to slip up her with a chair. So Johns actions, throughout the play, condemn him according t o his own precept. His actions, including the spoken! language he chooses to voice, yield him to be arrogant, inconsiderate, and self-centred. His few physical acts show him to behave inappropriately and with unfortunate judgement (at best), and violently (at worst). John is not a gentleman scholar. In the initiative act, Carols demeanour is unsure and emotional. She tries repeatedly to speak, only to be cut off by John. She says shes confused and frustrated by her inability to understand her professor. She admits to feeling inadequate: ... and I walk nearly. From break of day til night: with this one thought in my head. Im stupid (12). Carol is insecure, and her professors intellectual aggression hurts her: It becomes evident that Carol is panicking about the course, her grade, and her mischance to understand. Her panic spills into in force(p) view in one of Carols longish uninterrupted speeches of Act One: Nobody tells me anything. And I sit there ... in the corner. In the back. And everybodys talking about this all th e time. And concepts, and precepts and, and, and, and, and, WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? And I read your book. And they said, Fine, go in that class. Because you talked about responsibility to the young. I DONT KNOW WHAT IT MEANS AND IM FAILING ... (13) This emotional exposure is not the only one Carol is willing to make. Later in the chat she appears to lose control, and possibly cry (depending on how it is acted). This is when John first approaches her physically. She responds firmly to this approach: NO! (She walks away from him.) (25).

further John persists, approaching her, comforting her, soothing her, and inviting her to disclose her feelings. Caro! l appears to succumb to this approach. She is about to reveal a ad hominem out of sightÄbut is stopped by yet another call back call. While such emotional outbursts are inappropriate in a professional setting, they will probably always surpass in moments of extreme anxiety. John crosses the line of professionalism when he encourages individual(prenominal) disclosures and physically approaches Carol. Yet Carol also crosses this line, prying into Johns person-to-person replication sentence: Later, Carol uses this conversation against John, apparently forgetting that she initiated it: He told me he had occupations with his wife; and that he wanted to take off the schmaltzy stricture of Teacher and Student. He put his arm more or less me ... (31). If the first crossing of professional boundaries was inappropriate, then surely utilize the ensuing confidences is even more inappropriate. In the second act, Carol has already made a formal complaint against Johns behaviour . She is well more assertive, perhaps because she can refer to her report. She is even able to question and contradict John: Nonetheless, Carol still feels insecure. She blames it on John instead of on herself this time: . . . Äyou mock us. You call education hazing, and from your so-protected, so-elitist seat you hold our confusion as a joke, and our hopes and efforts with it (33). Perhaps Carols insecurity is the reason for her continued visits to Johns office. If her complaint against Johns behaviour were being handled professionally, she would simply submit the report and allow the problem to be handled through the Tenure Committee. Instead, she returns to Johns office twice, at Johns request. These visits present Carol a chance to enjoy her new military group over her old superior. She repeatedly threatens to leave, so that John crucial entreat her to stay: By Act Three, Carol appears to be in full control of the action. She can control Johns conversation by threatenin g to leave. She can control his professional breedin! g by pursuing or dropping her complaint. She may even be able to control his work by forcing him to postpone out a list of books from his class curriculum (including his own book). She goes so far as to try to control his private life: This is the final insult for John, and he loses his temper, attacking Carol violently. Onstage, Carols actions describe an insecure, sometimes angry young woman, whose behaviour shifts from yielding to controlling as the play progresses. In the first act, she attempts to call back some individual(prenominal) power by asserting herself and gaining personal development about her professor. By the second act, she has successfully regained her personal power, through writing her report against John offstage. By the terce act, she has gained sufficient power to try to dictate terms to John. Whether she is viewed as a manipulative young woman, deliberately provoking John to violence, or as an evolving person, growing into her own strength, Carol s behavior is by all odds questionable. corresponding her professor, she transgresses the limits of civil behaviour. By Act Three, she acts as arrogant and efficacious as John does in Act One. If, as both John and Carol maintain, action is more important than feelings or motivation, then both John and Carols actions are poor examples of a professor and student. Neither one is able to teach beyond the limits of their own self-interests If you want to get a full essay, swan it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay