To what extent have you found it possible, in your consideration of literary works, to separate the individual from his or her public role? In you answer you should refer to any two or three works you have studied.
In Ibsen's "Wild Duck" and Lorca's "Blood Wedding",
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Comments
- Although I don't agree exactly with your opinion on this topic, you do make a good point when stating the useful effects of literary techniques. (Webster; Journal 4)
- Your analysis of the text and diction used to express how emotion is created within the reader by the author was very insightful. It was really clear and easy to understand. (Walch; Journal 3)
- I hadn't noticed the effect of Oedipus seemingly talking to the audience previous to reading this. Your interpretation of this, that it creates distance between him and other characters, seems to be completely correct. Also, I agree that Oedipus is quite a relatable character due to his idealistic personality.(Taylor; Journal 2)
Monday, May 23, 2011
Journal #6: The Wild Duck
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?
A question present within both "The Wild Duck" and "Oedipus" seems to be one pertaining to the inability of man to control his fate. This becomes apparent when Oedipus discovers that he is the cause of his suffering, and when Hjalmar becomes aware of the fact that his daughter is not truly his.
In "Oedipus", Oedipus results to be his own undoing. His persistent and determined nature lead him to discover an already established fate. When one examines the play in its entirety, we realize that had Oedipus not looked for the murderer, he still would have found the answer eventually. Sophocles establishes the idea that one may not stray from his destiny, as one's own nature will ultimately betray them and lead them to discovery.
We see that Sophocles fully supports this idea, because even a character as perfect and idealized as Oedipus encounters his undoing. His seemingly flawless and ideal characteristics are what lead him to this undoing, and there is no way he could have gotten around his fate, because of his personality that was already established.
Sophocles also seems to be saying that even the most perfect man may be destroyed by his own hand, although he may not suspect it and may be adored by all. Sophocles answers the original question by having Oedipus find out his own fate because of his own persistence and determined self.
In "The Wild Duck", Ibsen creates this loss of control within the protagonist, Hjalmar, by having him discover that his daughter, Hedvig, is not truly his daughter. The loss of control by the father of a family symbolizes the loss of control over his destiny. He is no longer even able to control something which he thought completely belonged to him, something that should righteously be only his. Ibsen uses the symbol of a family in order to portray the inability to control fate because it shows the complete loss of control.
A question present within both "The Wild Duck" and "Oedipus" seems to be one pertaining to the inability of man to control his fate. This becomes apparent when Oedipus discovers that he is the cause of his suffering, and when Hjalmar becomes aware of the fact that his daughter is not truly his.
In "Oedipus", Oedipus results to be his own undoing. His persistent and determined nature lead him to discover an already established fate. When one examines the play in its entirety, we realize that had Oedipus not looked for the murderer, he still would have found the answer eventually. Sophocles establishes the idea that one may not stray from his destiny, as one's own nature will ultimately betray them and lead them to discovery.
We see that Sophocles fully supports this idea, because even a character as perfect and idealized as Oedipus encounters his undoing. His seemingly flawless and ideal characteristics are what lead him to this undoing, and there is no way he could have gotten around his fate, because of his personality that was already established.
Sophocles also seems to be saying that even the most perfect man may be destroyed by his own hand, although he may not suspect it and may be adored by all. Sophocles answers the original question by having Oedipus find out his own fate because of his own persistence and determined self.
In "The Wild Duck", Ibsen creates this loss of control within the protagonist, Hjalmar, by having him discover that his daughter, Hedvig, is not truly his daughter. The loss of control by the father of a family symbolizes the loss of control over his destiny. He is no longer even able to control something which he thought completely belonged to him, something that should righteously be only his. Ibsen uses the symbol of a family in order to portray the inability to control fate because it shows the complete loss of control.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Journal #5: The Wild Duck
Point of view/Characters
The story "The Wild Duck" is told from the point of view of a 3rd person narrative. This voice does not change throughout the play- or at least it hasn't changed through acts 1 and 2. The narrative voice can be considered to be quite reliable as it offers information from all parties within the play, and does not simply express the views of one mere character. The reader gets to know the characters quite well. The reader is privy to information including affairs and scandals, and sentiments held by all the characters. These tid bits of information allows the audience to experience various characters perspectives. Some of the characters, such as the elder Werle, are not credible. They offer a dubious front and seem like they may not be trusted. Also, there are several nameless characters whom are also not credible due to their lack of individuality. They seem to be flat characters placed within the play in order to advance the plot. The characters are presented individually with their desires, suspicions, and thoughts on display. The author persuades the reader to like and dislike characters by having other characters display their opinions on them, and through characterization.
The story "The Wild Duck" is told from the point of view of a 3rd person narrative. This voice does not change throughout the play- or at least it hasn't changed through acts 1 and 2. The narrative voice can be considered to be quite reliable as it offers information from all parties within the play, and does not simply express the views of one mere character. The reader gets to know the characters quite well. The reader is privy to information including affairs and scandals, and sentiments held by all the characters. These tid bits of information allows the audience to experience various characters perspectives. Some of the characters, such as the elder Werle, are not credible. They offer a dubious front and seem like they may not be trusted. Also, there are several nameless characters whom are also not credible due to their lack of individuality. They seem to be flat characters placed within the play in order to advance the plot. The characters are presented individually with their desires, suspicions, and thoughts on display. The author persuades the reader to like and dislike characters by having other characters display their opinions on them, and through characterization.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Journal #4: The Wild Duck
To what extent would you agree that plot should be valued more highly than style in the work. In you answer you should refer to two or three works you have studied.
Plot is more important within both the Wild Duck and Oedipus. The storyline is of more importance than the techniques utilized by Ibsen and Sophocles.
Within Oedipus, the story of Oedipus' persuasiveness portrays more clearly Sophocles' idea that fate is predestined and not affected by man, than any of the techniques used. In the play, Oedipus' journey is explored and his persuasiveness proves to be his downfall. This isn't expressed through any techniques except for perhaps characterization. Through characterization Oedipus's personality is developed. However, this technique is the only one that proves useful in conveying the authors idea. The style doesn't convey this thesis either, as a typical reader wouldn't notice it very much.
In The Wild Duck, The main idea seems to be conveyed more through the plot and dialogue rather than through the techniques used by Ibsen. In fact, techniques do not look very apparent, and most of the knowledge about the situation is gained through the storyline by the readers. The style of writing by Ibsen does not help portray any main idea, most themes are gathered through out the procession of events.
These arguments both aid and reinforce the argument that plot holds much more more value than style within these plays. However, this could be contrary in different plays where much does not occur and the plot is not as significant.
Plot is more important within both the Wild Duck and Oedipus. The storyline is of more importance than the techniques utilized by Ibsen and Sophocles.
Within Oedipus, the story of Oedipus' persuasiveness portrays more clearly Sophocles' idea that fate is predestined and not affected by man, than any of the techniques used. In the play, Oedipus' journey is explored and his persuasiveness proves to be his downfall. This isn't expressed through any techniques except for perhaps characterization. Through characterization Oedipus's personality is developed. However, this technique is the only one that proves useful in conveying the authors idea. The style doesn't convey this thesis either, as a typical reader wouldn't notice it very much.
In The Wild Duck, The main idea seems to be conveyed more through the plot and dialogue rather than through the techniques used by Ibsen. In fact, techniques do not look very apparent, and most of the knowledge about the situation is gained through the storyline by the readers. The style of writing by Ibsen does not help portray any main idea, most themes are gathered through out the procession of events.
These arguments both aid and reinforce the argument that plot holds much more more value than style within these plays. However, this could be contrary in different plays where much does not occur and the plot is not as significant.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Journal #3: Oedipus
Diary entries from any of the characters.
The news I bear is distressing at the least. It wrenches at my very soul and leaves a seething cold mist within. The woe it causes me is nearly indescribable.
Laius, Laius, He whom I layed with, he whom helped me bear my son who was then cast away. He is the victim of my husband, the father of my husband. This information seems to destroy any shred of hope, of light, left within me. I do not know what I shall do, or whom I shall turn to.
Oedipus discovered this, by his own free will. His own hand drove him to search for the fulfillment of the prophecy, and I fear he will suspect me of being ashamed of him. I fear his eternal anger with me, and bear his wrath I shall not.
Apollo! Why do you bestow this tragedy upon us? Upon myself, my son and husband, the son I bore children with? For although our actions have been unexcusable, excuse them you must. We had no shred of knowledge of what was occurring, else we would have stopped at once. But now you, this shame, these horrible actions, have led me to my demise.
I can no longer fathom living a wretched life as now, laying my eyes on the sins I have committed, the abominations I have created, day after day. No, I fear that the only way to escape this horrendous situation will be through my own hands. I must myself end my life, although it is a tragedy that I leave these sins to be carried by others. I can no longer live, for these terrible things haunt me.
Apollo, I will see you soon. Soon, I will be away from this wretched situation and in an eternal shroud of darkness.
The news I bear is distressing at the least. It wrenches at my very soul and leaves a seething cold mist within. The woe it causes me is nearly indescribable.
Laius, Laius, He whom I layed with, he whom helped me bear my son who was then cast away. He is the victim of my husband, the father of my husband. This information seems to destroy any shred of hope, of light, left within me. I do not know what I shall do, or whom I shall turn to.
Oedipus discovered this, by his own free will. His own hand drove him to search for the fulfillment of the prophecy, and I fear he will suspect me of being ashamed of him. I fear his eternal anger with me, and bear his wrath I shall not.
Apollo! Why do you bestow this tragedy upon us? Upon myself, my son and husband, the son I bore children with? For although our actions have been unexcusable, excuse them you must. We had no shred of knowledge of what was occurring, else we would have stopped at once. But now you, this shame, these horrible actions, have led me to my demise.
I can no longer fathom living a wretched life as now, laying my eyes on the sins I have committed, the abominations I have created, day after day. No, I fear that the only way to escape this horrendous situation will be through my own hands. I must myself end my life, although it is a tragedy that I leave these sins to be carried by others. I can no longer live, for these terrible things haunt me.
Apollo, I will see you soon. Soon, I will be away from this wretched situation and in an eternal shroud of darkness.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Journal #2: Oedipus
Themes & Ideas
Several themes and ideas that arise within Oedipus are those or a predestined unchangeable fate, seeing or eyesight, and how even the most idealized man may be brought down by the gods. This last idea was extremely influenced by the belief in multiple Gods in Sophocles' time.
Firstly, the novel of Oedipus the King seems to carry an ulterior message that states that ones destiny is predetermined and may not be changed. The only thing a man can control in regard to his destiny is how he wishes to view it and whether he decides to pursue it or have it come upon him when the time is right. Instead of viewing himself as a god and thus not granting levity to his situation, Oedipus treats himself as a regular man and believes these are terrible crimes he has committed. One must believe that it would be possible for Oedipus to view himself as a king because of his character and his ability to solve the Sphinxs' riddle. Oedipus chooses to pursue his truth- his destiny, and this results in his undeniable sorrow. Although he couldn't have changed his destiny, he did have the opportunity to simply ignore it.
The idea of eyesight in the play seems contradictory in itself. Tiriesias is a blind prophet but can clearly see the truth, whereas Oedipus, a mighty king, is completely blind to his true actions at first although he has perfect vision. Oedipus then blinds himself in order to not view the abominations of his actions- his children. Overall, the message seems to be that mans greatest tool for harvesting knowledge may be his greatest downfall.
In Oedipus the King, Oedipus has a great many virtues that were highly envied by greek citizens at the time that the playwas written. He was honest, determined, diligent, and intelligent. These traits seem like they would create a perfect man, almost a god in some views, but in the case of this play, these virtues were Oedipus' downfall. His honesty prevented him from saving himself as king, his diligency and determinance led to the uncovering of his horrendous actions which led to his downfall, and his intelligence became of no use when he put it to work towards uncovering his destiny. This play seems to be saying that even the greatest man can and will be struck down by him traits, even if these are perfect.
Several themes and ideas that arise within Oedipus are those or a predestined unchangeable fate, seeing or eyesight, and how even the most idealized man may be brought down by the gods. This last idea was extremely influenced by the belief in multiple Gods in Sophocles' time.
Firstly, the novel of Oedipus the King seems to carry an ulterior message that states that ones destiny is predetermined and may not be changed. The only thing a man can control in regard to his destiny is how he wishes to view it and whether he decides to pursue it or have it come upon him when the time is right. Instead of viewing himself as a god and thus not granting levity to his situation, Oedipus treats himself as a regular man and believes these are terrible crimes he has committed. One must believe that it would be possible for Oedipus to view himself as a king because of his character and his ability to solve the Sphinxs' riddle. Oedipus chooses to pursue his truth- his destiny, and this results in his undeniable sorrow. Although he couldn't have changed his destiny, he did have the opportunity to simply ignore it.
The idea of eyesight in the play seems contradictory in itself. Tiriesias is a blind prophet but can clearly see the truth, whereas Oedipus, a mighty king, is completely blind to his true actions at first although he has perfect vision. Oedipus then blinds himself in order to not view the abominations of his actions- his children. Overall, the message seems to be that mans greatest tool for harvesting knowledge may be his greatest downfall.
In Oedipus the King, Oedipus has a great many virtues that were highly envied by greek citizens at the time that the playwas written. He was honest, determined, diligent, and intelligent. These traits seem like they would create a perfect man, almost a god in some views, but in the case of this play, these virtues were Oedipus' downfall. His honesty prevented him from saving himself as king, his diligency and determinance led to the uncovering of his horrendous actions which led to his downfall, and his intelligence became of no use when he put it to work towards uncovering his destiny. This play seems to be saying that even the greatest man can and will be struck down by him traits, even if these are perfect.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)