For this assignment, you will need to make 3 SEPARATE POSTS (5 points each) due on or before the following dates:
1) due by Friday 2/13 at 7:40 a.m.
2) due by Monday 2/16 at 7:40 a.m.
3) due by Wednesday 2/18 at 7:40 a.m.
Requirements
AT LEAST ONE OF THE POSTS SHOULD BE IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS OF A CLASSMATE
POSTS SHOULD BE SUBSTANTIVE AND INCLUDE EXAMPLES FROM THE PLAY AS WELL AS PERSONAL OPINION
PLEASE AVOID REPEATING SOMEONE ELSE'S ANSWERS. EXAMPLE: IF SOMEONE DISCUSSES DRAMATIC IRONY IN THE PLAY, AVOID A POST THAT BASICALLY SAYS "I AGREE WITH _______________ ABOUT HIS EXAMPLES OF DRAMATIC IRONY."
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
You may respond to one of the following questions, or simply include your own comments or questions:
1. What are some of Oedipus' "tragic flaws" that lead to his downfall? Although his situation is more outrageous than most of us face in our daily lives, what about Oedipus could most people relate to?
(This question takes some thought, but there are probably many commonalities between Oedipus and regular people.)
2. Analyze the role of Fate vs. Free Will in the play. Over what do the characters have control and what is out of their hands. How can you apply the idea of fate vs. free will in your own life ( you may use general or specific examples)?
3. Locate some instances of dramatic irony in the play. How does this affect the overall reading of the play.
4. Compare and contrast the title characters in Hamlet and Oedipus. How are they similar and how are they different? What are your personal thoughts/ observations about each character. Provide personal opinion, but support it with examples.
5. Discuss the theme of blindness vs. sight in the play. How are they related to the theme? Why does Oedipus blind himself instead of joining Jocasta in suicide?
6. Respond to any other themes, etc. from the play.
45 comments:
Dramatic Irony is shown thought Oedipus The King Some examples of this are:
1. Line 73 "...but sick as you are, not one is as sick as I" Although Oedipus does not know of all the bad things he has done, for example, killing his father, the audience knows everything, including what he will do at the end of the play.
2. Line 331 "So I will fight for him as if her were my father." What he doesn't know is that he is really fighting for his real father, which he is the murderer
Although the audience is aware of the main plot before the play begins, the dramtic irony creates tension in which it shows Oedipus' inevitable progress towards knowing the truth. It also helps the audience relate to the hero because they witness all the the troubles he comes across not being able to reverse fate.
One huge difference between Hamlet and Oedipus is the way they react to circumstances. While Hamlet contemplates what to do and never takes action, Oedipus doesn't think at all and acts rashly (ex: Oedipus murdered Laius over road rage; he accused Creon of wanting his crown; then he threatened to kill Tiresias for not giving him information but then got angry when he did).
A similarity between the two is the way they must deal with avenging a murder, (unknowingly to Oedipus) the murder of their fathers.
Rachel and Sarah,
Nice comments from both of you! Sarah, I like your observation that both Oedipus and Hamlet are avenging murders (of their fathers, no less), but the difference is that Oed doesn't realize HE is the murderer OR that it's his own father that was killed.
Others can feel free to point out more dramatic irony.....just don't repeat Rachel's examples.
Nice start!
The theme of blindness vs sight is opposite of what one would think. The characters who can actually see in this play don't know the truth about Oedipus, while the blind prophet knows (can "see") the truth.
When Oedipus blinds rather than kills himself, he finally understands what Tiresias predicted. Just like Tiresias, without his vision Oedipus now has insight into what really happened. He's very phylisophocal during his rant after the blinding. He speaks not of physical pain but of the emotional pain the truth has caused him.
He also says that he doesn't want to see the world now that he knows the truth. "What good were my eyes to me? Nothing I could see could bring me joy."
So, to summarize, I think he blinded himself representing that he is now like Tiresias in knowing the truth about himself.
Oedipus had many tragic flaws:
1. Paranoia: Apollo says he will kill his father and marry his mother, so he leaves town and runs away, quickly. He also is accused by Tiresias of killing Laius. So he jumps to thinking that Creon wants to take his crown.
2. He's a hot-head =) and my example was the same as Sarah's. If he wouldn't have gotten angry that Laius' group was in his way, he wouldn't have killed him, and wouldn't have met his downfall.
Fate vs. Free Will plays a big part in a lot of Greek myths. In Oedipus, the answer is obviously fate. In spite of how much the characters did to attempt to keep the oracle's prophecy from coming true (attempted infanticide, running away from home), in the end, it happened anyway. And with a prophecy as specific as this one, it's very unlikely to be a coincidence.
Personally, i like to believe in free will because i like to think that if something bad is about to happen, i can make a choice to try and stop it, much like Oedipus and his parents did, but sometimes no matter what you do, you can't stop it.
Tyler,
I like that you incorporated a more personal response in connection to every day life.
In response to your post, I would definitely say that we can certainly direct our life positively by good choices and derail it with bad ones. However, sometimes we need to know when to stop trying to control everything and let things happen.
I have found that trying too hard to control a situation does not always bring about a good outcome.
Again, I like that you added a personal component to your answer.
To expand on Tyler's comment, it seems to me like there is a certain trend in classical literature pertaining to prophecy.
When a character hears a prophecy that forecasts some kind of negative predicament for the character, the character does everything in his/her power to avoid the predicament. But not only does the character's attempt to evade this prophesized future fail, it always contributes to the character's undoing.
This is evident in Oedipus. When Laius and Jocasta hear the prophecy, they are frightened for themselves and attempt to avoid their prophesized futures by disposing of Oedipus. This, ironically, is the first step toward fulfilling the prophecy. The second takes place after Oedipus hears the prophecy, and, frightened by his foretold future, also attempts to elude the prophecy. However, this attempt triggers a sequence of very improbable events that lead to the prophecy's fulfillment.
It's impossible to say if the events foretold in the prophecy would have come to fruition if there hadn't been a prophecy. I can't actually think of a story with a prophecy in which the character that the prophecy concerns doesn't try to avoid it (and because of his/her attempts to avoid it, fulfills it).
There's probably some kind of inherent morality in this concept, but I can't decipher it.
I'll finish this lengthy post with a very pertinent quote from Jean De La Fontaine (which I originally heard in Kung Fu Panda).
"A person often meets his destiny on the road he took to avoid it."
There are very many instances in Oedipus in which a character that is blind can see what is going to happen better than a person who can see. Which I think Oedipus sees this in the end of the play and thats why he gogues his own eyes out, because they could not help him see what he had done.
First off, Hamlet and Oedipus hold many similarities and differences. While they are both avenging their fathers deaths, Oedipus unknowingly kills his birth father while attempting to avoid a prophecy which says he will do just that, and Hamlet is avenging his fathers death who is murdered by his uncle. Also, both of them create their own downfall. Hamlet is constantly contemplating his own life and plotting the murder of his uncle; however, he doesn't act on his words and thoughts which quickly leads to his downfall. Oedipus on the other hand acts too quickly and rashly without thinking and therefore does things he later regrets.
Also, on the subject of fate vs. free will. Many people try to control the circumstances in which they live under, most often with little success. However, I think try to take control to avoid a situation is sometimes very possible. However, there are some instances when you simply cannot avoid the outcome no matter what you do. Some things are just meant to happen, and when you try to interfere it may only make things worse or prolong whatever you are trying to avoid.
I agree with Sarah and Ashley, One Oedipus, compared to Hamlet goes about things differently. He seems to take charge of the situation before he knows all the facts, as to where Hamlet knows the situation in his case, he just doesn't take action. I also agree with Ashley's comments about his Paranoia and his hot temper is what really leads to his downfall, even though I guess you could say it was his destiny for this to happen.
Destiny is an inevitable and unchangeable future. Individuals create their own destiny by choosing different paths throughout life. Being in control of your destiny is even demonstrated in Oedipus. Although most Greek tragedies include the main character experiencing fate, I can also extract from Oedipus to understand your fate and manipulate it by experience.
"Better to die than be alive and blind."
In my opniion, Hamlet and Oedipus are almost polar opposite of each other. Hamlet is undecisive and introverted where Oedipus is impulsive and wears his heart on his sleeve. These traits can also be seen as tragic flaws. For instance, their impulsiveness and indecisveness, respectively, literally kills them in the end.
Oedipus has tragic flaws that bring him from greatness to the greatest sorrow one could imagine. One thing that seems to be a flaw is pure bad luck. Oedipus was warned about his fate and tried to avoid it by moving away. And where does he go? He goes to where he was born coincidently and somehow manages to marry his mother and kill his father. It seems that his tragedy was out to get him and his problems make Hamlet's seem like nothing!
Another thing about Oedipus was that he was stubborn. He was never willing to accept that he did anything but greatness and acted irrationally with road rage and false accusations. However if this was put aside could he have avoided the situation? Or was it going to happen no matter what? The consequences seemed pretty inevitable given the extreme irony.
But Sophicles wrote this story so that the audience could learn through others mistakes, being that he could have avoided these things if he wasnt so hard headed!
I agree with Sarah when she said Oedipus acts rashly. In certain situations he deals with, his acting irrationally got him into more trouble than if he would have just stopped for a moment to think of a logically solution. Also, I feel that Oedipus is too curious for his own good. He should have just respected the oracle's wishes to not tell him the truth about the murder because when the truth came out, more rash actions by Oedipus took place. Oepdipus have two major characteristic flaws in his inability to act rationally and his overactive curiousity.
Continuing what Tyler said about fate vs. free will in real life...I like mixing the two. I do agree with Tyler, that choices can change situations, but I also think that ultimately, what is supposed to happen will happen. I don't want to always second guess the decisions I make, so I also believe that even if I make a "wrong" choice, it will all work out in the end.
And Wes' post really made me think...and I liked his quote. =)
While Oedipus' situation is quite different from the common person, I think there can be some parallels drawn.
For instance, both Oedipus and the regular person freaks out when they hear unpleasant news. Oedipus acts crazy both when he learns the truth about his past and when Tiresias won't tell Oedipus what he knows. The common person sometimes freaks out as well. For example, upon hearing, say, a winter storm is on the way. Can not the entire city of Evansville be seen frantically scanning the aisles at Walmart the night before snow is expected? And everyone went crazy trying to find a generator during the Winter Storm 09. We can also tend to act out upon hearing the death of a loved one.
So, to summarize, a commonality between Oedipus and ourselves is that we all tend to overreact in extreme circumstances.
By blinding himself instead of commiting suicide i think oedipus made the right choice between the two. He can now see what he metaphorically see what he has done. I think Jocasta was being selfish when she committed suicide. Not only do her children have to deal with what they have just found out about their father but they must also deal with their mother being dead.
I love Lauren's "pre-storm Wal Mart" example. It is true that many of us overreact sometimes when it's not necessary.
Shawn, I also find your comment about Jocasta's selfishness interesting. Suicide is a very selfish act; however, I'm not sure how much help Oedipus will be to his children in his current state.
Of course, keeping in mind that this play (like modern dramas) is designed to keep the audience interested and can't necessarily be applied to reality puts things in perspective.
And back to Shawn's comment about Jocasta not caring for her children......she proved when Oedipus was born that her children weren't necessarily her top priority (remember how she and Laius sent him to the mountaintop to die?).
Interesting comments.........and for the most part, many of you are doing MUCH better about including specific supporting examples. This will help you in your analytical writing.
I think Hamlet and Oedipus are more different than alike. Other than being royalty and going crazy for a portion of each story, i didn't notice much similarity. One of Oedipus' tragic flaws was his overreaction to events. Road rage (a typically minor anger) is usually not enough to send a person on a bloodthirsty killing spree. By contrast, one of Hamlets flaws was his apparent inability to act even given good reason to. Even after he knew Claudius was his fathers killer, in act 3, he did not avenge his father's death until act 5.
I can't think of a good comment, so I'll ask a question.
The shepherd who witnessed and survived the skrimish at the crossroads originally said that Laius had been killed by thieves (plural) instead of one man.
Did he say this just to avoid the scorn that would accompany his accusation of Oedipus or am I missing/forgetting something?
I agree with Shawn's comment about Jocasta being selfish. I also think she may have killed herself because she may have felt responsible for droppnig him on a cliff in the first place. As for Oedipus, it wasn't really his fault. I think he didn't want to die, but he also didn't want to look at what he had done anymore so he poked his eyes out, to "see the truth."
I agree with Sarah L on her views on fate versus free will. I struggle with choosing between on e or the other, so I morph the two into one idea.
Also, Oedipus' swollen foot adds to the theme of fate in the play. Injured every since he was little, Oedipus struggles with his physcial and emotioinal moevments (his decision to run away from Corinth to escape his fate). His hurt foot has set him apart from others in the play and ultimately symbolizes his restriction since birth.
In response to Wes's comment, I think that the surviving Shepard purposely accused the thieves of Laius's death. He could have avoided exile. Although the prophecy was known, I don't think that the Shepard had the courage to tell the truth.
I really, really like where Tyler and Sarah L are going with this. I agree When I think of fate and free will I like to combine the two together, because even though we can make our own choices, sometimes we still cannot predict or choose the outcome of our choice. Just Like in Oedipus even though his real parents choose to get rid of him; and when he was older they all made their own decisions to change their outcome, but in the end it didnt really matter. Thats why I like to combine the two, you may choose your own path, but jsut cause you do that doesnt mean your going to arrive at the outcome that you necessarily want.
I agree with Shawn on the issue of Jocasta's suicide; I feel that Jocata was very selfish in dealing with this situation. I know in older times, royal families used their children to hold onto power; the children would succeed their parents in taking the throne. I understand why her children were not top priority.
Although Oedipus is in a terrible state (frantically walking around with his eyes gouged out), he atleast had the courage to tell his children the truth instead of just running awaying or killing himself, like Jocasta. She might have been ashamed of herself, but so was Oedipus. Jocasta not only killed herself, but also tried to keep the secret away from Oedipus. I think that she only wanted to save her reputation, and that was all she cared about. Oedipus did the right thing by staying alive; he thought his children had a right to know the truth.
I think everyone is being too hard on Jocasta. I'm not saying her actions weren't selfish (I agree with that part). But I think her reaction was normal. Who wouldn't want to try to prevent that prophecy from coming true? And then she freaked out when it did. I'm not saying we all go out and kill ourselves when things don't work out the way we had planned, but there are similarities between her reaction and the way we react to bad outcomes. I almost see more of a connection with Jocasta and average people than with Oedipus.
ok, so we've talked about the actions of the various characters, but what do you think about Oedipus as a tragic hero?
You can look up the criteria, but basically a tragic hero has to be someone who starts out in a prominent position or good place (usually this person is royalty of some sort) and meets his doom or downfall, partially due to his own actions and partially due to situations out of his control.
Are there any redeeming qualities in Oedipus or does he deserve what he gets?
DON'T FORGET TO USE EXAMPLES FROM THE TEXT!
I would have to agree with Sarah pertaining to Jocasta's suicide. I think in such a stressful situation, while not the right solution, she felt her life was ruined and had a complete meltdown. Like Sarah I'm not supporting suicide here by any means, but I don't think it was necessarily selfish of her to do so.
I think Oedipus can be completely redeemed for killing his father. While a bit drastic, it was exactly what his father tried to do to him. It wasn't Oedipus' fault dealing with the prophecy, yet his parents sent him away to die because of it. He saved the city from the plague. He had no idea Jocasta was his mother. Upon hearing the death of the former king he demands to have his death avenged. He was completely devasted about the mistakes he made (fulfilling the prophecy). I think he did way more good than evil in this story, and therefore he can be redeemed for his mistakes.
I agree with Lauren that Oedipus did more good than bad, but i do not think killing someone can be redeemed, prophecy or not. He killed Liaus out of spite, he did not know of the oracle at the time. So he had no reason to do this other than to move someone out of his way. Also, he tried pushing accusations on Creon when Tiresias told him he had been the one to kill Liaus. Oedipus just seems to care a lot more about himself than anyone else around him.
Well Ashley and Lauren have posed two interesting, differing viewpoints on the following question.....
Can killing ever be justified?
I like that both of you explain your perspectives. Anyone else care to weigh in on that one?
I agree with what Lauren said about Oedipus being redeemed by his actions in the story. While he did bad things (the murders on the highway, falsely accusing Creon of conspiring to dethrone him) his intentions throughout most of the story are pure. After hearing the prophecy, he flees for fear of the awful prophecy coming true and murdering his father. Also, he cares deeply for the safety of the people of his city and shows it by saving the city from the sphinx and desperately searching for Laius' killer to relieve the city of the plague.
The idea that someone deserves what they get doesnt always fall with me. Oedipus did hit a big downfall after a big high. What oedipus did by murdering his father, his tragic fate doesnt seem to be inspite of what he did, because what he did was aparently part of his fate. It is interesting to see things from oedipus as the way things are now such as the concept of murder and suicide. This story was so tremedously long ago that its difficult to take in what is right from wrong in the eyes of sophicles. But sophicles seemed to want the idea of oedipus to be a tragic hero.
QUESTION for anyone who has an opinion:
Could Oedipus have killed Laius because of his desire for his mother??
I found something online referreing to the psychoanalytical theory called Oedipus complex. If anybody is in Mr. Backes's psych class you are familiar with the man who introduced this idea, Sigmund Freud. The theory suggests a subconscious sexual desire in a child, especially a male child, for the parent of the opposite sex. This instinct is usually accompanied by hostility to the parent of the same sex.
In response to Tyler V's question, I don't think the Oedipus complex really applies to Oedipus (funnily enough). I think Freud named it what he did because the play demonstrates the main character in wedlock with his mother after killing his father, the two most extreme actions a man would take if he 'desired' his mother and felt hostility toward his father.
However, the Freudian motivations for these feelings in the Oedipus complex aren't applicable to Oedipus because he killed his father before he knew who his mother was. According to Freud, the reason that the child feels hostility toward the same-sex parent is because it senses competition with that parent for the opposite-sex parent's affection. Oedipus couldn't have felt this competion (even subconsciously) because he (A) didn't know who Jocasta was and (B) had no reason for believing Laius was in any way attached to her.
But I guess it is possible (or rather impossible to disprove) that Oedipus could have miraculously subconsciously remembered the appearances of his parents from infancy, and that his actions were motivated by those memories.
One of Oedipus's tragic flaws is his ability to become enraged so quickly. He gets angry very suddenly in some instances and over small things. For example when Laius drove Oedipus off the road at the three crossroads, Oedipus reacted quickly and with deadly force. He just killed everyone without remorse. Another instance of his quickness to become angry occurs when Tiresias tells him that he is the murderer that he seeks. Oedipus threatens to kill the man and calls him all sorts of foul names. He then suspects that Creon is trying to snatch the throne. Oedipus just overreacts to often, like when he stabs his eyes out with a pen.
The story of Oedipus is so over the top with the murder and incest and so forth but the way Oedipus reacts to situations is not unheard of in today's society. Thousands of people suffer anger problems, emotional problems. Some people deal with being bipolar which is what i think Oedipus suffered from.
One of oedipus' character flaws is he jumps to conclusions too quickly. He is hasty in blaming Creon for Laius' murder and quickly decides on a punishment for whoever is caught. If he would have taken some time to think before he jumped to conclusions it might not have led to him gauging his eyes out and his wife commiting suicide.
Oedipus was really bad at being to hasty in his decison making. I agree with Shawn on the fact that if he would have taken more time analyze the situations that he was in he could have seen what was going to happen. Maybe this could have led to his wife/mom not commiting suicide, and hime not gouging his own eyes out.
There is a lot of dramatic irony in Oedipus the king. The first time you really see the dramatic irony is when Tiresias is brought before him and Oedipus starts to interrogate him, and even though Tiresias drops hints and accusations Oedipus never catches on. Its is also presented to him when the messenger is delivering the news of his adopted fathers death, and almost everyone around him has finally figured it out, except for him.
I think everyone has done a great job posting, and this has been a great discussion.
P.S sorry Mrs. Harl my last post was after first period today!
I had a question abour our American Dream project...I thought about bring in a barbie doll since physical attractiveness was part of the American Dream but I don't have any at my house...Could I just talk about it during class?
hey Rachel, I still have a billion, I'll bring you one haha. But for our Friday essay tomorrow, does it have to be a book that we've read for class this year?
I have a question about the self-evaluation for our portfolio. Obviously we'll each need to write our own, but can we write about it as "our" project or should it be "my" project? For example, the question about how much time was spent on the project...should that be total between both of us, or how much time I personally spent on it? I hope that question makes sense...
Ok....I guess I should have done a separate post for questions about things other than Oedipus.....
First off.....Rachel, great idea on the Barbie doll. But whatever object you use for the assignment, you actually need to bring in. It sounds like Ashley has you covered, though. If you can't find a Barbie, just bring something else you can find at home that represents the American Dream.
Next, to Ashley's question.........it does NOT have to be a book we've read in class. It can be any literary character. Just be sure to explain the work and the provide details about the character.
Finally, Sarah...... you can refer to the project as "ours" and the time log might be identical to your partner, but you must log the hours YOU put in. If you and Rachel did everything together, then your log would be identical, and that's fine.
Hope that answers everything for everyone. I bought some daggers at Wal Mart (fake ones, of course) and I'll bring shovels for the gravediggers.
Ashley, are you bringing a chalice? If not, I'll need to see what I can come up with.
See you all tomorrow for our LAST shoot.
i don't have the chalice... i think that was tamara? sorry =(
Post a Comment