GlenGarry Glen Ross

Response to question 1:


No. Simply because the women play a small role in the story does not make the work anti-feminist. GlenGarry Glen Ross is a story about men—and the constant duress their identities face in a shifting and colliding world—a world where political correctness is neither wanted nor praised. The men of these stories are conditioned, out of a necessity for survival, to be cut-throat in their lives and the places they work. They live on the edge, constantly on the defense—with fears of losing their jobs or self-worth always lingering. Daily interactions are simply different when it comes to men, adding female characters in the office would have added an element completely counter-productive to what Mamet was trying to portray. The traits of these men were not positive—they had a blind lust for making sales that was so intense….I almost felt sorry for them. Shelly made the statement: “You are your job.” This is a falsehood pushed strongly by our society. The most idolized men are the ones with the highest paying jobs and material wealth. A man must work, it is not optional, in many cases this job will indicate his place on the ladder of man-hood. The problem? At the end of the day a job is just a job. You should work to live, and these men live to work—as they were conditioned to do so. When a job is so connected with self-hood….what happens when you lose it…or there is a threat that your job could be in danger? You resort to extreme measures, you belittle people jockeying for your position, you become self-preserving and selfish. This social construct is not the same for a woman, although there is pressure, women in this society do not face the overwhelming pressure to work long hours and make the big bucks men face. Although social roles are being blurred today, the pressure to make money and provide for the family has not alleviated in the least from the man’s shoulder. Trust me…I know…for I am an English major and I deal with this every day. This story is not anti-feminist—it simply isn’t meant for women. Furthermore, the women in the story are all at a position of power in the family. They had the final say-so on whether the deals would go through. Despite all the bravado, mud-slinging, cursing, bribing, and stealing…the women in this play were in a position to simply float into the isolated worlds of these men and dash everything with an impromptu No. This was a tale about the emasculating tendencies of our society, and how it almost corrupts the soul. These men are frustrated because they have no control over their lives, and Mamet tells us why.

Persepolis

In Persepolis politics and sentiment do not co-exist, particularly within a government that persecutes its own peoples. When Marji’s father makes the statement “Politics and sentiment don’t mix”, he was foreshadowing the end of the story(Marji leaving Iran). The government portrayed here, no matter whom was in charge, made it a point to exercise complete control over its people. With the arrival of the veil self expression and individuality became increasingly maligned by the powers that be. On the other hand, Marji’s family is a sharp contrast to the state of political turmoil in the novel. The only occasions of refuge take place in Marji’s home, where she is free to remove the veil and spend intimate moments with her grandmother. The father’s point is pushed even further home when Marji attempts to pursue romantic interests. Her marriage was doomed from the start mostly because the state of the government was not conducive to the courting process, resulting in her marrying a man she never really truly knew. This makes the relationship between Marji’s parents special, a miracle that came together despite the odds, the only relationship between man and woman that is given any validation in the novel. Marji is forced to cover her body, to restrain artistic expression, and even give up romantic relationships. And the government couldn’t care less. The only answer was for Marji to leave Iran for another country. Though I do not feel politics and sentiment mix anywhere, the possibly in Iran is displayed as impossible…..that’s all I have to say….

In short, how is Nick's story resolved at the end of the novel, and what does his interpretation of Gatsby reveal about his own character? Does Nick,

I agree, Nick is alright. It is hard to lose track of Nick’s story throughout the “Great Gatsby.” If characters such as Gatsby are the life of the party—then people like Nick are the individuals that float around the edge of those parties observing but never observed. He is much more introverted, and in a sense, more complicated character. He provides more depth to the story than Gatsby’s character could ever allow.
By the end of the story Nick was the only player that understood any depth of Gatsby’s character. Tom was quick to label Gatsby as a fraud or thief, the many patrons of his party labeled him murderer or romantic, even Daisy failed to see past the social construct that so easily trumped her love. Nobody, except Nick, was perceptive, or even cared, enough to see him as anything but a caricature. Even his father appeared clueless when arriving to his funeral. Fitzgerald displays a world that his totally out of touch with empathy or the wherewithal to show any genuine compassion or interests. As a result Gatsby died, and was never seen as anything other than a criminal or socialite.
The fact that Nick makes the statement that Gatsby “turned out all right at the end” proves the point that the line between good and bad can sometimes become blurred. Is somebody with dreams and aspirations necessarily bad because illegal activity is the only way they see to facilitate them? Gatsby put in the work tirelessly: doesn’t he deserve to be rewarded? He saw something that was otherwise unattainable to him and reached for it no matter the cost. And Gatsby, to a certain extent, was successful. If the American dream is a lie and we are sold short from its promise at birth: can you blame him for not playing by the rules in a game that has none? Compare Tom’s work ethic to Gatsby’s, now imagine the playing field being balanced: who do you imagine coming out on top and living the ideal life portrayed to us through fake propaganda? In a more sensible world: Gatsby would have won the girl, kept his life, and made his fortune the right way—but this is not a sensible world. This is why Gatsby turned out all right—because he had oranges and truly made lemonade, if not for an instance; he at least deserves credit for that. Despite his short comings one can affirm that he was a person of high character, and save for nick, there are not a lot of characters that you can say that about in the novel. Nick was alright from the beginning, but just needed to re-discover that—which is why he provided the novel with such an unbiased view point. There was a sliver of humanity still left in him at the end of the novel, which is why he had to move, before he became as inhuman as the other characters that populate the novel.