Dear Diary-
Soon, my son is getting married. I don't like this, because I still do not trust that family. I do not care how long it has been, and I do not care if I should leave the past in the past. I felt my son's blood on my hands because of that family. And because of knives! Oh knives, what terrible instruments of destruction. I curse the man who invented them, and guns too. No, I do not trust that family, to lose both my son and my husband is something that you cannot imagine. And not only that, but also that girl that he is marrying. I do not trust her either, I heard...Well, perhaps I should not say it. It is not right for people to know such things about each other, they really ought to just leave each other alone.
Although, it does nag at me. Alright, my neighbor told me the other day that this...girl that he is marrying, well it seems she was engaged in the past to another man. Can you believe that? To be engaged to another man, and then to simply leave him. I tried to tell this to my son, but he simply does not care. It would seem that he believes her to be of the highest virtue. Regardless, tomorrow we are going to meet this family, and then I will be able to see her with my own eyes. My son thinks that I am too protective, too rooted in the past. But he does not understand what it is to lose someone so close, to lose everything you have. Well, not everything. He is all that I really have left. And perhaps that is why I am so reluctant to let him go, because I can't leave. I have to watch this place, to make sure that those fiends don't come and defile my husband's and my son's graves with their own bodies. Yes, I have to watch this place, because he is all I have.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Comments on Others' Blogs
Comments on others' blogs:
1. You have some really good insights here, especially about the how the family may be trying to "trap" hope within their attic. I'd never thought of that before. (Ben Webster's Wild Duck Journal 3)
2. I saw the blindness connection between these books pretty early on, but I never really thought of how Hedvig's blindness could have led to the truth about her father. Good job! (Kyla Padbury's Wild Duck Journal 1)
3. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with what you are saying, but I'm not really sure if the narrator in The Wild Duck uses metaphors or similes. It seems to me that he/she just gives stage directions. And I'm not sure if this is third person omniscient, because we can't hear the characters' thoughts. (Ivan Kalliveg's Wild Duck Journal 2)
1. You have some really good insights here, especially about the how the family may be trying to "trap" hope within their attic. I'd never thought of that before. (Ben Webster's Wild Duck Journal 3)
2. I saw the blindness connection between these books pretty early on, but I never really thought of how Hedvig's blindness could have led to the truth about her father. Good job! (Kyla Padbury's Wild Duck Journal 1)
3. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with what you are saying, but I'm not really sure if the narrator in The Wild Duck uses metaphors or similes. It seems to me that he/she just gives stage directions. And I'm not sure if this is third person omniscient, because we can't hear the characters' thoughts. (Ivan Kalliveg's Wild Duck Journal 2)
Monday, May 23, 2011
The Wild Duck: Journal Three
Personal convictions and shared beliefs, the private and public life, sometimes seem at odds in the modern world. How did you find your chosen works touched with this conflict?
In The Wild Duck by Henrik Ibsen, the character of Gregers seems to be at odds with the rest of the characters of the play. Gregers believes that his father is corrupt, and his corruption has formed a lie around his friend Hjalmar's life. However, it is difficult to determine if Gregers seriously cares about his friend, or if he is trying to expose the lies solely to spite his father:
"Gregers. I'm planning to open Hjalmar Edkal's eyes. He's going to see his situation just as it is- that's all. Werle. Is that thte mission in life you talked about yesterday?" (Ibsen 175).
From this quote, we can see that Gregers has the desire to help Hjalmar, but it is also apparent that there are feelings of negativity towards his father. Gregers' moral crusade is also frowned upon by other characters in the play:
"Relling. All right, I'll tell you, Mrs. Edkal. He's suffering from an acute case of moralistic fever. [...] Gina (walking restlessly around the room). Ugh, that Gregers Werle- he always was a cold fish." (Ibsen 178).
In this quote, the other characters express there dislike of Gregers' moral actions. However, Ibsen may not only be critiquing the other characters, but Gregers as well, whose possibly selfish actions ultimately bring the Edkal's downfall.
In Oedipus the King by Sophocles, Oedipus and his wife Jocasta attempt to challenge Oedipus' prophecy regarding his parents:
"Tiresias: I say you are the murderer you hunt.
Oedipus: That obscenity, twice- by god, you'll pay."
Here, Oedipus is told explicitly by Tiresias that he is the murder of King Laius. However, Oedipus does not believe Tiresias, and even threatens him in his outrage. In this way, Oedipus' private views challenge that of not only Tiresias but the gods as well. However, in attempting to disprove the prophecy, Oedipus ultimately fulfills it. Oedipus and Gregers are both alike in that they are both trying to do the right thing, but for perhaps no the right reasons. Gregers is motivated by revenge towards his father, and in pursuing this he undoes himself and the Edkals. Similarly, Oedipus is motivated by the desire to expose the truth to satisfy his prideful nature, and in doing so he exposes himself as the murderer, bring shame to his family and himself.
In The Wild Duck by Henrik Ibsen, the character of Gregers seems to be at odds with the rest of the characters of the play. Gregers believes that his father is corrupt, and his corruption has formed a lie around his friend Hjalmar's life. However, it is difficult to determine if Gregers seriously cares about his friend, or if he is trying to expose the lies solely to spite his father:
"Gregers. I'm planning to open Hjalmar Edkal's eyes. He's going to see his situation just as it is- that's all. Werle. Is that thte mission in life you talked about yesterday?" (Ibsen 175).
From this quote, we can see that Gregers has the desire to help Hjalmar, but it is also apparent that there are feelings of negativity towards his father. Gregers' moral crusade is also frowned upon by other characters in the play:
"Relling. All right, I'll tell you, Mrs. Edkal. He's suffering from an acute case of moralistic fever. [...] Gina (walking restlessly around the room). Ugh, that Gregers Werle- he always was a cold fish." (Ibsen 178).
In this quote, the other characters express there dislike of Gregers' moral actions. However, Ibsen may not only be critiquing the other characters, but Gregers as well, whose possibly selfish actions ultimately bring the Edkal's downfall.
In Oedipus the King by Sophocles, Oedipus and his wife Jocasta attempt to challenge Oedipus' prophecy regarding his parents:
"Tiresias: I say you are the murderer you hunt.
Oedipus: That obscenity, twice- by god, you'll pay."
Here, Oedipus is told explicitly by Tiresias that he is the murder of King Laius. However, Oedipus does not believe Tiresias, and even threatens him in his outrage. In this way, Oedipus' private views challenge that of not only Tiresias but the gods as well. However, in attempting to disprove the prophecy, Oedipus ultimately fulfills it. Oedipus and Gregers are both alike in that they are both trying to do the right thing, but for perhaps no the right reasons. Gregers is motivated by revenge towards his father, and in pursuing this he undoes himself and the Edkals. Similarly, Oedipus is motivated by the desire to expose the truth to satisfy his prideful nature, and in doing so he exposes himself as the murderer, bring shame to his family and himself.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
The Wild Duck: Journal Two
Narrative Structure
The Wild Duck's plot is structured into five acts. This makes the play -while being read- certainly feel like it was meant for a stage, which is not necessarily a bad thing. It makes the play seem more realistic, and organic. It is hard to make a complete judgement of the acts effect, since we are only two deep, however. The acts do not pick up directly where the previous left off, but offer a new perspective as each on begins. Another interesting feature of this play is that it seems to have no single protagonist, with the stories' structure switching each act from one character to the next. The first act seems to focus more on Gregers and his return/his relationship with his father, while the second act seems to focus Hjalmar/his relationship with his family. In this way it seems like the author constructs a parallel structure within the plot, subtly weaving in disagreements and illusions within what appears to be functional families.
Although we have not gotten as far as the end of the play yet, I am aware of it. It seems to me that the end of the play is quite vital, in that it is the ultimatum of all the characters' actions. In the end of the play, due to Gregers' exposure of Hjalmar's poor treatment of his family, as well as the truth about his wife, Hedvig decides to kill herself. This is interesting, because Ibsen uses this to make a critique of virtually all the characters in the play. The time period which this spans is actually unknown to me, although it takes place some time after 1875. Because the play is set so close to the turn of the century, Ibsen may have been using the time of the play to make a critique about so called "progressive" society; although I cannot make that claim for certain because my historical background of the play is limited. The actual time of which the play takes place over is also unknown to me, although I would make the guess around two or three weeks.
The Wild Duck's plot is structured into five acts. This makes the play -while being read- certainly feel like it was meant for a stage, which is not necessarily a bad thing. It makes the play seem more realistic, and organic. It is hard to make a complete judgement of the acts effect, since we are only two deep, however. The acts do not pick up directly where the previous left off, but offer a new perspective as each on begins. Another interesting feature of this play is that it seems to have no single protagonist, with the stories' structure switching each act from one character to the next. The first act seems to focus more on Gregers and his return/his relationship with his father, while the second act seems to focus Hjalmar/his relationship with his family. In this way it seems like the author constructs a parallel structure within the plot, subtly weaving in disagreements and illusions within what appears to be functional families.
Although we have not gotten as far as the end of the play yet, I am aware of it. It seems to me that the end of the play is quite vital, in that it is the ultimatum of all the characters' actions. In the end of the play, due to Gregers' exposure of Hjalmar's poor treatment of his family, as well as the truth about his wife, Hedvig decides to kill herself. This is interesting, because Ibsen uses this to make a critique of virtually all the characters in the play. The time period which this spans is actually unknown to me, although it takes place some time after 1875. Because the play is set so close to the turn of the century, Ibsen may have been using the time of the play to make a critique about so called "progressive" society; although I cannot make that claim for certain because my historical background of the play is limited. The actual time of which the play takes place over is also unknown to me, although I would make the guess around two or three weeks.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
The Wild Duck: Journal One
To what extent would you agree that plot should be valued more highly than style in the work?
I do not always agree that plot should be valued greater than style, or that style valued greater than plot. I think that it is something that can vary from work to work.
In The Wild Duck by Ibsen, the author uses a very realistic and relate able style within her characters, which helps the audience identify with them. The language in this play is very realistic and natural, which creates a unique style that puts emphasis more upon this within the work.
Gregers (who has gotten up). Yes of course he did. But not that- (Walks about the floor.) Yes, wait a minute- it may well be, now that I think of it. My father's letters are always so brief. (Sits on chair arm.) Listen, tell me, Hjalmar -this is interesting- how did you come do know Gina?-your wife, I mean.
In this quote, it can be seen that there are alot of dashes and commas, indicating hesitation and pausing within the characters speech. This makes the speech sound awkward and fast, which is how people usually talk, there speech is not perfect in reality. This is an example of how Wild Duck's style is heavily emphasized. This contradicts somewhat with Oedipus, whose emphasis seems to be more on plot structure.
In Oedipus the King by Sophocles, the play focuses heavily on the plot of the story. In the days of Ancient Greece, specifically 5th-6th Century B.C., the audience watching a classic play such as that of Oedipus would have already known the story that they were going to see. However, it is the style of the author and the way that they choose to manipulate the story that really mattered. For example, one thing that made Sophocles' Oedipus so great was that the way Oedipus discovered the truth about his family and himself was different than what had happened in past plays. Often, Oedipus would find out what he had done through divine intervention or by accident, but it is only through his painstaking detective work in Sophocles' version that he manages to discover the truth. In this respect, it is the plot of Oedipus that really makes the play a great work. Sophocles' manipulation of the elements of plot are what essentially make the work such a great tragedy.
I do not always agree that plot should be valued greater than style, or that style valued greater than plot. I think that it is something that can vary from work to work.
In The Wild Duck by Ibsen, the author uses a very realistic and relate able style within her characters, which helps the audience identify with them. The language in this play is very realistic and natural, which creates a unique style that puts emphasis more upon this within the work.
Gregers (who has gotten up). Yes of course he did. But not that- (Walks about the floor.) Yes, wait a minute- it may well be, now that I think of it. My father's letters are always so brief. (Sits on chair arm.) Listen, tell me, Hjalmar -this is interesting- how did you come do know Gina?-your wife, I mean.
In this quote, it can be seen that there are alot of dashes and commas, indicating hesitation and pausing within the characters speech. This makes the speech sound awkward and fast, which is how people usually talk, there speech is not perfect in reality. This is an example of how Wild Duck's style is heavily emphasized. This contradicts somewhat with Oedipus, whose emphasis seems to be more on plot structure.
In Oedipus the King by Sophocles, the play focuses heavily on the plot of the story. In the days of Ancient Greece, specifically 5th-6th Century B.C., the audience watching a classic play such as that of Oedipus would have already known the story that they were going to see. However, it is the style of the author and the way that they choose to manipulate the story that really mattered. For example, one thing that made Sophocles' Oedipus so great was that the way Oedipus discovered the truth about his family and himself was different than what had happened in past plays. Often, Oedipus would find out what he had done through divine intervention or by accident, but it is only through his painstaking detective work in Sophocles' version that he manages to discover the truth. In this respect, it is the plot of Oedipus that really makes the play a great work. Sophocles' manipulation of the elements of plot are what essentially make the work such a great tragedy.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Oedipus the King: Journal Three
Letter a character might have written
Dearest Antigone,
The greatest and heaviest misery now envelopes me. You have been taken from me, my wife has taken her own life, and I write blindly these words to you. In my pride, and my arrogance, I made the foolish mistake to think that I could escape fate. What prophecy foretold, both my father, mother, and myself all unfortunately decided to neglect; and now the gods take their retribution upon me! No, I take retribution upon myself. It is I, Oedipus Rex, that had so doggedly pursued the truth of my birth, the truth of my heritage, of my mother and father, the man whose blood I spilled, and the woman whose loins I have violated.
You cannot imagine what a pain this is. In my foolishness again, I neglected the prophet Tiresias, mocking his blindness, and now I am myself blind. I should never have left that mountainside, I wish now that that shepherd had killed me as a babe; ridding my scourge from all mankind. And to think, what horror I have brought upon you, my daughter, What man will desire you? What happiness shall you achieve? I have cursed my family and myself in my stupidity. My hubris, which drove me so strongly towards the truth, ultimately has destroyed me in my arrogance. I thought myself and my family invulnerable, I thought myself a noble man on a quest to expose the truth. I am nothing but a blind, pitying wreck.
Where I go now, I cannot say. Perhaps I shall head for the mountain, O wretched Cithaeron, where I should have been killed so many years ago. At this time, I cannot think to see another person, I curse the light of day with my presence! I consider it a blessing, though small, that I cannot see the faces of those whom I have wronged, and continue to wrong by allowing them to gaze upon me. Although, perhaps I do not curse them. Perhaps they see the broken creature that was once a man. The man that solved the riddle of the sphinx. The great, and mighty Oedipus Rex! But mighty I am no longer. Yes, I will go to Cithaeron. It is there I will spend the remainder of this life, destitute and alone.
-Oedipus
Dearest Antigone,
The greatest and heaviest misery now envelopes me. You have been taken from me, my wife has taken her own life, and I write blindly these words to you. In my pride, and my arrogance, I made the foolish mistake to think that I could escape fate. What prophecy foretold, both my father, mother, and myself all unfortunately decided to neglect; and now the gods take their retribution upon me! No, I take retribution upon myself. It is I, Oedipus Rex, that had so doggedly pursued the truth of my birth, the truth of my heritage, of my mother and father, the man whose blood I spilled, and the woman whose loins I have violated.
You cannot imagine what a pain this is. In my foolishness again, I neglected the prophet Tiresias, mocking his blindness, and now I am myself blind. I should never have left that mountainside, I wish now that that shepherd had killed me as a babe; ridding my scourge from all mankind. And to think, what horror I have brought upon you, my daughter, What man will desire you? What happiness shall you achieve? I have cursed my family and myself in my stupidity. My hubris, which drove me so strongly towards the truth, ultimately has destroyed me in my arrogance. I thought myself and my family invulnerable, I thought myself a noble man on a quest to expose the truth. I am nothing but a blind, pitying wreck.
Where I go now, I cannot say. Perhaps I shall head for the mountain, O wretched Cithaeron, where I should have been killed so many years ago. At this time, I cannot think to see another person, I curse the light of day with my presence! I consider it a blessing, though small, that I cannot see the faces of those whom I have wronged, and continue to wrong by allowing them to gaze upon me. Although, perhaps I do not curse them. Perhaps they see the broken creature that was once a man. The man that solved the riddle of the sphinx. The great, and mighty Oedipus Rex! But mighty I am no longer. Yes, I will go to Cithaeron. It is there I will spend the remainder of this life, destitute and alone.
-Oedipus
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Oedipus the King: Journal 2
Moments of intensity in a writer's work:
In Oedipus the King by Sophocles, a moment of intensity that stands out quite plainly is when Oedipus discovers that he has killed his father and married his mother:
Shepherd: ...If you are the man he says you are, believe me,/ you were born for pain.
Oedipus: O god-/ all come true, all burst to light!/ O light- now let me look my lost on you!\ I stand revealed at last-/ cursed in my birth, cursed in marriage,/ cursed in the lives I cut down with these hands!
In this section of the play, Sophocles uses intense and vivid language to show how Oedipus' grief is demonstrated. Another way that Sophocles maximizes the intensity of this moment is the previous lines that build up to it. Oedipus' wife, Jocasta, has recently receded into the palace for some unkown reason. It is apparent that she is dishearted, however:
Jocasta: Stop- in the name of god,/ if you love your own life, call of this search!/ My suffering is enough.
This provides foreshadowing to the realization that Oedipus will soon discover that he has killed his father and married his mother.
In The Stranger by Albert Camus, the author uses similar techniques to develop the intensity of the scene in which Meursault kills the arab: "The sun was starting to burn my cheeks, and I could feel drops of sweat gathering in my eyebrows [...] It was this burning, which I couldn’t stand anymore, that made me move forward."
Here, as in Oedipus, it can be seen that Camus use of tense and violent language provide a rising action to Meursault's murder of the Arab. It is already known that Meursault is progressing down towards where the Arab was laying, and this use of expressive and violent language foreshadown Meursault's murder of him.
This leads up to Meursault's actual act: "My whole being tensed and I squeeze my hand around the revolver. The trigger gave." Here, we can see that Camus describes Meursault's whole body being involved in this murder, and this reflects how Oedipus describes the intense feelings he has after realizing his murder and crime.
In Oedipus the King by Sophocles, a moment of intensity that stands out quite plainly is when Oedipus discovers that he has killed his father and married his mother:
Shepherd: ...If you are the man he says you are, believe me,/ you were born for pain.
Oedipus: O god-/ all come true, all burst to light!/ O light- now let me look my lost on you!\ I stand revealed at last-/ cursed in my birth, cursed in marriage,/ cursed in the lives I cut down with these hands!
In this section of the play, Sophocles uses intense and vivid language to show how Oedipus' grief is demonstrated. Another way that Sophocles maximizes the intensity of this moment is the previous lines that build up to it. Oedipus' wife, Jocasta, has recently receded into the palace for some unkown reason. It is apparent that she is dishearted, however:
Jocasta: Stop- in the name of god,/ if you love your own life, call of this search!/ My suffering is enough.
This provides foreshadowing to the realization that Oedipus will soon discover that he has killed his father and married his mother.
In The Stranger by Albert Camus, the author uses similar techniques to develop the intensity of the scene in which Meursault kills the arab: "The sun was starting to burn my cheeks, and I could feel drops of sweat gathering in my eyebrows [...] It was this burning, which I couldn’t stand anymore, that made me move forward."
Here, as in Oedipus, it can be seen that Camus use of tense and violent language provide a rising action to Meursault's murder of the Arab. It is already known that Meursault is progressing down towards where the Arab was laying, and this use of expressive and violent language foreshadown Meursault's murder of him.
This leads up to Meursault's actual act: "My whole being tensed and I squeeze my hand around the revolver. The trigger gave." Here, we can see that Camus describes Meursault's whole body being involved in this murder, and this reflects how Oedipus describes the intense feelings he has after realizing his murder and crime.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Oedipus the King: Journal One
Point of View/Characters
Oedipus the King is not really told from any specific characters' point of view. Being a play, one simply reads the story as though they were observing the work being performed on a stage. This never changes throughout the play, and it remains in likewise fashion. Ultimately, Oedipus is the protagonist of the play, although his thoughts are never expressed unless verbally, which presents the play in the Third Person Limited narrative. Reading the story, one becomes fairly familiar with the characters in their roles to Oedipus' life. Aside from this however, there is not a large amount of insight into the characters' backgrounds, although their personalities and beliefs can be generally outlined through their lines in the play. There is however, an explanation of Oedipus' background and how he came to become the ruler of Thebes.
Oedipus is presented as a very well-respected and powerful man. It is known by all of Thebes that he saved them through solving the riddle of the Sphinx, and consequently he is revered highly among the general populace. Creon, who is his wife's brother is presented as being less headstrong than Oedipus, and probably more logical and thought oriented as well. Tiresias is portrayed as being a very wise old man, his blindness is ironic in that he is the most knowledgeable of all the characters, yet he is unable to see. I believe that Sophocles wants the reader to like Oedipus and identify with him, because this makes his downfall all the more terrible. Oedipus also exemplifies many of the characteristics that were seen as being typical of Athenians, such as pride, action-orientation, courageous, and quick do decision and action. In this respect, the audience of ancient Greece would have identified heavily with Oedipus, although other Greek city state members may have looked upon him scornfully.
Oedipus the King is not really told from any specific characters' point of view. Being a play, one simply reads the story as though they were observing the work being performed on a stage. This never changes throughout the play, and it remains in likewise fashion. Ultimately, Oedipus is the protagonist of the play, although his thoughts are never expressed unless verbally, which presents the play in the Third Person Limited narrative. Reading the story, one becomes fairly familiar with the characters in their roles to Oedipus' life. Aside from this however, there is not a large amount of insight into the characters' backgrounds, although their personalities and beliefs can be generally outlined through their lines in the play. There is however, an explanation of Oedipus' background and how he came to become the ruler of Thebes.
Oedipus is presented as a very well-respected and powerful man. It is known by all of Thebes that he saved them through solving the riddle of the Sphinx, and consequently he is revered highly among the general populace. Creon, who is his wife's brother is presented as being less headstrong than Oedipus, and probably more logical and thought oriented as well. Tiresias is portrayed as being a very wise old man, his blindness is ironic in that he is the most knowledgeable of all the characters, yet he is unable to see. I believe that Sophocles wants the reader to like Oedipus and identify with him, because this makes his downfall all the more terrible. Oedipus also exemplifies many of the characteristics that were seen as being typical of Athenians, such as pride, action-orientation, courageous, and quick do decision and action. In this respect, the audience of ancient Greece would have identified heavily with Oedipus, although other Greek city state members may have looked upon him scornfully.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)