Going into this play, I had, again, some mixed thoughts about going into this play. On one hand, I was super excited to read something as potentially good as Oedipus Rex. On the other hand, there was an element of "there's no way this is going to be as good as the entertaining train wreck that was Oedipus". After reading the play, there's a little bit of each side. It was good and entertaining, but it wasn't as good, which is understandable, considering how much I enjoyed Oedipus.
Regarding its relation to tragedy, I actually think that it focuses on the tragic element of Kreon's development moreso than the title character. The initial perfectness of his life is disturbed by the discovery of Antigone burying her brother, and he sort of overreacts. Then, the fall from grace happens, and it all goes to crap for him from there on out. Antigone, his son, and his wife all commit suicide, and it is just not a good time for him. I think the tragic element here shines in how, after he talked to Tiresias, he does try to change his behavior, which makes me like him more as a character, or just hate him less, which in turn makes me feel more sorry for him when all of this happens to him. This play also isn't super like sad tragic, it's just tragic, kind of like Oedipus.
0 Comments
So we watched a TED talk in class that was really enlightening on perhaps the unexpected shortcomings of our perspectives on things in life as human beings. It brings up how, even as creatures that pride ourselves on being creative and intellectual, are so easily manipulated just because we don't know our limits mentally. When analyzed critically, the discrepancy is both educational and entertaining. A new dimension of Economics that we might not think about every day comes to life, and it can offer insight on how to at least attempt to improve our ability to make decisions, and to think a little harder abou-
Oh yeah, this is supposed to relate to tragedy. Hm. To be honest, I don't think that this is super relevant to tragedy. I think that the intent was to illustrate that some things are out of our control, but I think that it's a different type of lack of control. The idea behind this lack of control is the idea that innately, we have limitations mentally that are extremely hard for us to overcome. Tragedy in Oedipus is more of a external and supernatural type of out of control, which could convey a similar effect, but it feels different to me, I suppose. It feels like the TED talk type of limitation is kind of a personal flaw, whereas the Oedipus type is more of a "life just isn't going your way" type of limitation. Coming into class on Wednesday and seeing Oedipus Rex on my desk brought a variety of thoughts. On one hand, I was happy that we were taking a break from poetry, but on the other, I thought that doing a play would be relatively boring, with the old text using confusing language that would make the story hard to relax and enjoy.
But then Papa Sophocles saves the freaking day. It ended up being pretty cool (read: fucking awesome), and it was probably the most enjoyment that I've had reading a play out loud in class. The dual use of deep and hilarious language makes it both enjoyable and thought-provoking. In regards to tragedy specifically, Sophocles does a good job of setting up a sudden turn of events, and a fall from grace. The shift in tone is apparent as Jocasta begins to understand what is going on. Over all, this really does feel like it epitomizes what Miller states in his argument, and it does so without seeming super sad (well it is sad, but it's almost more...tragic than sad. I don't know I guess I kind of found a new definition for tragedy in terms of the emotion associated with it). The way the Oedipus went about handling the situation also added to the tragic feeling that the story provided. Even though it was super obvious what happened, I think that Oedipus was at least partially suppressing the truth from himself, and him desperately going to more people to try to get a different answer really showcased that. As as side note, I'm pretty sure a lot of my enjoyment that came from this story came from the translation. It was extremely well done, and I'm really glad to have read it. So a big part of our exploration on tragedy over the past couple of days was reading a paper by Arthur Miller. He gives a definition of tragedy that outlines some specifics within the plot, and he perhaps implies a "why" for our enjoyment of tragedy. Tragedy, Miller argues, has to first have the main character seeming living a pretty good life. The purpose of this is to set up the "fall from grace". There has to be a grace to fall from. Then, there's a discovery of a problem, something that screws up this balance and harmony. Finally, the protagonist has to try and fail to solve the problem. That's the basic framework of how a tragedy, in Miller's opinion, is put together. He also argues that there has to be a possibility to win, because without it, it doesn't feel like a tragedy when the main character fails, it just feels inevitable.
Now, do I agree with this? I'd say so. With definitions like this, it always seems a little weird, because they seemingly don't focus on a lot of what we personally define as a tragedy. I initially described it as a great sadness, for example. The definition doesn't focus on this, not because it is inaccurate, but because they can define it in terms of something else rather than just a feeling, like a specific plot line. Initially, I was pretty skeptical, but with some more thought, I began to see the merits of defining it like Miller did. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |