john tate

• thesis

  in dna by dennis kelly, john tate intially assumes the role as a powerfu, autocratic leader using fear and manipulation to control the group. his dictatorship is deemed unchallenged as he orchestrates the groups decisions and intimidates members through threats of violence. however as the play progresses john tates grip on power is diminished and he is eventually left isolated and ultimately absent from the gang symbolising the fragility of leadership built on fear.
• act 1- alright new rule; that word is banned 


  • irony as he cannot actually ban a word
  • highlights the tyrannical nature of his leadership
  • the imperative verbs “banned” emphasizes John tates attempt to assert leader ship over the group
  • reflects his need to control a situation even if it’s through trivial means
  • the absurdity of banning a word shows that from the initial moments his leadership is at risk and he no longer has the means of power he once held
• act 1- “i’ll have to, you know, bite their face of. or something“


  • the extreme hyperbole of “bite their face off” exaggerates john tate’s supposed power and aggression
  • the absurdity of it however undermines his credibility
  • imstead of sounding like a true threat it sounds like desperation and overcompensation
  • the ambiguity of “or something“ is deliberately vague and indercuts the severity of his earlier threat
  • his power is no longer grounded in its certainty
  • signaling his weakening leadership
• act 1- “i’ve been truing to keep everyone together? aren’t things better? for us?”


  • the continuous use of interrogatives show an immense lack of trust in his own leadership
  • the rhetorical questions are his attempt to seek validation from the group whilst his power is crumbling around him
  • they imply a lack of confidence in his own leadership
  • unsure if his attempts of manipulation have reallly benefited the group
  • internal stuggle and growing doubt about ability to maintain power
• act 1- “cathy says your clever, so what do we do?


  • he is finally facing the reality that his leadership has fallen
  • relying on phil to maintain composure and handle the situation
  • the rhetorical shift of “so what do we do“ shows he is no longer asserting authority and is seeking the input of others
  • marks a significant departure from his earlier behavior where he dictated the groups actions
  • exposes his insecurity and inability to maintain authoritarian rule
  • underscores the breakdown of his leadership
• act 2- “they say john tates lost it though“


  • scene 2
  • power goes to head
  • is it better to sacrifice one person for the greater good of the group
  • the third person reference shows a distance and isolation from the gang
  • the shift from addressing him as leader to talking about him in the past tense shows he is no longer respected or at the forefront of the group
  • typical weaker member of leah talking about him shows his diminished influence
  • his reputation is now subject to rumours showing his once feared authority has eroded
• act 3- “john tate hasn’t been seen in weeks”


  • scene 2
  • absence as symbolism shows his complete disappearance from the groups awareness and responsibilities
  • physical absense highlights his rapid downfall and fall from grace
  • his lack of presence harshly contrasts his earlier dominant role making his vanishing a symbolic marker of corrupt leadership