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.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Wild Duck: Journal #2
A dramatist often creates a gap between what the audience knows and what the characters know. With reference to at least two plays, discuss how and to what effect dramatists have used this technique.
In Oedipus the author (or dramatist) creates a gap between what the audience knows and what the characters know, through dramatic irony. A some points the Chorus would say things while certain characters were not in the scene and then another time the blind prophet said something important while Oedipus was not listening. The purpose of doing this was to create suspense for the reader as to when the other characters will figure out the mystery and to keep the dramatic irony going. An example of this would be when Tiresias was talking to Oedipus about the mystery of who killed Lauis but Oedipus was not listening: "Turning his back on Tiresias, moving toward the palace. Tiresias: 'I will go, once I have said what I came here to say [...]' Oedipus enters the palace. 'Revealed at last, brother and father both to the children he embraces, to his mother son and husband both [...]'" (185). After Tiresias explains the situation the audience has full understanding for what is going on but Oedipus, since he left, knows nothing. This occurrence creates the dramatic irony the author was wishing to convey.
In Wild Duck the author creates a gap between what the audience knows and what the characters know through suspense. This suspense is towards the audience as well as some of the characters. One example is when Ekdal wants to show something to Gregers but asks Hjalmar first if he should. When Hjalmar says no, this is where the suspense comes in. "Ekdal: 'Hjalmar, should we show him?' Hjalmar: 'No, no, Father, not tonight.'" (150). This secret knowledge between these two characters goes on for a while until they finally break it to Gregers. But even then when we know what the object is (the duck), we don't know why it is so important to them. There are quite a few of these little suspense's throughout the first 3 acts, but the are all resolved and answered within a few pages.
Sophocles's dramatic irony is used to develop the story, whereas Ibsen's use of suspense is to keep the reader interested. Though they are both using the same technique of having a gap between how much each party knows (audience and characters) they are achieving this goal in two different, yet equally effective ways.
In Oedipus the author (or dramatist) creates a gap between what the audience knows and what the characters know, through dramatic irony. A some points the Chorus would say things while certain characters were not in the scene and then another time the blind prophet said something important while Oedipus was not listening. The purpose of doing this was to create suspense for the reader as to when the other characters will figure out the mystery and to keep the dramatic irony going. An example of this would be when Tiresias was talking to Oedipus about the mystery of who killed Lauis but Oedipus was not listening: "Turning his back on Tiresias, moving toward the palace. Tiresias: 'I will go, once I have said what I came here to say [...]' Oedipus enters the palace. 'Revealed at last, brother and father both to the children he embraces, to his mother son and husband both [...]'" (185). After Tiresias explains the situation the audience has full understanding for what is going on but Oedipus, since he left, knows nothing. This occurrence creates the dramatic irony the author was wishing to convey.
In Wild Duck the author creates a gap between what the audience knows and what the characters know through suspense. This suspense is towards the audience as well as some of the characters. One example is when Ekdal wants to show something to Gregers but asks Hjalmar first if he should. When Hjalmar says no, this is where the suspense comes in. "Ekdal: 'Hjalmar, should we show him?' Hjalmar: 'No, no, Father, not tonight.'" (150). This secret knowledge between these two characters goes on for a while until they finally break it to Gregers. But even then when we know what the object is (the duck), we don't know why it is so important to them. There are quite a few of these little suspense's throughout the first 3 acts, but the are all resolved and answered within a few pages.
Sophocles's dramatic irony is used to develop the story, whereas Ibsen's use of suspense is to keep the reader interested. Though they are both using the same technique of having a gap between how much each party knows (audience and characters) they are achieving this goal in two different, yet equally effective ways.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Wild Duck: Journal #1
Notes from a brainstorm session on "outrageous links" between any two of the plays:
There is a definite link of blindness in both of these plays. In Oedipus there is blindness in literal and metaphorical aspects and in Wild Duck so far there is blindness in the literal sense.
In Oedipus there is a blind prophet: Teriesas, and this character starts the blindness motif. Blindness can be seen as a good thing according to him because he can see through the eyes of Apollo one of their gods.That would be a good thing of course. Then the next literal blind thing is Oedipus at the end when he gouges his eyes out. This is seen as a bad thing because he only gouges his eyes out because he feels he deserves it and its the least he could do to give himself a consequence for the wrong he has done. The third thing that is "blind" is the mystery of Oedipus's parents and who they are. This eventually ends up being solved but it "passes on" its blindness to Oedipus.
In Wild Duck there is some blindness in the girl Hedvig and in the old Ekdal. The blindness has not come yet but it is coming slowly. This blindness shows a weakness for both these people. They cannot do as much and they admit it. Ekdal says that he cannot work as hard because his eyes are failing him and the young girl, Hedvig, does not know yet that her eyesight is fading because her parents have not yet told her, but she too is not allowed to do as much. Such as reading and other things that would hurt her eyes.
In both the plays the blindness attacks characters. This is a sign that it is inevitable, and that at least one character is going to have this weakness. I think it also shows wisdom though. All four of the people that have the blindness have some sense of wisdom that they either got from old age or from certain experiences throughout the drama. Oedipus has the experience from his life that has made him wise. Teriesas is given wisdom because of his blindness and Edkal is wise from old age. Finally, Hedvig does not have much wisdom yet, but before she goes completely blind I think she will find or do something that will give her wisdom in some area.
There is a definite link of blindness in both of these plays. In Oedipus there is blindness in literal and metaphorical aspects and in Wild Duck so far there is blindness in the literal sense.
In Oedipus there is a blind prophet: Teriesas, and this character starts the blindness motif. Blindness can be seen as a good thing according to him because he can see through the eyes of Apollo one of their gods.That would be a good thing of course. Then the next literal blind thing is Oedipus at the end when he gouges his eyes out. This is seen as a bad thing because he only gouges his eyes out because he feels he deserves it and its the least he could do to give himself a consequence for the wrong he has done. The third thing that is "blind" is the mystery of Oedipus's parents and who they are. This eventually ends up being solved but it "passes on" its blindness to Oedipus.
In Wild Duck there is some blindness in the girl Hedvig and in the old Ekdal. The blindness has not come yet but it is coming slowly. This blindness shows a weakness for both these people. They cannot do as much and they admit it. Ekdal says that he cannot work as hard because his eyes are failing him and the young girl, Hedvig, does not know yet that her eyesight is fading because her parents have not yet told her, but she too is not allowed to do as much. Such as reading and other things that would hurt her eyes.
In both the plays the blindness attacks characters. This is a sign that it is inevitable, and that at least one character is going to have this weakness. I think it also shows wisdom though. All four of the people that have the blindness have some sense of wisdom that they either got from old age or from certain experiences throughout the drama. Oedipus has the experience from his life that has made him wise. Teriesas is given wisdom because of his blindness and Edkal is wise from old age. Finally, Hedvig does not have much wisdom yet, but before she goes completely blind I think she will find or do something that will give her wisdom in some area.
IOP Journal #5
well, I am finally done with my IOP and do not have to stress about it anymore. It feels good to be done finally.
I do not think I did as well as I could have, though I practiced a whole bunch I still got really nervous while I was actually presenting. A few of the points I got lost on and then did not prove very well. Also I was disappointed that I could not speak as clearly as I wanted to. I think if I had started even a day or two earlier I would have been able to figure out where to add in more analysis. I had it all writen down, but I did not know where to add it in to the speech.
Other than that I think it went pretty well. I was able to talk for more than 10 minutes which was good. I thought I would be scrabbling for things to say and fill up time. I think the whole presentation lasted about 12 minutes so that was good.
The whole presentation was not as bad as I thought it would be. I would not want to do it again, but it definitely was not a terrible thing like I thought it would be.
I do not think I did as well as I could have, though I practiced a whole bunch I still got really nervous while I was actually presenting. A few of the points I got lost on and then did not prove very well. Also I was disappointed that I could not speak as clearly as I wanted to. I think if I had started even a day or two earlier I would have been able to figure out where to add in more analysis. I had it all writen down, but I did not know where to add it in to the speech.
Other than that I think it went pretty well. I was able to talk for more than 10 minutes which was good. I thought I would be scrabbling for things to say and fill up time. I think the whole presentation lasted about 12 minutes so that was good.
The whole presentation was not as bad as I thought it would be. I would not want to do it again, but it definitely was not a terrible thing like I thought it would be.
Monday, May 10, 2010
IOP Journal #4
Well, tomorrow is the day I present. I'm pretty nervous about it, but I know that as soon as it's over I'm going to feel much better and won't have to worry about it any longer!
This weekend I worked a lot on my analysis and such of the main part of the IOP. I also put together a brief outline of the presentation, which I am now redoing and making more detailed. I changed and added some more things to my analysis from the last time I wrote about it. I realized a few things and found a few other items. One of the main things that I came up with were what Huxley was representing the characters for. Bernard is the way that all the people should be. Lenina is the representative of civilization and the completely assimilated person. And finally John is the way a person might feel/be like if they don't fit in anywhere, so pretty much the worst-case scenario.
Other than those changes I also added in some other presentation details such as what I am going to say at the beginning and how I am going to conclude my presentation. I decided that I am going to give a brief overview of the book. But it will just be really short because most of the people have already heard about all of the dystopian books. Also I am going to ask a question of the class just to get them thinking. I will introduce my thesis and then get started on my evidence and evaluation. Then for my conclusion I decided to put what each of the characters represent in the end because they don't have a direct connection back to my thesis and those facts are more of a over-all summary. I figured they would be good to add in as an ending.
Other than that, I'm hoping everything goes well tomorrow!
This weekend I worked a lot on my analysis and such of the main part of the IOP. I also put together a brief outline of the presentation, which I am now redoing and making more detailed. I changed and added some more things to my analysis from the last time I wrote about it. I realized a few things and found a few other items. One of the main things that I came up with were what Huxley was representing the characters for. Bernard is the way that all the people should be. Lenina is the representative of civilization and the completely assimilated person. And finally John is the way a person might feel/be like if they don't fit in anywhere, so pretty much the worst-case scenario.
Other than those changes I also added in some other presentation details such as what I am going to say at the beginning and how I am going to conclude my presentation. I decided that I am going to give a brief overview of the book. But it will just be really short because most of the people have already heard about all of the dystopian books. Also I am going to ask a question of the class just to get them thinking. I will introduce my thesis and then get started on my evidence and evaluation. Then for my conclusion I decided to put what each of the characters represent in the end because they don't have a direct connection back to my thesis and those facts are more of a over-all summary. I figured they would be good to add in as an ending.
Other than that, I'm hoping everything goes well tomorrow!
Thought Provoking Question #2
What evidence is there that Jocasta knew sooner than most that Oedipus was the one who killed Laius?
Friday, May 7, 2010
Oedipus the King: Journal #4
Letters the characters might have written.
Last letter to Oedipus, from Jocasta before her suicide.
My beloved Oedipus,
I just cannot believe this. All those prophesies that I told you to ignore; their all TRUE! I cannot bear to live on with this knowledge, that is why I must leave this world. I must die, there is no other choice for me! I wish you had never been so passionate on finding out who your parents were, none of this might have happened. We would have continued to live in our happiness.
I was so stupid to try and run from fate. How could I have been blind to the fact that giving up my dear son to a shepherd was pointless? How could I be blind to the fact that once the gods have made up their minds, it's over and nothing can stop the fate? Oh! Why did this all have to happen to my family? OUR family?! why are we so cursed? What did we ever do to make the gods angry at us?
My dear, I wish you to know I will still care you, after all you are my son. But I just cannot stand what happened. I will never be able to live with my self in the agony of the truth. I wish you well. I hope nothing terrible happens to you. Though we know very well what the prophets and the gods have decreed. So, I know this happiness will not happen. I still wish you well though and hope for the best.
I have decided to take the quiest, easiest why out of this terrible place. I shall hang myself once and for all.
Goodbye forever,
Jocasta
Last letter to Oedipus, from Jocasta before her suicide.
My beloved Oedipus,
I just cannot believe this. All those prophesies that I told you to ignore; their all TRUE! I cannot bear to live on with this knowledge, that is why I must leave this world. I must die, there is no other choice for me! I wish you had never been so passionate on finding out who your parents were, none of this might have happened. We would have continued to live in our happiness.
I was so stupid to try and run from fate. How could I have been blind to the fact that giving up my dear son to a shepherd was pointless? How could I be blind to the fact that once the gods have made up their minds, it's over and nothing can stop the fate? Oh! Why did this all have to happen to my family? OUR family?! why are we so cursed? What did we ever do to make the gods angry at us?
My dear, I wish you to know I will still care you, after all you are my son. But I just cannot stand what happened. I will never be able to live with my self in the agony of the truth. I wish you well. I hope nothing terrible happens to you. Though we know very well what the prophets and the gods have decreed. So, I know this happiness will not happen. I still wish you well though and hope for the best.
I have decided to take the quiest, easiest why out of this terrible place. I shall hang myself once and for all.
Goodbye forever,
Jocasta
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Oedipus the King: Journal #3
Themes and ideas:
For class we had to choose a topic to track throughout the three dramas. Mine is the symbol of gods and how they bring relief to a community or country. This topic also seems to be a constant theme/idea throughout Oedipus so far.
In this time period of the 5th or 6th century these people have a lot of gods. It is only natural that these gods would make their way into dramas such as these, therefore this tracking topic works quite well. The main god that the people of Thebes mention or worship is Apollo. In today's reading there were a few times that they mentioned this god but more often they just cried out the gods in general. At one point Jocasta is praying to Apollo for help from fear and for Oedipus to forget the prophecies told to him. "Lords of the realm, it occurred to me just now, to visit the temples of the gods, so I have my branch in hand and incense too. Oedipus is beside himself. Racked with anguish, no longer a man of sense, he won't admit the latest prophecies are hollow as the old [...] I come with prayers and offerings . . . I beg you, cleanse us, set us free of defilement! Look at us, passengers in the grip of fear" (998-1010). In this passage she excepts the gods to help her and bring relief to her husband and in return that would bring relief to the country he governs.
Another example of gods bringing relief is when the chorus, or towns people, are crying out to their gods to help Oedipus in his search to find his origins. They know that if he finds this out then it will bring him peace enough to help them in their troubles of the plague. "And we will sing you, dancing out your praise - you lift our monarch's heart! Apollo, Apollo, god of the wild cry may our dancing please you! Oedipus - son, dear child, who bore you?" (1201-1205). These gods continue to be praised and called out to whenever the country is in danger and need relief from their troubles. This theme is obviously important to the lifestyle of the people in this community.
An example of a less formal calling out is when the shepherd is being tortured to spill some information on what he knew of Oedipus's birth and parents. "God help us, why? - what more do you need to know?" (1269-1270). He is seeking relief from not just a collaboration of things but only the wrath of Oedipus. That is how this calling differs from the other two. Still however, it continues the idea that gods are a symbol for the bringing of relief to a community/country.
For class we had to choose a topic to track throughout the three dramas. Mine is the symbol of gods and how they bring relief to a community or country. This topic also seems to be a constant theme/idea throughout Oedipus so far.
In this time period of the 5th or 6th century these people have a lot of gods. It is only natural that these gods would make their way into dramas such as these, therefore this tracking topic works quite well. The main god that the people of Thebes mention or worship is Apollo. In today's reading there were a few times that they mentioned this god but more often they just cried out the gods in general. At one point Jocasta is praying to Apollo for help from fear and for Oedipus to forget the prophecies told to him. "Lords of the realm, it occurred to me just now, to visit the temples of the gods, so I have my branch in hand and incense too. Oedipus is beside himself. Racked with anguish, no longer a man of sense, he won't admit the latest prophecies are hollow as the old [...] I come with prayers and offerings . . . I beg you, cleanse us, set us free of defilement! Look at us, passengers in the grip of fear" (998-1010). In this passage she excepts the gods to help her and bring relief to her husband and in return that would bring relief to the country he governs.
Another example of gods bringing relief is when the chorus, or towns people, are crying out to their gods to help Oedipus in his search to find his origins. They know that if he finds this out then it will bring him peace enough to help them in their troubles of the plague. "And we will sing you, dancing out your praise - you lift our monarch's heart! Apollo, Apollo, god of the wild cry may our dancing please you! Oedipus - son, dear child, who bore you?" (1201-1205). These gods continue to be praised and called out to whenever the country is in danger and need relief from their troubles. This theme is obviously important to the lifestyle of the people in this community.
An example of a less formal calling out is when the shepherd is being tortured to spill some information on what he knew of Oedipus's birth and parents. "God help us, why? - what more do you need to know?" (1269-1270). He is seeking relief from not just a collaboration of things but only the wrath of Oedipus. That is how this calling differs from the other two. Still however, it continues the idea that gods are a symbol for the bringing of relief to a community/country.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
IOP Journal #3
The day of my ominous IOP looms closer....
So far I have seen 4 people do their presentations and it doesn't seem like it will be too bad. Though I'm sure they were all really nervous. I just hope I will get a good grade!
Today I went through and found some of my evidence for the necessity for individualism. First I started with Bernard. I figured he would be easiest because it he is one of the more noticeable resisters to his society. Then, I went on to Lenina who is part of civilization and completely likes it. Finally, I went through to look for evidence of John's individualism and how he used it to his benefit.
1. Bernard: Part of the "civilization" but is an individual.
pg. 79 "'Obstacle, or Electromagnetic?' Bernard looked at her [...] and blushingly had to admit that he Had been playing neither."
pg. 90 "'Let's turn on the radio. Quick!' She reached for the dialling knob on the dashboard and turned it at random. [...] Then a hiccough and silence. Bernard had switched off the current"
pg. 91 "'How can I?' he repeated meditatively. 'No, the real problem is: How is that I can't, or what would it be like if I could, if I were free - not enslaved by my conditioning.'"
pg. 149 "'he has proved himself an enemy of Society, a subverter, ladies and gentlemen, of all Order and Stability, a conspirator against Civilization itself."
His turn:
pg. 156 "'And I had six girls last week,' he confided to Helmholtz Watson."
pg. 157 "Meanwhile, however , there was the first Savage; they were polite. And because they were polite, Bernard felt positively gigantic - gigantic and at the same time light with elation, lighter than air."
pg. 173 "In the end Bernard had to slink back, diminished, to his rooms and informed he impatient assembly that the Savage would not be appearing that evening.The news was received with indignation."
pg. 226 "The Controller sighed. 'Very nearly what's going to happen to you young men. i was on the point of being sent to an island.' The words galvanized Bernard into violent and unseemly activity. 'Send me to an island?' [...]'You can't send me. I haven't done anything.'"
2. Lenina:Part of "civilization" and not an individual at all
pg. 93 "'Never put off till to-morrow the fun you can have today,' she said gravely."
pg. 94 "'When the individual feels, the community reels,' Lenina pronounced"
pg. 257 :Inaudibly, she spoke again; then, with a quick, impassioned gesture stretched out her arms towards the Savage, stepped forward. 'We - want - the whip! We - want . . .' And all of a sudden they had what they wanted."
3. Savage: Not part of "civilization" and not part of the reservation. Striving to be apart of the civilization.
pg. 127-8 "The happiest times were when she told him about the Other Place. 'And you really can go flying, whenever you like?' [...] everything so clean, and no nasty smells, no dirt at all - and people never lonely, but living together and being so jolly and happy, like the summer dances here in Malpais, but much happier, and the happiness being there every day, every day. . . . He listened by the hour"
pg.136 "They would go down, boys, into the kiva and come out again, men. This time the man struck him, pulled his hair. 'Not for you , white hair!' 'Not for the son of a she dog,' said one of the other men"
pg. 137 "'Yes, that's just it.' The young man nodded. 'If one's different, one's bound to be lonely. They're beastly to one. do you know, they shut me out of absolutely everything?'"
pg. 138 "'I wonder if you'd like to come back to London with us?' he asked [...] The young man's face lit up. 'Do you really mean it?'"
pg. 199 "'Is there any hope?' he asked. 'You mean, of her not dying?' (He nodded.) 'No, of course there isn't.'"
pg. 241 "'Did you eat something that didn't agree with you?' asked Bernard. The Savage nodded. 'I ate civilization.' 'What?' 'It poisoned me; I was defiled. And then,' he added, in a lower tone, 'I ate my own wickedness'"
pg. 243 "The Savage had chosen as his hermitage the old lighthouse which stood on the crest of the hill between Puttenham and Elstead."
So far I have seen 4 people do their presentations and it doesn't seem like it will be too bad. Though I'm sure they were all really nervous. I just hope I will get a good grade!
Today I went through and found some of my evidence for the necessity for individualism. First I started with Bernard. I figured he would be easiest because it he is one of the more noticeable resisters to his society. Then, I went on to Lenina who is part of civilization and completely likes it. Finally, I went through to look for evidence of John's individualism and how he used it to his benefit.
1. Bernard: Part of the "civilization" but is an individual.
pg. 79 "'Obstacle, or Electromagnetic?' Bernard looked at her [...] and blushingly had to admit that he Had been playing neither."
pg. 90 "'Let's turn on the radio. Quick!' She reached for the dialling knob on the dashboard and turned it at random. [...] Then a hiccough and silence. Bernard had switched off the current"
pg. 91 "'How can I?' he repeated meditatively. 'No, the real problem is: How is that I can't, or what would it be like if I could, if I were free - not enslaved by my conditioning.'"
pg. 149 "'he has proved himself an enemy of Society, a subverter, ladies and gentlemen, of all Order and Stability, a conspirator against Civilization itself."
His turn:
pg. 156 "'And I had six girls last week,' he confided to Helmholtz Watson."
pg. 157 "Meanwhile, however , there was the first Savage; they were polite. And because they were polite, Bernard felt positively gigantic - gigantic and at the same time light with elation, lighter than air."
pg. 173 "In the end Bernard had to slink back, diminished, to his rooms and informed he impatient assembly that the Savage would not be appearing that evening.The news was received with indignation."
pg. 226 "The Controller sighed. 'Very nearly what's going to happen to you young men. i was on the point of being sent to an island.' The words galvanized Bernard into violent and unseemly activity. 'Send me to an island?' [...]'You can't send me. I haven't done anything.'"
2. Lenina:Part of "civilization" and not an individual at all
pg. 93 "'Never put off till to-morrow the fun you can have today,' she said gravely."
pg. 94 "'When the individual feels, the community reels,' Lenina pronounced"
pg. 257 :Inaudibly, she spoke again; then, with a quick, impassioned gesture stretched out her arms towards the Savage, stepped forward. 'We - want - the whip! We - want . . .' And all of a sudden they had what they wanted."
3. Savage: Not part of "civilization" and not part of the reservation. Striving to be apart of the civilization.
pg. 127-8 "The happiest times were when she told him about the Other Place. 'And you really can go flying, whenever you like?' [...] everything so clean, and no nasty smells, no dirt at all - and people never lonely, but living together and being so jolly and happy, like the summer dances here in Malpais, but much happier, and the happiness being there every day, every day. . . . He listened by the hour"
pg.136 "They would go down, boys, into the kiva and come out again, men. This time the man struck him, pulled his hair. 'Not for you , white hair!' 'Not for the son of a she dog,' said one of the other men"
pg. 137 "'Yes, that's just it.' The young man nodded. 'If one's different, one's bound to be lonely. They're beastly to one. do you know, they shut me out of absolutely everything?'"
pg. 138 "'I wonder if you'd like to come back to London with us?' he asked [...] The young man's face lit up. 'Do you really mean it?'"
pg. 199 "'Is there any hope?' he asked. 'You mean, of her not dying?' (He nodded.) 'No, of course there isn't.'"
pg. 241 "'Did you eat something that didn't agree with you?' asked Bernard. The Savage nodded. 'I ate civilization.' 'What?' 'It poisoned me; I was defiled. And then,' he added, in a lower tone, 'I ate my own wickedness'"
pg. 243 "The Savage had chosen as his hermitage the old lighthouse which stood on the crest of the hill between Puttenham and Elstead."
Oedipus the King: Journal #2
How does the background information on Greek Theater and History inform your reading of Oedipus? Use specific examples to explore the connections between context and content.
Poets like Sophocles would write these dramas for a festival to their god Dionysus. On the stage that they would preform on during the festival there would be an alter to the god while they were acting. This was the same every year. This knowledge helps the reader understand why Oedipus would add in an alter to his play. Even though is not an alter to the same god (in his play) it is still present. One can see that this is his alter through his words to the people "why are you here? Huddling at my alter" (2). The scene where everything takes place never changes. This is because back then in the 5th and 6th centuries they could not change the sets. There was only one; with the alter on it. A few times Sophocles writes that people enter from the palace or go into it, but the setting never changes. At the beginning of the play the setting is depicted as a side note: "The royal house of Thebes. Double doors dominate the facade; a stone altar stands at the center of the stage". Without the background information, one would not have been able to understand why this setting never changes.
Another bit of history that would be of some use to know when reading Sophocles's drama is that this is a time of insecurity. The reader can see the influence of this insecurity come through in the drama through the way the people of Thebes are mourning in their plagues and will try anything just to get the help they need. "So now again, Oedipus, king, we bend to you on our knees: find us strength, rescue!"(49-51). They also ask gods of theirs why things are happening and they do not understand so they seek out prophets. "I sent Creon, my wife's own brother, to Delphi - Apollo the Prophet's oracle - to learn what I might do or say to save our city"(81-84). Even their king is not secure in coming up with solutions by himself, he has to ask others and then once he does that he was to ask his gods as well. This shows sure signs of insecurity. Also the final blow of insecurity is when he does not even trust them in what they say and tell him is true.
Without the history or background information, a reader would not know what the chorus is. This chorus is a big part in the drama so it is important to know what it is. In Greek plays and dramas they would have chorus' to represent the town or a group of people. "OEDIPUS enters from the palace to address the CHORUS, as if addressing the entire city of Thebes" In Sophocles's plays he had the chorus and one person play the character to represent them as a group and what they were thinking. This person is called the "leader". Often the chorus will give an insight to the reader about what is going on or some information about what is happening to/with another character.
Knowing background information and history is important before reading a book because one needs to know and understand what was going on when the author was writing it and what was influencing them to write the plots they do.
Poets like Sophocles would write these dramas for a festival to their god Dionysus. On the stage that they would preform on during the festival there would be an alter to the god while they were acting. This was the same every year. This knowledge helps the reader understand why Oedipus would add in an alter to his play. Even though is not an alter to the same god (in his play) it is still present. One can see that this is his alter through his words to the people "why are you here? Huddling at my alter" (2). The scene where everything takes place never changes. This is because back then in the 5th and 6th centuries they could not change the sets. There was only one; with the alter on it. A few times Sophocles writes that people enter from the palace or go into it, but the setting never changes. At the beginning of the play the setting is depicted as a side note: "The royal house of Thebes. Double doors dominate the facade; a stone altar stands at the center of the stage". Without the background information, one would not have been able to understand why this setting never changes.
Another bit of history that would be of some use to know when reading Sophocles's drama is that this is a time of insecurity. The reader can see the influence of this insecurity come through in the drama through the way the people of Thebes are mourning in their plagues and will try anything just to get the help they need. "So now again, Oedipus, king, we bend to you on our knees: find us strength, rescue!"(49-51). They also ask gods of theirs why things are happening and they do not understand so they seek out prophets. "I sent Creon, my wife's own brother, to Delphi - Apollo the Prophet's oracle - to learn what I might do or say to save our city"(81-84). Even their king is not secure in coming up with solutions by himself, he has to ask others and then once he does that he was to ask his gods as well. This shows sure signs of insecurity. Also the final blow of insecurity is when he does not even trust them in what they say and tell him is true.
Without the history or background information, a reader would not know what the chorus is. This chorus is a big part in the drama so it is important to know what it is. In Greek plays and dramas they would have chorus' to represent the town or a group of people. "OEDIPUS enters from the palace to address the CHORUS, as if addressing the entire city of Thebes" In Sophocles's plays he had the chorus and one person play the character to represent them as a group and what they were thinking. This person is called the "leader". Often the chorus will give an insight to the reader about what is going on or some information about what is happening to/with another character.
Knowing background information and history is important before reading a book because one needs to know and understand what was going on when the author was writing it and what was influencing them to write the plots they do.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Oedipus the King: Journal #1
Point of View/Characters: From whose point of view is the story told? Does this change? How reliable is the narrative voice? How well does the reader get to know the characters? How credible are they? How are they presented? How does the writer persuade us to like/sympathize with some characters and dislike others?
This drama seems to be written from Oedipus' point of view. So far he has been in the scene for the whole thing except for the end when Tiresias is speaking. This is the only time that it seems to change. The reader gets to know a few of the characters pretty well, but not all of them yet.
This drama seems to be written from Oedipus' point of view. So far he has been in the scene for the whole thing except for the end when Tiresias is speaking. This is the only time that it seems to change. The reader gets to know a few of the characters pretty well, but not all of them yet.
1. Oedipus is the king of Thebes. He is seen as a hero and many people look up to him in great reverence. They see him as almost a god but not quite as good "You cannot equal the gods, your children know that, bending at your alter. but we do rate you first in men" (39-41). They look to him for help therefore he must be fairly impactful and liked throughout his country. He is smart, "Ah, but aren't you the best man alive at solving riddles?" (501). He is also brave "Now you have me to fight for you, you'll see: I am the land's avenger by all rights" (153-154).
Oedipus' character is presented through how he talks to the other characters. He speaks of himself and his accomplishments a few times. His character is also presented through other characters talking about him or to him.
2. Creon is his wife's brother. He is sent to talk to gods for the good of the country. Creon does not show up much in this scene so the reader cannot tell much about his character.
3. Tiresias is a blind man that is said to have the eyes of Apollo "Lord Tiresias sees with the eyes of Lord Apollo" (323). This is good because Apollo is a god that gives out wisdom and helps the people. Therefore Tiresias must have great knowledge and truth. He is also brave, the reader can see this in the way he stands up to Oedipus: "You won't talk? Nothing moves you?" (382). In this line Oedipus is scolding him for not doing as he ordered. Also: "I will never shrink from the anger in you eyes - you can't destroy me" (509-510). One can see that he is brave through this passage because he is willing to stand up to anything, even the anger of a king that has a lot of power.
There were a couple characters introduced but the reader cannot tell much about the way they are.
The writer persuades the reader to sympathize with Tiresias in the way we as the reader has more information than the characters do. This happens when Oedipus leaves and he is still talking about what he knows. The reader feels sympathy for Tiresias through the way that Oedipus gets very angry with him and as a reader we know that he does not deserve any of it.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
IOP Journal #2
I've finally decided to start working my IOP now. Seeing that it is due in a little over a week, I figured it was probably a good idea.
First I need to come up with a thesis. I already have my topic which is something about individualism so now I have to figure out what to say about that topic. I was thinking of saying how Huxley demonstrates that we need to be individuals or else our lives would turn out to be like the people in the book and then connecting it back to how our world is. But then after thinking about that, I though that it would make my presentation too much like some of the dystopian presentations were.
I am going to continue with individualism but I am only going to be showing how different characters show their uniqueness or lack there of. This book has a rather wide variety of how much the people assimilate to one another. I am thinking about using Lenina, Bernard and John as my examples that way I show the farthest extremes of the types of people there are in this dystopian world.
Lenina is the type who does everything the way these people are conditioned to do. She is perfect in every way to how the World Controllers want their citizens. She thinks and acts in all the ways that they have chemically and physically conditioned her to be. Bernard is only partly satisfactory to them. He acts and for the most part like everyone else, but he does not think like them and often his thinking will influence his actions. He often tries to rebel against what he was taught to be right and tries to get others to think the same way as him. John, who does not live in this same society at all, has the total opposite character as Lenina. He is different from every single person. Because he lives in a reservation he is different from the civilized world of London, but then he was also born to a woman from outside the reservation making him different to the other Savages as well. Each one of these characters show their individual thoughts and actions as being through assimilation or by choice.
Seeing that a thesis has to have an insight to human nature/experience I will have to add in why Huxley decided to have this issue of individualism in his book. So when I speak about this I will have to mention how he connects it to our reality. I figure if I do not have my whole presentation based on this concept it will be OK. Even though I do not really want to mention it because it was already stated several times through the dystopian presentations last month.
First I need to come up with a thesis. I already have my topic which is something about individualism so now I have to figure out what to say about that topic. I was thinking of saying how Huxley demonstrates that we need to be individuals or else our lives would turn out to be like the people in the book and then connecting it back to how our world is. But then after thinking about that, I though that it would make my presentation too much like some of the dystopian presentations were.
I am going to continue with individualism but I am only going to be showing how different characters show their uniqueness or lack there of. This book has a rather wide variety of how much the people assimilate to one another. I am thinking about using Lenina, Bernard and John as my examples that way I show the farthest extremes of the types of people there are in this dystopian world.
Lenina is the type who does everything the way these people are conditioned to do. She is perfect in every way to how the World Controllers want their citizens. She thinks and acts in all the ways that they have chemically and physically conditioned her to be. Bernard is only partly satisfactory to them. He acts and for the most part like everyone else, but he does not think like them and often his thinking will influence his actions. He often tries to rebel against what he was taught to be right and tries to get others to think the same way as him. John, who does not live in this same society at all, has the total opposite character as Lenina. He is different from every single person. Because he lives in a reservation he is different from the civilized world of London, but then he was also born to a woman from outside the reservation making him different to the other Savages as well. Each one of these characters show their individual thoughts and actions as being through assimilation or by choice.
Seeing that a thesis has to have an insight to human nature/experience I will have to add in why Huxley decided to have this issue of individualism in his book. So when I speak about this I will have to mention how he connects it to our reality. I figure if I do not have my whole presentation based on this concept it will be OK. Even though I do not really want to mention it because it was already stated several times through the dystopian presentations last month.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)