Tragedy Journals

Journal #1: Oedipus

Creative Poem: Found at http://quizilla.teennick.com/poems/8165538/the-tragedy-of-oedipus-rex written by “CallUsOldSouls”. Describes a summary of Oedipus’ life (including a small prologue and epilogue). It clearly outlines the most progressive conflicts and dynamic plot (although I feel that it skipped key sections that contributed to the actual thematic importance that Sophocles was trying to portray. Additionally, I feel that had the rhyme scheme been continued in constantly changing couplets so that the significance of the poem could have been enhanced by showing the dynamic change of the characters/plot to be reversed half way through to show the circular logic and nature of Oedipus’ story in that it ends with the beginning. Regardless, here you go)

Here is the story of Oedipus Rex

For no one can detest

Fate had a plan for him

Which he could not escape.

Put on mount Kitharion

Left there to die

Saved by a Shepard

To finish his fate.

He finally solved the riddle

Of the Great & Mighty Sphinx

He then became king

Of the city of Thebes.

Married his mother

Bore his brothers

Teiresias came with wisdom

And all was lost forever.

A dagger & a noose

Artifacts of their tragic end

The dagger in his eyes

The noose around her neck.

A blessing and a curse

The mountain came to be

A lonely Oedipus

And Creon the new king.

Journal #2: Oedipus

Comparison: Personal convictions and shared beliefs

It seems that Sophocles was able to notice a similar pattern in ancient Greek culture from the problems that we face today. In particular, was humans’ attempt to reconcile contradictions about power, authority, and responsibility with personal life. The most apparent observation that Sophocles makes is that no matter how high a social or political position one may hold in society, everyone is subject to the same downfalls of mortal man. This could either be a simple observation or even a criticism of Greek leaders at the time who thought themselves superior to others. By showing Oedipus’ fall from grace, Sophocles demonstrates that those with the most power are subject to the greatest shame. However, it is interesting to note that the focus on Oedipus also focuses on how he effectively destroys himself in his ardent search for the truth. This poses the entire possibility for a morally righteous failure. In other words, despite his morally unforgivable actions, he is still thought of somewhat positively (Sophocles does this when Creon pardons Oedipus instead of condemning him to death). As a result, we are left to interpret that even with any mistakes or atrocities we as humans commit, if we choose to continue to live morally (or have attempted to act morally even with an immoral end) is still somewhat justifiable and mitigates the negativity of the sentence. However, there is one more blatant criticism Sophocles makes that would have been relevant in a Greece beginning to transition from polytheism to a Christian religion and is even more relevant in today’s society: The questionable effect of a higher power. The will of the Gods become embodied through the oracles/prophecies that the characters received. Therefore we are faced with the sad irony that the entire situation would never have been created had King Laius originally dismissed the so-called inevitable prophecy. While it cannot be concluded that there would be no circumstance for the prophecy to come true otherwise, the reader is led to conclude that the only way to have a chance at escaping the cycle that Oedipus faced was for all of the characters to no longer heed prophecy. Had King Laius dismissed it, Oedipus would have stayed with his parents and not have motive or ignorance necessary for murder or the wedding of his mother. Had Oedipus dismissed Creon’s prophecy, he never would have had to discover the truth about himself which lead to his destruction. This evidence (though circumstantial) all indicates a criticism of the Gods, their motives, and/or their existence.

Journal #3: Oedipus

Literary Topics: Narrative Structure

The plot is not separated into separate acts like many of the modern western literary plays. This seems to contribute to a feeling of continuity. Additionally, the play itself is meant to be performed as a known trilogy which implies that this story simply becomes a subplot for the entirety of Oedipus’ story. While the plot itself is linear, the cause-effect nature of the plot makes constant references to past deed. This in and of itself plays an interesting thematic role (see Journal #2) in that had inaction been embraced, the entirety of the story would not have developed. It is also interesting to note how the play ends. There is an exceptionally long dénouement as following the climactic realization of what Oedipus has done, the story goes on for many pages describing his shame, his children, and an emphasis on Creon’s newfound authority before Oedipus is finally exiled and the story ends. While for the “thrill” of the play it is a bit dreary, literarily it appears quite significant. Of particular interest are Oedipus’ multiple monologues which are very clearly divided into different sections attributing a different focus. These include sight, guilt, marriage, punishment, pre-emptive death, and children. In regards to the story itself this seems ineffective. However, literarily it is quite effective in conveying thematic importance as it allows Oedipus to provide his own reflection and commentary on his actions. As a result, the reader can clearly analyze the moral quandaries presented in the text. The time period is in the old ages of ancient Greece. This is significant in a number of ways. Firstly, the story was simply a retelling of a folk story that the audience would already know which would deemphasize the plot and instead focus on how the plot was told. Secondly, the use of religion at the time believed in the effects of things like prophecy (key to the movement of the plot) which is distinct from the time period it was performed as the culture was beginning to shift away from such absolutist views of deities. Additionally, the political structure of a monarchy was critical in portraying one (Oedipus) as being in a fake position of being “all powerful”. Finally, there remain a few unanswered questions: What were Creon’s opinions/motives (not particularly relevant thematically), why the Gods gave King Laius the prophecy knowing that it would be self-fulfilling (which poses another interesting question about the motive of Gods), and what the significance of blindness is.

Journal #4: Wild Duck (+ Oedipus)

Comparison: Plot > Style

I would largely agree with the statement that plot should be valued more highly than style. In addition to being the only things of actual interest in the work, it is far more unique than any form of style could be. Although, I would like to define plot as the actual content of the play, distinct from style which would include any kind of punctuation, specific diction, grammar, poetry, etc. That being said, plot is what allows the novel itself to move forwards, particularly in plays. In Wild Duck, there are lots of very specific stage directions which lends towards an emphasis on style. However, when considering the play being performed to a live audience, backgrounds affect little more than moods whereas the audience is effectively hanging off of every last word/action from the characters. We can therefore conclude that this degree of emphasis has a significant effect on the interpreter which lends plot more weight than style. Plot (and dialogue/monologues) therefore become the most efficient and effective way of conveying messages of thematic import. In Oedipus we see such a development. The most blatant themes revolve around Oedipus’ blindness, gods, family, judgment which are most apparent through what the characters say. Specifically, the story of Oedipus had been largely known to Greeks. Simply changing diction or rhythm would have had very little effect. Instead, Sophocles chose to emphasis unique points of the plot to embed some themes. This proves that plot is truly at the center of play literature. Ultimately, there is very little to analyze in terms of style. Stage directions, number of characters sound devices and sentence structure are about all that are left for playwrights to use for stylistic changes. Even these are mitigated as they become deemphasized on-stage. Additionally, since there are so few differences to be considered style, it can be misrepresented and misinterpreted. With such low thresholds for analysis, similar styles probably often appear, even if representing radically different things. On the same note, the implication of style is severely reduced as such limited variation allows for nearly limitless interpretations. Such a range of interpretations bounds the style less to being literarily/thematically important and rather lends it to being an over-analyzed tool for the authors of high school/college essays.

Journal #5: Wild Duck

Literary Topic: Setting

Geographically speaking, the reader/audience is lead to assume that the story/play takes place in Norway. There are a few indicators for this conclusion. Firstly, the characters’ names indicate Scandinavian origin (such as Hjalmar, Ekdal, and Werle). Secondly, the climate and surroundings (the cold climate as well as the forests [hence the logging industry jobs])  do appear in Norway. Finally, the other three plays in Ibsen’s trilogy also take place in Norway to be originally performed in front of a Norwegian audience, originally written in Norwegian. Therefore, it seems fairly safe to conclude that it takes place in Norway. In regards to timeframe, it appears that it takes place in a similar setting to be found when the play was written in 1884. All of the props for stage directions (lamps, for example) indicate both a level of industrial development as well as simplicity which implies such a time period. However, ultimately the timeframe seems rather irrelevant to the overall context of the play. The 1800s remain a point of interest in Norwegian culture. At the time (as represented by large emigration to the United States) life was hard on average Norwegians. In regards to occupation, most were either land owners (Like Old Mr. Werle) or a class of land workers (called huntsmen or cotters). This being the commonality makes Hjalmar’s profession of a photographer even more odd as having a unique skill at the time would have already separated him from society (may possibly contribute to a societal pressure theme). Also was the fairly recent introduction of democracy which appeared with the formation of Norway’s constitutional government in 1814. This is significant as when the democracy was formed, the smaller land owners vied for political power to offset the domination by foreign or wealthy powers as had long been the case in Norway (any form of nobility was abolished in 1821 [according to Tim Lambert http://www.localhistories.org/norway.html). Since the transition from strict class distinctions, Norway has been very conscious about being overly divisive and any forms of elitism are likely to face opposition. This context helps the reader understand any general animosity towards the Werle family, in particular Old Mr. Werle. More political turmoil grew as Norwegians began to resent being controlled by Sweden and Nationalism grew. Eventually, the entire government was impeached and convicted in 1884 which grew into a parliamentary democracy [Lambert]. Due to the heavy Westernization of Norway at the time as well as following Ibsen’s visit to New York, it is possible that this political turmoil could be reflected within Wild Duck.

Journal #6: Wild Duck/Oedipus

Literary Techniques: Links/Thematic ideas

1)      The idea of being worse than the worst. In Oedipus his blindness becomes a fate worse than death. He describes death as being too good for what he has done. In Wild Duck it isn’t so much about death but generic sickness. “I am worse than sick, most people are sick”. This idea of being irreconcilably punished seems to be a commonality.

2)      Obviously, sight is a similarity as both Hedvig and Oedipus end up being blind.

3)      The morality of truth seems to be an interesting concept. In both cases, one person is determined to pursue the truth (Gregers and Oedipus). In the end, when the truth is revealed the consequence is death and other means of suffering. Thus we are left to question, if it only causes damage, is the truth really the moral option? Is concealing the truth sometimes morally justifiable. In both cases, there was no benefit when the truth came out (although, it could be argued that the plague could have stopped as per the prophecy when Oedipus was banished). Regardless, the idea of an immoral truth could be interesting.

4)      Another interesting focus is one of public pressure which may or may not include all the topics regarding public vs. private life etc. Oedipus has the chorus which is a key method in which an unidentified public is used to represent views, opinions, and pressures on the public figure of Oedipus. It may be amusing to investigate the level of influence/significant of what the chorus says. This would include an observation of what is said ‘outside’ the palace compared to inside the palace. In Wild Duck there is far less clarity and distinction between a public vs. private entity but perhaps the concept of judgment of others could be significant.

5)      Finally, on the note of public vs. private we may also consider the effect of social class in affecting personal relationships or actions. The distinction is clear in Oedipus as the monarch compared to his subjects. In Wild Duck wealth may be what makes the characters distinct. The friction between the Werle and Ekdal family is obviously apparent.

Journal #7: Blood Wedding, Wild Duck and Oedipus

Comparison: Visual action as important as speech

As I noted in Journal #4, my general belief of stage directions on the play have very little stylistic interpretation. However, I would like to limit that statement in terms of analyzing plays the same way we would analyze a book for things like color, motifs in the backgrounds etc. Subsequently, I (perhaps contrarily) maintain that plays must still be interpreted from an audience’s perspective as that was the medium through which the play was designed to be interpreted. For example, in both Oedipus and Blood Wedding, the stage directions are very limited which re-emphasizes the importance of the plot. That is not to say that the plot is distinct from the appearance to the audience as they are intrinsically linked. I feel that there is a clear line of separation to be drawn when considering ‘stage directions’. The realm of inconsideration should be whenever the reader begins to interpret the specifics of the directions such as embedded symbols, specific diction, and other such meanings which could/would amplify the conclusion that they are trying to draw. However, if there is a difference to the way something could be interpreted from reading versus watching on-stage, the live version should be preferred. The way this interpretation of interpreting the text/performance is ultimately to act only in a limiting capacity. In other words, we cannot draw any new conclusions from stage directions, only eliminate possible theories based on discrepancies between visual text and performance. That being said, when plays such as Wild Duck provide very explicit and detailed stage direction the reader should be able to use those to help inform their interpretation of the PLOT. For example, to determine who can see whom, the way a line was phrased to interpret the character’s emotion, etc. are legitimate areas of interpretation. In contrast, Wild Duck allows far more investigation into characters’ emotions as a result of the stage directions as such a feeling would be tangibly felt by any viewing audience. However to say things like, “the fact that the lamps were shaded green contributes to so-and-so theme/motif/symbol” is excessive interpretation. While the attention to detail may be significant, there are alternative possible reasons for their inclusion. It may simply help develop the mood of the audience or (I concede) it may even have some type of thematic importance. However this should be considered irrelevant as any (sane [not including insane and overly-interpretive English teachers/professors/zealous students]) viewer would not interpret such minute details in background and/or setting in their thematic interpretation of a play and as the audience was the intended focus, that lost effect should not be considered for literary analysis. Essentially, anything that would not make a conscious thought if only seen and not read should not be considered. This brightline is best as it allows for a reasonable interpretation without allowing people to simply make up wildly inaccurate conclusions and then considered a genius for being able to string together random theories to a different conclusion from anyone else (as any other interpretation would naturally be similarly different. An oxymoronic statement if I ever heard one).