In
Glengarry Glen Ross, Mamet uses
dialogue and nuances of written language as a way of conveying characters'
personalities, relying minimally on actions and stage directions.
Through
the way each character speaks, readers are able to discern his characteristics.
For instance, we can tell from the very beginning that Levene is rather
desperate and bad at trying to convince Williamson of something, which we can
assume carries over into his personal work. His first lines are,
"John...John...John. Okay. John. John" (15). The ellipses convey
Levene's emphasis and way of speaking while the repetition of Williamson's name
indicates that Levene is trying to convince him of something. The repetition of
Williamson's first name is meant to make him feel closer to Levene, as though
they are personal friends. However, this much repetition in actual dialogue
tends to irritate rather than soothe the person being addressed, suggesting
that Levene might not be very good at persuading others. Through his continuing
dialogue, readers are able to see more of these characteristics of Levene, as well
as his way of thinking: he's stuck in the past, always talking about how he was
an amazing salesman and "Those guys lived
on the business I brought in" (22). He isn't able to keep up in
today's cutthroat business, and it shows in the way he fails at persuasion,
evident through the way he talks.
Roma,
on the other hand, is shown through dialogue to be a smooth talker and fast thinker.
When Lingk comes into the office, Roma knows immediately that it's to cancel
their contract and so devises a last second plan with Levene in order to get
away and avoid Lingk's request for a refund. He starts talking to Leven about
Lingk's property, describing it as "Beautiful.
Beautiful rolling land" (79). Here, Roma enunciates
"beautiful" and repeats it in a far more effective and enticing
manner than Levene earlier tried with Williamson. By describing the land Lingk
has already signed for to another seemingly interested customer, he is trying
to make the land seem all the more popular and appealing. Roma is subtle about
persuasion, making him a more effective salesman than Levene. When he originally
started the deal with Lingk, he started talking about philosophy and drew
Lingk's interest slowly, disarmingly. His dialogue shows his cunning and how he
is able to think on his feet.
If
Lingk were more assertive, he might've fallen for Roma's trap to make him
change his mind about cancelling the contract, but, as shown through dialogue, he
is submissive to his wife's orders. He says, "She wants her money
back" and "She told me I have to"
(90). Lingk doesn't say "We want
our money back," but rather that
it is his wife's money. In his mind, he doesn't have a say in the matter or the
money itself. He also takes his wife's word as absolute, putting emphasis on having to do what she says. For him,
there is no choice but to listen to what she says.
There
are minimal stage directions, and those present are mostly used for showing
people leaving or entering the scene. Generally, a playwright would use actions
to convey what a character is feeling or thinking, whether through something subtle
like body language or something more obvious such as pacing or throwing a prop.
However, Mamet's expert use of dialogue handles this on its own. The reader is
hardly, if ever, left in question about a character's state of mind, emotions,
or characteristics.
Fantastic blog! I greatly enjoyed following your mind!
ReplyDeleteSome things are pin pointed that I detected while reading, but never thoroughly thought about, and you managed to bring them to light so eloquently!
“The repetition of Williamson's first name is meant to make him feel closer to Levene, as though they are personal friends. However, this much repetition in actual dialogue tends to irritate rather than soothe the person being addressed, suggesting that Levene might not be very good at persuading others.”
…and it’s true, Levene comes across very irritating as a character, which I felt, but didn’t diagnose it, would descible him many ways but.
Another bull’s-eye: “Roma, on the other hand, is shown through dialogue to be a smooth talker and fast thinker. When Lingk comes into the office, Roma knows immediately that it's to cancel their contract and so devises a last second plan with Levene in order to get away and avoid Lingk's request for a refund.”
Precise identification of the situation, and not only that, the way you describe is absolutely sexy!
I’m a groupie. I’ll be watching out for your blogs!
As I was searching for blogs to comment on, I came across yours and your thesis hooked me in right away. I love the points you brought up throughout your blog, it gives a great understanding of the text and different characters we had to read about.
ReplyDeleteWhen you first talk about Levene, I like how you use his first line in the play. That line didn't stand out to me because I just thought he was very repetitive the first time I read it. You brought a new look to the character Levene though. By showing that he is very repetitive and in a way annoying, it shows that he can't keep up with today's sales. If you have to convince someone how great you are, how successful at the job can you actually be? He is a strong voiced character in the play and your description of his personality from the text is superb.
Roma is most certainly a smooth talker. He is great at his job, unlike Levene who has to convince people that he is great at it. His voice comes out through all of his lines, letting the audience know how he truly is. As you mention, there are not many stage directions or facial expressions told to us through the play.
Great blog, look forward to reading more like this one.
I love the concept of your blog. It reminds me it is not always what you say but rather how you say it. In this case with the characters we truly see the truth in this statement. We get the gist of what Levene is trying to do. He is desperate to obtain a “good” lead so he can have a chance at success; however, his inability to communicate effectively prevents him from “closing” the deal with Williamson. As a reader I could feel compassion for this character.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of Roma, he goes on for several minutes talking a lot about nothing yet he seems to be winning Lingk over. Language is clearly a powerful tool and contributes to many outcomes in this play. The seductive nature of language clearly exists as Roma truly personifies the idea that it is not what you say but how you say it. As a reader I found myself seduced by Roma. On a side note, I find it interesting that in this play we are drawn to the character we can describe as a “smooth talker” to where if we were to encounter him in another context we may be wary of him.
In the case of Williamson, I found that the lack of compassion in his communication turned me off. I didn’t like him from the start. Moss’s character and his highly emotional and less than positive communication towards others resulted in me having a dislike for him.
Your acknowledgement that there is minimal stage direction in this play further supports how powerful the use of language can be especially when used to reveal characteristics of a character or an idea. You are absolutely correct that as a reader I knew exactly where each character stood based on their language, emotion, and action. Furthermore, I believe this allows the reader to connect and identify with characters which in turn keeps the reader engaged. Excellent work!
As always Lochner, great blog. I have been seeing several blogs talk about the importance of language in this piece. I too feel that Mamet uses language as a mean to propagate a presence that each character brings into each altercation. This is the strong point of this play. The words used and the personalities used are the big attraction. I compare it to tv shows (of which i watch too many). Some are led each week and carried by big events or action plots, while others like my favorite drama Parenthood are led by language and personalities, basically a character driven show. This play and the subject and things that are being tackled are especially suited for this type of tone.
ReplyDeleteVery insightful study of character!
ReplyDeleteWhen I first started reading the play, I thought that Levene was on the phone, trying to make Williamson listen, and that is why he kept repeating "John." When I figured out that John was sitting right next to him, I knew there was something lacking in the way he communicates with people. Also the way Levene talks as if he is trying to predict what Williamson is about to say, really just makes his own thoughts evident. The way that Levene ends up talking about money and profit at the end of his first lines of dialogue even though he is unprovoked by Williamson shows that he is the one who is focused on making money (15). This foreshadows the way he is willing to steal the leads in order to make money at the end of the piece.
Williamson’s lack of dialogue with Levene, at first makes him seem reserved and unwilling to communicate. Later we find out that he has been scheming against Levene, and that instead of putting his hatred of Levene into his words, as most of the men do, he puts them into actions. He withholds leads and he turns in Levene after gathering enough evidence to pin the robbery on him.
I agree with your assessment of Mamet's use of dialogue over stage direction. I think that is a very astute and important aspect of Mamet's play. As noted in class, the entire work is an exercise in verbal manipulation; what better way to emphasize that concept than through such a minimalist approach? There exists next to nothing beyond the spoken word in this play.
ReplyDeleteThe character of Levene in particular intrigued me in much the same way as it did with you. He was clearly written as a weak character - distraught, easily manipulated, poor at communicating and also simply bad at his job. What he interprets as a "bad streak" readers can easily deduce is in actuality the current level of Levene's usual output. He may have once been effective, but no longer. I think you hit the nail on the head when you described it as Levene not being cut out for the cutthroat aspect of modern business. I even detected a moment of possible regret when Levene was recounting his sit with the Nyborgs. It is almost palpable through the words that he is uncertain whether he has truly done the right thing - although that is quickly swallowed by bravado and one upsmanship.
I think you brought up a really interesting point about how the characters’ varying speaking skills determine their competence as a salesperson. I especially liked your comparison between Levene’s weak argumentation skills and Roma’s suave persuasion. You mention that Roma “started talking about philosophy and drew Lingk's interest slowly, disarmingly.” I also found this method particularly interesting. After Roma finishes his seemingly random philosophical musings, he turns to Lingk and tells him to “now listen.” However, Roma has already started his sale pitch. The philosophical opening was a strategic tactic to encourage Lingk to question his instinct, preparing Lingk to question his instinct to immediately refuse Roma’s sale’s pitch. I think this strategy was interesting, especially in contrast to Levene’s methods. Roma is very elusive and even lies directly to the person he tries to convince, whereas Levene’s argumentation is much more direct. Perhaps, Levene’s eventual honesty serves as a disadvantageous in this play.
ReplyDelete