Study Questions for J.T. Rogers’ Oslo

Respond to the epigraph by EImmanuel Kant in the opening to Act One: “Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.”

What is the time and setting?

How does the act open?

Respond to “what is a throne but a stool covered in velvet?”

What is the point of Terje Larsen’s anecdote? 

What effect does Mona’s breaking of the 4th wall have on the play’s narrative? 

What is the historical context for the peace process? 

What is seen as the problem with Americans overseeing the peace process? And the advantage for Norway? 

Respond to “you make peace with the people who bomb your markets and blow up your buses.” 

What does the reference “the job of the Foreign Minister is not to joust with windmills” imply? Extra props for its source.

Who phones? And what do Larsen and Mona reveal to their guests? 

What is Larsen’s philosophy? P. 17-18 re: totalism versus gradualism?

Respond to “As you watch and judge remember that.” P. 18 to what is she referring? also, how does the time shift (everything after this point, until the end of the act, is told retrospectively) how does that affect the play’s structure?

What personal experience draws them to the politics of Gaza and the West Bank? 

What distinction does Larsen make between probable and possible?

Respond to “would you not try anything to give those two boys a different narrative?” 

What does Beilin point to as the problem with “multinational negotiations”? 

What does Larsen propose to Beilin? 

Describe the exchange between Qurie and Mona. 

What political realities does Mona point out to Qurie and how does she use them to help move along the process?

Who does Israel first bring in to negotiate and how would you describe him? 

Study Q’s to OSLO (cont…)

What common ground is found in the initial meeting between Hirschfeld and Qurie? 

Why does Qurie agree to speak again to Hirschfeld if he’s just an Economics Professor? 

How does Mona get Jan Egelund to agree and what is the problem with informing the Americans? 

Why do Qurie and the Israelis request “deniability in all things?” 

What is Larsen’s and Mona’s response to the outbreak of violence? P. 31-32; and what does Mona demand of Larsen moving forward?  

What is Larsen’s one rule to the two parties?

What does Larsen think of Pundak? 

How would you describe the space outside of the negotiating room and how does it function in the process?

Characterize the jokes/anecdotes; how do they function? 

When Pundak’s joke goes too far what eases tensions? 

What are the code names? And what are the implications of Qurie’s code name? 

What does Qurie request moving forward?  

How does Mona view the refusal of the Israelis to send a more highly credentialed official? 

What does Qurie press for in the second round? 

How does Larsen respond to Mona’s outrage that he interfered and also compromised her reputation? What does he mean by “constructive ambiguity”?

How does the act end?