For this posting, choose something significant you gleaned from your reading of any of the three analytical essays you've read and annotated over the past few days. Discuss it or question it and see what perceptions and observations your classmates have made. If you're not sure what to say, check out the class comments from Mrs. Minor's blog, at http://wviewaplitminor.blogspot.com.
PS: I've made reservations for these people for Fidelio: Roopa, David, Aditya, Brianna, Camden, Jill, Miranda, Alexander and one of the "maybes". I can handle a loss of $12, but anything beyond that will hurt, so please bring a check or cash if you haven't paid yet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
In the essay 'Oedipus and the Absurd Life', by Robert Cohen, he states that if any moral could ever be taken from the play of Oedipus it would be 'that to find yourself is at the some time to destroy yourself'.
Although this may be true in the case of Oedipus, I don't believe it to be true for people in general. In saying that to find oneself is to destroy oneself seems to say that the truth about oneself is so awful that it would be to hard to handle. In this I don't feel the majority of people actually fit. Oedipus fit because of his fateful destiny,and when he realized what he had done it destroyed him.
Before I do the actual blog post, there were a few questions I had after finishing the play. First how much time had passed since Laius was killed? After Oedipus solved the riddle of the sphynx, he became ruler and the land was happy. How long had he been ruler before the plague came and the people went to ask for his help? Why did Oedipus not look into the death of his predecessor himself when he became king?
The quote the Shea talked about was also one I was interested in. I don't believe that to find yourself is to destroy yourself either. On one hand, however, since Oedipus is meant to be someone readers/viewers of the play are able to relate with - because he is a representation of our dual identities, that is - then he must still be relatable after he "finds himself".
Although not all people will face self destruction upon self discovery, I think that many of us fear this same thing. We might not be fated as Oedipus is, but we all can be afraid or nervous of what we might find on our search of truth about ourselves.
I don't know, it's kind of a random thought.
Also, in the same essay, I was confused about something. After stating that "to find yourself is at the same time to destroy yourself", Cohen continues on in the next paragraph, saying that Oedipus is a "celebration" of man's search for himself.
How does that go with his previous statement? Can we celebrate Oedipus's search, even if it ends in his destruction?
What I found quite interesting was the constant repetition of blindness, which can be found throughout most of the essays. Although we have hinted on this matter during class, that the whole play is about blindness, the essays seem to show some the different versions, per say, of blindness. Each essay somewhat reveals a certain aspect in this theme.
In Marjorie Barstow's essay, she hints "Oedipus can see but one side of a matter – too often he sees that wrongly,” and “when blinded by some egotistic passion, so often hurried him to wrong conclusions,” both of which deal with how Oedipus has rash impulses and neglects to look at the other side of an issue.
In S. M. Adams essay he talks about how Oedipus’ self-blinding is completely intention of blindness. This action the he makes “has not been foretold in the oracles,” and is something which he bestows upon himself to, ironically, open his eyes and put and end to his mental blindness.
These are just some of the things that caught my attention.
In Marjorie Barstow's Essay, I was confused on how she explains and shows evidence of this quote "Perhaps we trouble ourselves too much concerning the Greek notions of fate in human life." Could anyone explain her thinking here for me?
Also, from the same essay, what does she mean "Greek 'fatalism'"?
I think that when we discover who we are, when we learn what it is that we're meant to do and where it is we're meant to go in life, we begin to question the illusion of ourselves that we once had. We come to realize the person that we had so long believed ourselves to be does not in fact exist, as that person is in no way similar to the person whom we've just found; we're forced to accept that person that we've found, and, in doing so, we let go, we destroy, of that person that we once were.
When he wrote of self-discovery being self-destructive, I believe that Cohen was indeed referring to the destruction of one's past self, of one's imagined self, not necessarily the destruction of one's actual self that we witnessed at the play's end, when Oedipus put his eyes out. For example: when Oedipus discovered that the prophecy had come true, he no longer was the Oedipus that he once knew - no more was he Oedipus, Prince of Corinth, who'd happened upon and killed an unruly stranger, who'd saved Thebes from imminent destruction and married its widowed queen as a reward; instead, he had become Oedipus, heir apparent to the throne of Thebes, who'd murdered his father while in passing, who'd wedded his mother. And it was only because of that destruction of his previously self that Oedipus so brutally mutilated himself, as he simply could not bear to look upon the new person he'd discovered.
My last post was in response to Shea's and Anna's comments, by the way. I realize there's kind of a lapse in time between mine and theirs.
Also, I had one question. Can there ever be an ideal man in tragic drama? Barstow mentions in her essay that Oedipus does not fit the mold of such a character, a character of Aristotle, but I personally don't think he needs to. It wouldn't be the play that it is if Oedipus wasn't so deeply flawed, in my opinion. I would love to hear what others to think about that.
Hannah-I believe that your question is answerable if you look throughout Greek mythology. Fate(and the fates personified sometimes) plays a large role in the lives of the characters. Oedipus, for example, given the choice would have choosen a different "destiny." Yet fate pushes him to kill his father, marry and have kids with his mother. He is forced to follow a pre-determined path. No matter how much he tries to avert the horrors he is pre-destined to commit, unfairly perhaps, he can never escape his inevitable fate.
When reading Barstow's essay, as she speaks of Oedipus' flaw of impulsive passion, I was immediately reminded of Hercules of Greek mythology. Similar to Oedipus on multiple occasions, Hercules is not particularly known for his intellect but for taking direct action whenever faced with a problem.....Am I allowed to follow this tangent on the timed writing?
Grace: I would absolutely follow that tangent! The many parallels between Hercules' situation and that of Oedipus are astonishing.
I have a lot to say about Cohen’s piece also! Cohen maintains that the conflict of Oedipus Tyrannus comes from the tension and disparity between man’s dual nature. He analyzes the climax of the play as a violent synthesis of Oedipus’ two identities and claims that Oedipus is a man in “absurd” revolt against the dual nature of his identity. I find this to be unsatisfactory in many ways. First of all, I don’t agree with Cohen’s statement that people consist of two identities: their internal identity and the one that they receive from the outside world (the identity or personality that other attribute to you). Man does not consist of double or multiple identities, but rather of multiple facets of an identity/personality. Cohen uses the word “identity” too lightly. People have one identity, but can have differing personalities in differing situations that may lead to the perception of different “identities”. I don’t know if I’m taking this too literally, but it just seems to be such a generalization about mankind. I don’t feel Oedipus reflects mankind in any significant way. We may see parts of ourselves in him, but he doesn’t stand for mankind in general.
Thus Oedipus doesn’t have a case of dual identity, but only a lack of insight. His foundling nature and his “tyrant” nature are not at odds or in conflict with each other, because one does not know the other exists. He isn’t in constant and “absurd” revolt against his two natures because he doesn’t even know that there are more facets to his identity until the end of the play. He’s not willingly and conscientiously denying his foundling nature, but rather lacks the insight to see that he is really the son of Jocasta and Laius. Moreover, the climax of the play is not really a synthesis of Oedipus’ two identities, but is the realization of his other nature. It’s violent only because of the shame and guilt Oedipus feels, not because this is what usually happens when two personalities converge. There isn’t a “routine nature” to this conflict.
Also, I found Cohen’s denunciation of Oedipus’ character to be really harsh and very biased! For example, Cohen states that Oedipus “…is simply a tribal chief…who receives his position through brute power.” Didn’t Oedipus receive his position as thanks from the citizens of Thebes for driving away the Sphinx? He further goes on to describe him in a state of “appalling ignorance” and calls hum “…a primitive, pre-Hellenic chieftain.” I wouldn’t simply label Oedipus as dumb, but as one who is primarily led by his emotions.
In S.M. Adams' article he writes, "One of the penalties of any great work of art is that it lends itself to various interpretations." For more discussion on that, I would recommend looking at Minor's blog.
My opinion is that, yes, the play's meaning can be taken too far, as Michelle posted earlier on Cohen's writing. While Cohen's ideas are certainly interesting/original (and possibly somewhat mindboggling?) it could be an example of stretching the intent/interpretation of the play.
I just thought it would be interesting to see other people's responses on this.
Grace: I agree that there are interchangeable characteristics between Oedipus and Hercules. I also drew similar connections to Hercules after reading the article(s).
One thing I noticed was the contrast between what Barstow wrote and what S.M. Adams. Barstow focused greatly on his "impetuousness" and quick-thinking nature. She says this is his major flaw and that's what helps cause Oedipus's downfall. Adams, on the other hand, wrote that Oedipus' fate was unavoidable. From the moment the oracles proclaimed it, the prediction was destined to pass. Nothing Oedipus could have done would have stopped it. It is interesting to note how these two authors seemed to disagree on how much Oedipus was involved with causing his plummet from grace into ruin and anguish. One believe he had a major flaw that helped guide the prophecy into fruition while the other thought that Oedipus was more innocent and could have done nothing to prevent his terrible fate.
To follow Grace's tangent, I too can see some parallels in the story of Hercules. After all, it was because of some god (I can't recall which one at this precise moment) who caused Hercules to go mad and murder his wife and kids. He then goes to an oracle to find a way to redeem himself for his crimes and thus begins his Twelve Labors. One major difference, though, is he wasn't destined to kill his family (at least that I know of). A god deliberately made it happen and no oracle had predicted it.
I just wanted to mention that health career kids only get twenty minutes at most for the essay.
[And to be honest, that's kind of lame.]
To comment on what Michelle said about identity, I do agree with Cohen. And I think it is a great point. People have this preconceived notion as to how they think people think of them—their inner identity. But they also have the reality of this situation and what people really think of them—their outer identity.
Here is an example (that I made up!). I might think Than seriously likes me because, well, who wouldn’t. This is my personal inner identity about my love life and my relationship with her. Yet reality is that she really has no feelings for me and wants nothing to do with a relationship and me. This is my outer identity. The problem arises when these two identities come together.
What Cohen was saying that I thought to be so good was that the climax of the play was characterized by the moment when Oedipus realized that there is a difference between the two. Reality was completely different, even opposite to, the reality he felt he lived in. He had a hard time accepting this. Due to his nature as an impulsive yet noble man he therefore blew things out of proportion in order to fulfill his duty as tyrannus in the only way he knew how. Thus he was emotional and almost irrational and did some pretty bad things. His two identities morphed into one and he acted. But with this becoming one Oedipus finally could see his whole situation. Unfortunately he didn’t like this new understanding and vision he had so he symbolically tried to remain blind. Continuing with my example I show that this struggle with inner and outer identities can apply to everyone, and this story is therefore a great tragedy because you can relate.
I ask Than out to Homecoming and she promptly declines the offer. My inner and outer identity become one, like with Oedipus, and I get a full understanding as to what is going on around me, like with Oedipus, and now I must make a decision. If I was Oedipus and acted through emotion I would be angry and possibly through a temper tantrum. So I think it is clear that what Cohen was saying was that the basis for the conflict within Oedipus stems from this realization between inner and outer identities and his nature to act impulsively to it.
I agree with Michelle on her disagreements with Cohen's analysis of Oedipus. He called "stubborn, bullheaded, frequently stupid, often rude..." and so on. I don't feel like this accurately describes Oedipus. Although, he often allows his emotions to overpower his logic and reason, you can't doubt his noble feelings for his city and his family. I rather feel he is a passionate man, than a "bullheaded" king. Cohen steps too far as well when he compares Oedipus to an "old wolf cowering blindly into exile while the others growl and turn obeisance to the next line". This description is very misleading to the reason why Oedipus left Thebes. Its wasn't that he was forced to leave by his city and Creon, but more that he was compelled to run away from his blindness with reality.
Oedipus had many faults within him, but he also had some positive qualities that many of us would envy. As Cohen said, he has courage. Most people would stop when they heard devastating news and choose not to pursue it. But Oedipus takes it all in whether its good or bad. The pursuit of the truth is more important than peace itself. He also does not blame others for his fate. Oedipus could have shouted to the heavens and cursed Apollo for his great tragedy, but he admits that it was he who struck the blow.
The play is so long standing and famous, because of the character rather than the plot. I disagree with Cohen's ideal that Oedipus is a flat character. I think he is complicated and "round" in his own way. Something about him draws us to his character and we mourn, hope, and acknowledge his fate with him. This is something a flat character cannot cause us to do.
Cohen was wholly critical of Oedipus. He asserts the Oedipus is a stupid man and tribal and primitive. I personally don't fully agree with this viewpoint of Oedipus. Oedipus definetly had some flaws such as his impulsivness and stunnorn nature, but on the whole he is a good and great person. I feel like Adams wrote a good arguement at the end when he stated that because this is a tragedy, people automtically look for the Flaws in Oedipus. However, Adams states, Oedipus was a good person who had bad events happen to him that were marked from his birth. I feel like that was the point of the tragedy. Oedipus is a good man but has his short comings and is later caught into trouble from the fate that was sealed to him from his birth.
I had always wondered, and couldn’t really get past, why Oedipus would get married and kill anyone when he was given such a vivid and direct prophecy. I would think that if someone was foretold they would marry their mother that they would just abstain from women in order to avoid something so apparently set in stone. In Oedipus Tyrannus, Adam’s answered that question, but I’m not so sure what I think of it. He basically just said that Oedipus did what he thought necessary and reasonable and we can’t really blame him when that didn’t work out. Any thoughts?
First off Hayden, you have an abundance of spelling errors that thoroughly distract me, not the least of which is spelling Thanh's name wrong. Let's try and at least get that right in the future.
Aside from that, I agree with Aditya. Cohen depicts Oedipus as a brute, ruling as not a king but a chief; not through wisdom but by strength. I would have to agree with that a bit. He takes over after defeating the Sphinx, and has a short temper. The first place he goes when challenged in any way is violence. It's admirable that he exacts justice upon himself, which is what elevates him to the position of hero rather than impulsive leader-by-power. And, despite the spelling errors, I agree with what Hayden was saying about two realities clashing in a spectacular explosion of emotion and conflict (though he didn't say it quite so eloquently). The reality he creates for himself out of his own perceptions coming into direct confrontation with the true reality of the world brings out Oedipus' true colors. It reveals him as the hero he really is, and not just a violent ruler.
I'm going to stray from the comment of Aditya/Matthew that Oedipus is wrongly depicted by Mr Cohen. I feel that he was depicted very well as said brute. If you look towards the end of his criticism, Cohen says that Oedpius "sees himself sinking into a vortex, [but] he plunges deeper and faster on his own accord". In this respect, he is, as he is when he solves the riddle, very childlike, wanting to know everything at that very instance in time. Although he was childish, he was also man enough to admit that his misfortune was his own doing, not Apollo's. "It was Apollo. He brought this pain, this suffering to me. But it was my hand that struck the blow!" We can even go so far as to admit that the first of the two quotes shows the baby Oedpius left to die, and the second is the tyrranus.
There is just so much duality present in Oedipus Rex. Not being able to see until blindness, defying the Oracle while submitting to its edict, the child Oedipus slowly converging with Oedipus the tyrranus, etc. I think that this is more of a play about identity and the transition from child to man than it is about blindness.
I agree with Matt, who agrees with Aditya in that Oedipus is not a brute, as portrayed in Adam's article. He wasn't perfect, but no one is. I thought he was quite a smart fellow for solving the challenging sphinx riddle. Just because he had an extremely, extremely short temper, and resorted to violence in every argument, and even murdered someone, and also gouged out his owns eyes, doesn't mean he's a brute! He has a few problems...but we can't just label him like that, it's like giving him the rank of the lowest human, when he's the one who is king! A king must be vicious and show no mercy when ruling or else the people will not feel safe. That's how all kings are, especially that one in the movie Braveheart, that English king is vicious.
In Robert Cohen's essay, He states that "(Oedipus)he is a man of of appalling ingorance, who lives in dread that the sky is bout to fall on him" I disagree, though i believe Oedipus to be a man of ignorance4, he does not believe that anything will happen to him and when the first opportunity comes by he takes it to assure himself. for example when the messenger comes and gives him the new of his foster father death, he uses this piece of information to dispel most of his worries, but only when the information is wholly revealed to him does he understand his situation. this statement contradicts itself how can a man be ignorant be believe that a disaster is coming upon him?
Here is my opinion on all of the essays that we had read.
On the Marjorie Barstow essay, I agree with her on how she says that happiness is something that requires thinking to truly achieve. It is not something that results in "gifts of fortune, but rather vision which views life steadily and distinguishes in every action the result to be attained." I can compare this to how even though a person may be rich, they may never be really happy while a poor family with meager property can be happy more often. This probably happens more often because the poor people have a balance between good and bad to understand. The rich have an excessive amount of good that they can't compare it with anything else. I agree also with Barstow that Oedipus's pride had placed him in a state of tragedy because tragedy is pity and fear, so says Aristotle. But fear and pity that may go through both the audience and the members of the play itself.
On SM Adams essay of Oedipus Tyrannus, I agree that Oedipus's character made the play more dramatic. Because he is a very good man, and is striving for the truth, it allows the audience to relate with him. Being able to relate, connects with Barstow's claim on pity and fear. If people are able to relate, they can compare their own lives and be more grateful. If Oedipus was a more antagonistic character, the audience would not view this as a tragedy, rather it would be marked as a comedy or horror. Depending on how a person's attitude is about death.
Lastly, Robert Cohen's essay I agree that Oedipus is a flat character. He does not change how he is, even though people urge him to change. He wasn't bright and he didn't have a big perception, that was what I was trying to say in class. Because Oedipus was a simple character, he was able to solve the Sphinx problem, whereas a person like Creon or Teiresias would have made the problem even more complex. I disagree that to bring together a person's inner identity and outer identity would create a tragedy. Although sometimes it might, there are times when a person can compromise for their differences. For example, Hayden made it obvious that he could have done what Oedipus did when I rejected him, however, he doesn't go through that and there is no tragedy. It is just sadness. I believe tragedy is something that exaggerates life's pains. It may hurt for awhile, but in the end, there are solutions. Hayden could go on and ask another girl to homecoming (although it has already passed) and move on, and that girl may agree, and he would be happy all over again. So life goes on.
First off, after reading most of the responses I have to agree with a couple of people who shared the same views as I. I think Matt P and Aditya put it best when describing Cohen's depiction of Oedipus as "being a stupid, primitive and brutish" as somewhat agreeable but mostly inaccurate. Oedipus wasn't necessarily 'stupid' rather quick minded and fast moving. Also I think that Oedipus was more aggressive then necessarily a 'brute.' He was governed by his reactions and his decisiveness. I don't believe he was a tyrant like figure that was depicted in Oedipus Tyrannus. He always looked out for the city of Thebes first and put his own health second.
I was looking at mr.hardins's blog on the the oedipus in class essay, and i found this post which drew a connection with lord voldemort and oedipus, its an interesting theory annnd... both oedipus's mom and voldemort's mom's names are merope! omg!
one theme that repeated itself several times throughout the essays was the tragic hero. The tragic hero was defined throughout the essays as a generally good person who befalls misfortune mainly through fate. The essays all focused at least partially on what made Oedipus a great tragic hero. Another reoccurring theme i noticed was the debate between fatalism and character flaws- was it at all Oedipus fault or was he just fated into his downfall? There seems to be a good argument both ways and i personally believe it to be a combination of fate and character flaws that allowed Oedipus to marry his mother and kill his father. He did both unintentionally but his inability to discern the truth prevented him from avoiding his fate.
Thanh’s post really got me thinking! Before, I was a little confused on the first paragraph/excerpt, but now it seems clearer. Marlow is essentially warning the readers and the sailors about the indirectness and haziness of his tale. He warns them that this will not be a “regular” sea tale, but one that has a lot more depth to it. He talks of the tale bringing out the meaning like “…a glow brings out a haze…” (paragraph 9). With a glow, there is bound to always be haze and shadow. The glow, while it illuminates an area, also passes a shadow over other areas and muddles it. Similarly, his tale will be straightforward only in its contents (the kernel), but hazy and unclear in its message. The central meaning of his story will not be clear and concrete, but a little hazy and will require some pondering. Also, in paragraph 14, the narrator accuses Marlow’s tales of being inconclusive, of raising more questions and inciting thought. In this way, I agree with Hannah when she stated that Marlow, because of his propensity to spin intricate and multilayered yarns, is not typical of the average seaman. Instead of telling simple and “conclusive” tales, Marlow tends to spin tales that are deeper and more thought provoking. Due to this, it also seems to me that the other seamen aren’t very appreciative of Marlow. There is a bit of resignation when the narrator announces that they are fated to hear another of Marlow’s tales. Later on, he mentions that it seemed like many of the men were asleep. I agree with others who mentioned that Marlow seems to be a sort of outcast. They respect him, but do not entirely accept him.
Oh, what’s moonshine? Is it just moonlight?
Post a Comment