Thesis: In the two plays, Oedipus by Sophocles and Wild Duck by Ibsen, innocence is proved to be better than knowledge. Through the struggles of these two sets of characters to obtain knowledge, the reader can understand that the misuse of power to achieve insight may cause pain and sorrow.
Quotes for Wild Duck:
After finding out about Gina's affair with Mr. Werle, Hjalmar is no longer trusting of his wife: "Oh, this dull, unfeeling content! To me there's something outrageous about it. Just think not one regret!" (183). The way Sophocles writes "not one regret" demonstrates the hurt and betrayal that Hjalmar feels about the situation with Gina. The word choice provides a sense that Hjalmar was expecting at least something, no matter how small, from Gina and is surprised there is nothing. Therefore one can assume that before this incident he was completely trusting of his wife and now there is pain and even sorrow in the way he does not know what to believe.
Through this recently acquired knowledge, Hjalmar begins to assume that other situations have the same conclusions, such as with his daughter, "There's a horrible doubt - maybe Hedvig never really, truly has loved me" (211).
A secret that should not have come out is of Hjalmar's marriage, Gregers becomes stressed when he hears this: "Gregers (getting up and pacing about a little). Tell me - when you became engaged - was it then that my father got you to - I mean, was it then that you started in learning photography?" (125). There is something else going on here that should not have come to light, one can see this through the way that Gregers is "pacing about" and is starting to ask questions to find out when all this happened. In this case the innocence would have been better for Hjalmar because he does not know what Gregers is thinking of.
Hjalmar is obviously distressed by knowledge he would have rather not heard, one can see this through the way he is "(pacing restlessly about)" and saying "I wasn't made to be unhappy, Gregers. I've got to have it snug and secure and peaceful around me." (210). Ibsen has Hjalmar clearly state how this burst in his innocence has changed and affected him. One can see that none of this is at all good through the word choices and descriptions of his life before.
Quotes for Oedipus:
The first person Oedipus turns to for information of the past is Tiresias, but Tiresias does not want to share because he knows the pain it will bring, "How terrible - to see the truth \ when the truth is only pain to him who sees!" (359-360). Ibsen demonstrates how innocence is more desirable than knowledge in certain cases. One can see this through the word choices of "truth is only pain". Ibsen so clearly states this fact that there is no question or possible misunderstanding of the exclamation.
Tiresias is explicit that there will be pain if he releases his knowledge "I'd rather not cause pain for you or me" (378). This proves the point of innocence being better than intelligence.
Oedipus does not believe this until figures it out for himself; "Oh no no, \ I think I've just called down a dreadful curse upon myself - "(819-821). Sophocles writes this to warn the reader of this important topic so that they will not have to experience the consequences as Oedipus has had to.
Jocasta tries to help Oedipus when he does not stop trying to get information, "You're doomed - \may you never fathom who you are!" (1173-1174). Sophocles uses the words "never fathom" to illustrate the great importance it is to Jocasta that Oedipus remains unknowledgeable, for she does not want to see the pain of the secret inflicted upon him.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Blood Wedding: Journal #3
What some of the more prominent symbols and their meaning/effect in the drama?
Lorca uses many symbols in his play Blood Wedding, almost everything has a meaning or symbol attached to it. Through the understanding of these symbols the reader can decipher the story and decide correctly on what meaning of the whole is exactly. The three main objects that I analyzed were the moon, the beggar woman and the trees.
The moon was only brought up at the end of the play when they were looking for the Bride and Leonardo. I figured that the moon would represent truth because there is only mention of it when the people are looking for truth and what is right. The people that are looking for those two people are also searching for the truth of what really happened and why. Through this knowledge one can see that the moon would only logically mean truth or something similar. At one point the Woodcutters say: "First Woodcutter: When the moon comes out we will see them" (78). One can see clearly that the moon must mean truth or wisdom.
The next symbol was the beggar woman. I found this person to symbolize death. She seems to be deceiving the people she meets into committing suicide or killing themselves in some way. Also Lorca describes her as death a couple times so it would make sense that is what she is. Another point to make is that in the character list it shows no beggar woman but instead there is death, although in the play itself there is no death as a character and there is a beggar woman. In the stage directions there is also a part where they write "The Bridegroom goes rapidly toward the left and stumbles upon the Beggar Woman: Death" (86). Through these two instances I see that there is a definitely a connection between this Beggar Woman and the object of death.
Finally the last object that is clearly symbolized are the trees. I thought the trees were a symbol for the deceit and lies that continue throughout the play. At one point the woodcutters are looking for the Bride and Leonardo in the forest and they mention cutting down trees as if they were set out to do such a task as that. "Second Woodcutter: A tree with forty branches. We'll soon cut it down" (81). The forty branches would be the forty lies or many lies of the Bride and Leonardo's family.
Through the analysis of these objects as symbols the reader can understand the story or plot line of the play so much better. Every thing makes more sense when one knows exactly what the author is talking about.
Lorca uses many symbols in his play Blood Wedding, almost everything has a meaning or symbol attached to it. Through the understanding of these symbols the reader can decipher the story and decide correctly on what meaning of the whole is exactly. The three main objects that I analyzed were the moon, the beggar woman and the trees.
The moon was only brought up at the end of the play when they were looking for the Bride and Leonardo. I figured that the moon would represent truth because there is only mention of it when the people are looking for truth and what is right. The people that are looking for those two people are also searching for the truth of what really happened and why. Through this knowledge one can see that the moon would only logically mean truth or something similar. At one point the Woodcutters say: "First Woodcutter: When the moon comes out we will see them" (78). One can see clearly that the moon must mean truth or wisdom.
The next symbol was the beggar woman. I found this person to symbolize death. She seems to be deceiving the people she meets into committing suicide or killing themselves in some way. Also Lorca describes her as death a couple times so it would make sense that is what she is. Another point to make is that in the character list it shows no beggar woman but instead there is death, although in the play itself there is no death as a character and there is a beggar woman. In the stage directions there is also a part where they write "The Bridegroom goes rapidly toward the left and stumbles upon the Beggar Woman: Death" (86). Through these two instances I see that there is a definitely a connection between this Beggar Woman and the object of death.
Finally the last object that is clearly symbolized are the trees. I thought the trees were a symbol for the deceit and lies that continue throughout the play. At one point the woodcutters are looking for the Bride and Leonardo in the forest and they mention cutting down trees as if they were set out to do such a task as that. "Second Woodcutter: A tree with forty branches. We'll soon cut it down" (81). The forty branches would be the forty lies or many lies of the Bride and Leonardo's family.
Through the analysis of these objects as symbols the reader can understand the story or plot line of the play so much better. Every thing makes more sense when one knows exactly what the author is talking about.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Blood Wedding: Journal #2
What are the questions that underlie at least two of the works that you have read and how have the authors sought to answer those questions?
The main question that is underlying in Blood Wedding and Oedipus is how does ignorance create a sense of happiness in the drama?
In Blood Wedding the ignorance is how the Father does not know about his daughters love affair with Leonardo. When the Bridegroom marries her this truth comes out even though it was not meant to. There was ignorance in the beginning of the drama, this clearly shows that there was happiness before the evil deed came to light. In the beginning there Father was very proud of his daughter, thinking that she was very happy and pretty and no one could be better than her. When the terrible truth comes out that she has left the wedding party with Leonardo, the Father does not believe it. Nor does he want to. It spoils his happiness. "Wife: They ran away! They ran away! She and Leonardo! On the horse! They rode off in each other's arms, like a bolt of lightning! Father: It's not true! My daughter? No!" (76). The reader can see here that he does not believe that his daughter, the pure and truthful one, would do such a thing. The author, Lorca, shows that there is happiness in ignorance through this event. The author does a very good job of answer the question with the dramas and events of his play.
In Oedipus there is a similar sense of happiness in the beginning of the play though not of the same kind. There is simply happier occurrences that there were at the end of the drama. In the beginning there was no question to who Oedipus was married to or who his parents were, but in throughout the play these question arise. In the beginning when everyone was ignorant there was happiness and no one was hurting because of a truth. But when it is revealed that Oedipus is indeed married to his mother and his parents aren't who he had originally thought they were either. Sophocles answers the question of how does ignorance give a sense of happiness through the way Jocasta tries to hide the truth that she figures out, from Oedipus because she wants him to continue to have happiness as the King of Thebes. "Stop - in the name of god, if you love your won life, call off this search! My suffering is enough." (1161-1163). The audience can see her that she is trying to preserve this happiness before the ignorance is lost. Sophocles shows the answer to this question through Jocasta and does it very well.
The answer to this question that both authors allude to is that ignorance provides a sense of happiness through the way that less knowledge is better. Also the knowledge is not always the greatest and it shouldn't be known by everyone.
The main question that is underlying in Blood Wedding and Oedipus is how does ignorance create a sense of happiness in the drama?
In Blood Wedding the ignorance is how the Father does not know about his daughters love affair with Leonardo. When the Bridegroom marries her this truth comes out even though it was not meant to. There was ignorance in the beginning of the drama, this clearly shows that there was happiness before the evil deed came to light. In the beginning there Father was very proud of his daughter, thinking that she was very happy and pretty and no one could be better than her. When the terrible truth comes out that she has left the wedding party with Leonardo, the Father does not believe it. Nor does he want to. It spoils his happiness. "Wife: They ran away! They ran away! She and Leonardo! On the horse! They rode off in each other's arms, like a bolt of lightning! Father: It's not true! My daughter? No!" (76). The reader can see here that he does not believe that his daughter, the pure and truthful one, would do such a thing. The author, Lorca, shows that there is happiness in ignorance through this event. The author does a very good job of answer the question with the dramas and events of his play.
In Oedipus there is a similar sense of happiness in the beginning of the play though not of the same kind. There is simply happier occurrences that there were at the end of the drama. In the beginning there was no question to who Oedipus was married to or who his parents were, but in throughout the play these question arise. In the beginning when everyone was ignorant there was happiness and no one was hurting because of a truth. But when it is revealed that Oedipus is indeed married to his mother and his parents aren't who he had originally thought they were either. Sophocles answers the question of how does ignorance give a sense of happiness through the way Jocasta tries to hide the truth that she figures out, from Oedipus because she wants him to continue to have happiness as the King of Thebes. "Stop - in the name of god, if you love your won life, call off this search! My suffering is enough." (1161-1163). The audience can see her that she is trying to preserve this happiness before the ignorance is lost. Sophocles shows the answer to this question through Jocasta and does it very well.
The answer to this question that both authors allude to is that ignorance provides a sense of happiness through the way that less knowledge is better. Also the knowledge is not always the greatest and it shouldn't be known by everyone.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Blood Wedding: Journal #1
Setting: This includes cultural as well as geographical and historical setting. What effect does the setting have on story, characters, theme?
This play was written in about 1933 in Spain. This fact influences the story in that the culture and style is Spanish and it is set in a slightly old-fashion tone compared to now days. The story takes place out in a country type area where people own a lot of land and vineyards. They have to walk long ways just to get to a neighbors house. This setting effects the characters in that distance comes up a lot in their speech. When the Bridegroom and his Mother go to see the Bride and her Father, the Mother mentions the distance and how it was so long for her. "Father: Was it a long journey? Mother: Four hours" (29). This distance will probably have an effect on the story itself. I am assuming this is a foreshadowing into something bad that is to come from distance.
There is also lack of water in the land it seems. The Bridegroom says how there are "drylands" (28) but in other places there are "cliffs by the river" (29). The good land is what everyone wants and longs for. The Father mentions at one point the vineyards/orchards are the most important and they are what brings in the money: "that little orchard stuck right in the middle of my property. They won't sell it to me for all the gold in the world" (30). The reader can see that he has tried very hard to get this land and that it is worth a lot just through the way he uses the imagery of how they won't sell it for lots of money. He also says "Your vineyards are woth a fortune. Each young vine a silver coin!" (30). This shows how much these vineyards/orchards mean to the people too. This geological feature will also probably play a part in the story, through greed or jealousy.
Through those two simple examples the reader can see how much the setting of a story can effect a character, the story itself or even the theme. I haven't read enough to know what themes there are but I am sure this setting will play some part in them. Setting is going to have a big impact on this drama.
This play was written in about 1933 in Spain. This fact influences the story in that the culture and style is Spanish and it is set in a slightly old-fashion tone compared to now days. The story takes place out in a country type area where people own a lot of land and vineyards. They have to walk long ways just to get to a neighbors house. This setting effects the characters in that distance comes up a lot in their speech. When the Bridegroom and his Mother go to see the Bride and her Father, the Mother mentions the distance and how it was so long for her. "Father: Was it a long journey? Mother: Four hours" (29). This distance will probably have an effect on the story itself. I am assuming this is a foreshadowing into something bad that is to come from distance.
There is also lack of water in the land it seems. The Bridegroom says how there are "drylands" (28) but in other places there are "cliffs by the river" (29). The good land is what everyone wants and longs for. The Father mentions at one point the vineyards/orchards are the most important and they are what brings in the money: "that little orchard stuck right in the middle of my property. They won't sell it to me for all the gold in the world" (30). The reader can see that he has tried very hard to get this land and that it is worth a lot just through the way he uses the imagery of how they won't sell it for lots of money. He also says "Your vineyards are woth a fortune. Each young vine a silver coin!" (30). This shows how much these vineyards/orchards mean to the people too. This geological feature will also probably play a part in the story, through greed or jealousy.
Through those two simple examples the reader can see how much the setting of a story can effect a character, the story itself or even the theme. I haven't read enough to know what themes there are but I am sure this setting will play some part in them. Setting is going to have a big impact on this drama.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Topic Tracking
My tracking topic is: the symbol of authority bringing relief to a community or individual.
In Oedipus this is a very prominent occurrence. This is probably because the setting is back when they had a lot of gods that they regularly worshiped and asked for help from. The drama starts out with some of the people from Thebes praying to Apollo for help/relief from this plague that is spreading throughout the city. "Priest: You see us before you now, men of all ages clinging to your altars. [...] kneeling before the the two temples of queen Athena [...] and Apollo sees the future in the ashes" (17-27). These people believe that if they give offerings and prayers to Apollo, he will help them through their troubles. Even the King prays out to this god at one point when Creon is coming home with the news from Apollo. "Oedipus: Lord Apollo, let him come with a lucky word of rescue, shining like his eyes!" (91-93). Seeing that even the King prays out to this god, the reader can see that the people of this town really do believe with everything, that this higher authority will bring them relief from their dilemma. In the end Apollo does bring them relief and a solution to their misery. They just had to find how killed the previous king and get rid of him. Once they figured this mystery out they certainly did have help in getting over the plague. "free of pain at last." (1684)
In Wild Duck there is a similar symbol of authority giving relief and help. Instead of the authority being a god, this time it is a rich famly that helps a poor, in need family. Ekdal and Werle had a fight a long time before this story takes place but they still aren't getting along together. Werle is the richer of the two so he has some authority over Ekdal and his family. When he realizes that Ekdal's family is in need he is turned to for help. "Gregers: My father has almost been a kind of providence to you. Hjalmar: he didn't abandon his old friend's son in a time of need" (125-126). The reader can see that this poor family has received help from this type of authority over them, in order to keep them from going completely bankrupt. Werle even admits that he has helped more than they deserve: "I've gotten Ekdal copying jobs from the office, and I pay him much, much more than his work is worth - " (131). Finally in the end Werle doesn't even give him a job, he instead just gives him the money "old grandfather needn't trouble himself any longer with coping work, but that henceforth he can draw one hundred crowns a mnth from the office - " (194). Even though Ekdal and Werle are almost enemies, Werle is acting in superiority and authority over Ekdal and giving him the help he and his family need.
This repetition throughout the dramas I have read so far is important because it helps describe the type of tragedy these dramas are. It also helps the reader understand the plot and trouble that is going to happen later on. These symbols seem to add to the foreshadowing of the stories.
In Oedipus this is a very prominent occurrence. This is probably because the setting is back when they had a lot of gods that they regularly worshiped and asked for help from. The drama starts out with some of the people from Thebes praying to Apollo for help/relief from this plague that is spreading throughout the city. "Priest: You see us before you now, men of all ages clinging to your altars. [...] kneeling before the the two temples of queen Athena [...] and Apollo sees the future in the ashes" (17-27). These people believe that if they give offerings and prayers to Apollo, he will help them through their troubles. Even the King prays out to this god at one point when Creon is coming home with the news from Apollo. "Oedipus: Lord Apollo, let him come with a lucky word of rescue, shining like his eyes!" (91-93). Seeing that even the King prays out to this god, the reader can see that the people of this town really do believe with everything, that this higher authority will bring them relief from their dilemma. In the end Apollo does bring them relief and a solution to their misery. They just had to find how killed the previous king and get rid of him. Once they figured this mystery out they certainly did have help in getting over the plague. "free of pain at last." (1684)
In Wild Duck there is a similar symbol of authority giving relief and help. Instead of the authority being a god, this time it is a rich famly that helps a poor, in need family. Ekdal and Werle had a fight a long time before this story takes place but they still aren't getting along together. Werle is the richer of the two so he has some authority over Ekdal and his family. When he realizes that Ekdal's family is in need he is turned to for help. "Gregers: My father has almost been a kind of providence to you. Hjalmar: he didn't abandon his old friend's son in a time of need" (125-126). The reader can see that this poor family has received help from this type of authority over them, in order to keep them from going completely bankrupt. Werle even admits that he has helped more than they deserve: "I've gotten Ekdal copying jobs from the office, and I pay him much, much more than his work is worth - " (131). Finally in the end Werle doesn't even give him a job, he instead just gives him the money "old grandfather needn't trouble himself any longer with coping work, but that henceforth he can draw one hundred crowns a mnth from the office - " (194). Even though Ekdal and Werle are almost enemies, Werle is acting in superiority and authority over Ekdal and giving him the help he and his family need.
This repetition throughout the dramas I have read so far is important because it helps describe the type of tragedy these dramas are. It also helps the reader understand the plot and trouble that is going to happen later on. These symbols seem to add to the foreshadowing of the stories.
Wild Duck: Journal #4
"Not Rounding off, but opening out." Comment upon the way the writers deal with the ending in relation to the whole. In your answer you should refer to two or three of the works you have studied.
This statement of a writer not "rounding off, but opening out" is true for Wild Duck in that Ibsen doesn't continue the story and tell the reader what happens to the family after the death of their daughter but instead he leaves it open for the reader to decided for themselves what happens. The drama ends with a scene with non-family members, but just before that the mother and father leave. The last part with Gina and Hjalmar is when they are taking the body of their daughter out of the room. Ibsen uses this technique of opening out quite well with the way he ends the scene in with no words but just an action. Also there is a lot of anticipation and suspense through out the book. The ending that Ibsen chooses to use continues this sense of questioning, except this time he does not answer the questions. In this way he leaves the rest of the story open for the reader to finish it in their own way, or just keep guessing.
In Oedipus, Sophocles uses pretty much the same technique to end his drama. In the end Oedipus is taken off to live out his fate. Sophocles does not exactly tell the reader what is happening to him, he gives hints but that is it. In this way he is leaving the story open for the reader to decide for themselves what is going to happen for the rest of the live of Oedipus and the rest of his family. Slowly through the last scene the family of Oedipus disappears from the play as they die or are taken away. "clutching his daughters as the guards wrench them loose and take them through the palace doors. [...] Exit OEDIPUS and CREON to the palace" (250-251)This is the last the audience or reader see these characters but it doesn't explain where they are going. As for Jocasta, she commits suicide earlier in the act. Sophocles leaves the ending and consequences of the rest of the characters open for the reader to make up and in that he creates an effective ending to his drama.
In both Ibsen's Wild Duck and Sophocles's Oedipus there is the use of leaving the story open instead of rounding it off for the ending. This is an effective ending for both dramas because it gets the reader to think and not rely on the writer to give them a ending. For both plays this technique fits the character of the drama itself and even adds to the ending drama of the last act.
This statement of a writer not "rounding off, but opening out" is true for Wild Duck in that Ibsen doesn't continue the story and tell the reader what happens to the family after the death of their daughter but instead he leaves it open for the reader to decided for themselves what happens. The drama ends with a scene with non-family members, but just before that the mother and father leave. The last part with Gina and Hjalmar is when they are taking the body of their daughter out of the room. Ibsen uses this technique of opening out quite well with the way he ends the scene in with no words but just an action. Also there is a lot of anticipation and suspense through out the book. The ending that Ibsen chooses to use continues this sense of questioning, except this time he does not answer the questions. In this way he leaves the rest of the story open for the reader to finish it in their own way, or just keep guessing.
In Oedipus, Sophocles uses pretty much the same technique to end his drama. In the end Oedipus is taken off to live out his fate. Sophocles does not exactly tell the reader what is happening to him, he gives hints but that is it. In this way he is leaving the story open for the reader to decide for themselves what is going to happen for the rest of the live of Oedipus and the rest of his family. Slowly through the last scene the family of Oedipus disappears from the play as they die or are taken away. "clutching his daughters as the guards wrench them loose and take them through the palace doors. [...] Exit OEDIPUS and CREON to the palace" (250-251)This is the last the audience or reader see these characters but it doesn't explain where they are going. As for Jocasta, she commits suicide earlier in the act. Sophocles leaves the ending and consequences of the rest of the characters open for the reader to make up and in that he creates an effective ending to his drama.
In both Ibsen's Wild Duck and Sophocles's Oedipus there is the use of leaving the story open instead of rounding it off for the ending. This is an effective ending for both dramas because it gets the reader to think and not rely on the writer to give them a ending. For both plays this technique fits the character of the drama itself and even adds to the ending drama of the last act.
Wild Duck: Journal #3
Conversations between characters and/or authors:
I decided to write the possible conversation between Hjalmar and Gregers when Gregers takes Hjalmar out of the house to have a "take a long walk"(177).
Gregers: So, your wife tells me that she runs a lot of the business around the home
Hjalmar: Yes, that's right. I just get so busy sometimes that I just let her take care of it all. She seems to enjoy it so I don't mind.
Gregers: What exactly is it that you let her run?
Hjalmar: Oh, you know the household accounts and the income management and such.
Gregers: (looking all knowing) Well if you will listen to me, I would advise you to change that. Women like her aren't exactly trustworthy you know.
Hjalmar: (surprised) What do you mean they're not trustworthy? I would trust my wife with everything!
Gregers: Exactly what they want you to do. But in any case, I may be wrong but she could be deceiving you with where all the money comes in from and where it goes out to...
Hjalmar: (getting exasperated) What? Will you please stop speaking so mysteriously!
Gregers: Just think about it. You will know what is best when the time comes.
Hjalmar: (with a confused look) When what time comes?
Gregers: Oh and I would also advise you to get rid of that cursed duck of yours.
Hjalmar: (again with surprise) Oh no, I couldn't possibly do that. After all it's not MY duck, its Hedvig's. It would affect her greatly if I was to just discard of it.
Gregers: (with disgust) Well, you really shouldn't tolerate such a creature that came from Pettereson's hands you know. That worthless man...
Hjalmar: (thoughtfully) Well...that is true but, what about Hedvig, my precious daughter? How could I possibly take the wild duck from her?
Gregers: Well...are you sure she is your daughter for sure?
Hjalmar: (shocked) What? how you could you say that? Of course she is my daughter! Who else's daughter could she be?!
Gregers: Do you know why Gina ever quit working for my father, Werle?
Hjalmar: Well, no I can't say for sure. I don't remember the details exactly. But she wasn't fired so it couldn't have been anything too bad that she left for.
Gregers: You're right. She wasn't fired. But she did quit for a certain reason.
Hjalmar: (with interest) Oh? And what was that reason?
Gregers: (looking around for any possible listeners) Well, it is said that there was an affair between the two of them.
Hjalmar: (disbelief) What?! No, there couldn't have been. My wife is completely honest. She would have told me about this if it were so.
Gregers: Like I said before: Are you sure she is completely honest?
Hjalmar: (again looking shocked and worried) Oh no...I need to go home. Now! Good-bye Gregers.
Gregers: Goodbye Hjalmar. But remember: Don't make any rash decisions.
I decided to write the possible conversation between Hjalmar and Gregers when Gregers takes Hjalmar out of the house to have a "take a long walk"(177).
Gregers: So, your wife tells me that she runs a lot of the business around the home
Hjalmar: Yes, that's right. I just get so busy sometimes that I just let her take care of it all. She seems to enjoy it so I don't mind.
Gregers: What exactly is it that you let her run?
Hjalmar: Oh, you know the household accounts and the income management and such.
Gregers: (looking all knowing) Well if you will listen to me, I would advise you to change that. Women like her aren't exactly trustworthy you know.
Hjalmar: (surprised) What do you mean they're not trustworthy? I would trust my wife with everything!
Gregers: Exactly what they want you to do. But in any case, I may be wrong but she could be deceiving you with where all the money comes in from and where it goes out to...
Hjalmar: (getting exasperated) What? Will you please stop speaking so mysteriously!
Gregers: Just think about it. You will know what is best when the time comes.
Hjalmar: (with a confused look) When what time comes?
Gregers: Oh and I would also advise you to get rid of that cursed duck of yours.
Hjalmar: (again with surprise) Oh no, I couldn't possibly do that. After all it's not MY duck, its Hedvig's. It would affect her greatly if I was to just discard of it.
Gregers: (with disgust) Well, you really shouldn't tolerate such a creature that came from Pettereson's hands you know. That worthless man...
Hjalmar: (thoughtfully) Well...that is true but, what about Hedvig, my precious daughter? How could I possibly take the wild duck from her?
Gregers: Well...are you sure she is your daughter for sure?
Hjalmar: (shocked) What? how you could you say that? Of course she is my daughter! Who else's daughter could she be?!
Gregers: Do you know why Gina ever quit working for my father, Werle?
Hjalmar: Well, no I can't say for sure. I don't remember the details exactly. But she wasn't fired so it couldn't have been anything too bad that she left for.
Gregers: You're right. She wasn't fired. But she did quit for a certain reason.
Hjalmar: (with interest) Oh? And what was that reason?
Gregers: (looking around for any possible listeners) Well, it is said that there was an affair between the two of them.
Hjalmar: (disbelief) What?! No, there couldn't have been. My wife is completely honest. She would have told me about this if it were so.
Gregers: Like I said before: Are you sure she is completely honest?
Hjalmar: (again looking shocked and worried) Oh no...I need to go home. Now! Good-bye Gregers.
Gregers: Goodbye Hjalmar. But remember: Don't make any rash decisions.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)