David Mamet’s short, two-character play Oleanna deals with the shifting linguistic power characteristics between teacher John and student Carol over the number of three distinct meetings. The two characters constantly trail off, interrupt one another, and digress from the major issue available: Carol’s confusion in the course. John is usually excessively verbose while Jean, conversely, is inclined towards obscure colloquialisms, nevertheless both manage to disastrously miscommunicate. In the beginning, his or her interactions become increasingly hostile, John and Carol get power from interrupting one other and, complementarily, avoiding interruption from the counterpart character.
As the play advances, the consistency of these distractions lessens and both personas, each more composed, start to extract electrical power by echoing and misappropriating their alternatives language. In both overlapping circumstances, Ruben and Carol use short, succinct, complete sentences keep their power. In doing therefore , they actually limit the quantity of words readily available for interruption or perhaps expropriation while also articulating their expressions with more quality. This conciseness merges unpleasant and protective rhetorical approaches, making it the most efficient power-play. When it comes to linguistic succinctness, both characters’ respective power shifts continuously throughout, on the other hand only Carol’s makes a great intentional and lasting move towards brevity, ultimately strengthening her more than John.
As their romance becomes progressively contentious during their first relationships, Oleanna and John enable themselves by simply interrupting the other person and manipulating their own dialect so that it can not be interrupted. John, as the teacher and authority, begins with the inherent power land, Carol, also, accepts her stereotypical role as the confused female student, start their connection with a query. Rather than carrying on this question-answer, student-teacher active, John quickly diminishes his pedagogical electric power with with a vague and pretentious response, sarcastically asking Carol “to take the mysticism out of it. inch (9) Backtracking to redundantly, inarticulately reword his first question, “Is that what you would like to talk about?, inch John also undermines his authoritarian electrical power with self deprecation. (9) Carol, though, does not immediately make profit upon this kind of vulnerability, keeping the facade of a reliant student as she echoes only in inquisitive pieces (enclosed simply by ellipses) that John consistently interrupts. While the play begins, nor the verbose john or bewildered Jean, have significant power, instead they equally continue to disrupt one another, nor clearly articulating their standpoint. However , since the appointment progresses and John’s terminology becomes progressively complicated and digressive, Carol’s syntax shortens and assumes a declarative tone. While she reclaims some electricity, Carol listens to John’s tangential, “pedantic” arguments and responds with all the simple dismissals of “yes” or “no” and indicated questions like, “what do you want from myself?, ” so concise and imperative that they can cannot be disrupted. (29, 30) As the play progresses, John and Carol slowly and gradually (though erratically) reverse all their inherent jobs, Carol attaining linguistic leverage over David.
As Carol uses less interruptible language, the syntax of both characters becomes more complete. Consequently , rather than disruption, the character types begin to obtain power coming from stealing and appropriating their particular counterparts phrases. This gives Jean the upper hand because, having currently cut down her syntax, she has less words and phrases available to grab. John, appealing to her perception of sense of guilt, claims Carols accusations of sexual harassment are “sufficient to deprive a family. ” (32) Nevertheless , repeating his words and saying “Sufficient? Sufficient? Enough? Yes, ” Carol concurs that is satisfactory, but because of his “vile and classist and pornographic” actions. (32) Because John consistently digresses to the topics abstract academics, his house plus the tenure panel, he supplies more textual words and private details for Carol to work with against him. Claiming to find out what Steve “says to himself” and accusing him trying “to strutto postureto perform.. to do something like a patriarch, ” Carol fills her own extended speeches with John’s words. (33) Therefore , for Ruben to appropriate and twist these statements, will be for him to refute his own argument. Jean furthers this tactic by commencing her paragraphs with “you, ” producing John the niche: “You wish me to stay, ” “You have done it to me, ” “You attempted to rape myself. ” (30, 38, 46) When Jean does speak with personal pronouns, saying “I’m going” or “I i am told” her sentences are brief and declarative, so as not to provide John any ammunition. The play culminates as Carol murmurs “yes, that’s right, inches to Johns many final insults, being qualified his phrases and allowing them to speak for themselves like a representation of his personality. (47) This kind of repeated technique on Carols part enables her additional and, having the last word, she’s ultimate champion of this switching power struggle.
The two characters consistently manipulate dialect so that power dynamics move erratically through, making neither character an obvious winner with regards to power. Their very own language and respective personal strength changes regularly, such that an instance could be generated for either persona. However , Steve becomes increasingly verbose and personal, playing in to his disadvantages, while Carol’s language transitions from vulnerable fragmentation to succinct and declarative speech. Ultimately, the energy lies in this type of change. Just Carol effectively shifts her style and flips the originally-assumed electricity dynamic.
