Prompt: 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 your answer you should refer to any two or three works you have studied.
In Oedipus and Blood Wedding we see both Oedipus and the Bride attempt to hold their public roles; however, both characters struggle with their own personal beliefs. Oedipus clearly states his public role to the people in Thebes after hearing what needs to be done to save the city of Thebes, "I am the land's avenger by all rights, and Apollo's champion too." (167). In this passage, we see Oedipus take on the responsibility of solving Laius' murder because the people of Thebes look to him as the king and supreme ruler. Creon acknowledges Oedipus' public role when he denies wanting to overtake Oedipus, "But if I wore the crown...there'd be many painful duties to perform, hardly to my taste" (193). By describing Oedipus' public role as "painful" the reader can imagine how highly valued Oedipus is to the city of Thebes. However, though his public role idolizes Oedipus we have to realize that he is not supreme and has his own flaws. Therefore, his individual self is separated from his public role as we see his flaws begin to emerge. When speaking to Tiresias, Oedipus asks, "Parents--who? Wait...who is my father?" (184). From here we see that Oedipus is struggling with his own origins. So what we see as Oedipus' individual self devalues how we judge his public role because as we see the internal struggles Oedipus goes through we start to see that he is not the public figure that the society depicts him as. Similarly, this deception in character is seen in the Bride in Blood Wedding. In Blood Wedding a woman is expected to be quiet in her society. This can be seen as Father describes the bride, "What can I tell you about my daughter? She makes bread at three, while the morning star is still shining. She never talks--soft as wool. She embroiders all kinds of embroidery. And she can cut through a rope with her teeth." (31). Father lists a bunch of expectations that are expected of brides. This is how the public views woman and the role that they should play in society. However, the Bride acts differently than what is expected of her. Therefore, her individual role has no connections to her public one. The bride shows how she is different by saying, "Because I ran away with another man, I ran away! (Anguished) You would have gone, too!" (101). The way the bride acts is very different than what is expected of her. She disobeyed the expectations that were put upon her.
To answer the question, in each play a public role is established that sets the expectations of the character. However, their individual self is very different than what is expected of them. So this idealized image that the public sees slowly degrades as the characters develop. It is very easy to separate the individual and the public role. Furthermore, this motif of their public role vs their individual actions carries onto the image of deception that occurs in the plays. The characters are deceiving each other by presenting themselves in one way and acting in another.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Blood Wedding #2
Prompt: Stylistic techniques (imagery, figurative language, sensory detail)
I'm not sure if this counts as a "stylistic technique" but I would like to focus on the image of water in Blood Wedding. We first see the image of water in Act I when the Neighbor speaks to Mother, "The children who take water out to the reapers are black from the sun" (16). Reapers are defined as a person who reaps (to cut, gather, or take). Therefore, to take something to a reaper means to give up and lose something. From this it is said that the children will become "black from the sun." This has a negative meaning because to turn black from the sun could indicate that one has been spending too much time under the heat. Additionally, this can be connected to being burned because when something is burned only black ashes remain. So from this sentence we can see a warning that water is a dangerous substance that if given away can have negative impacts. It can also show a sacrifice because the children are willingly giving these things up.
This idea is continued into the the next scene when the Mother-In-Law and Wife are reciting the lullaby. In it it says, "The horse does not want water" (17). This shows that even though water is essential for us to survive, to refuse it means that there maybe negative connotations to the word. Further on into the lullaby it says, "The horse begins to drink[...]The horse begins to cry" (27). Like the neighbor quote, when water is consumed negative outcomes appear. In this quote when the horse begins to drink, it also begins to cry or show sorrow for its action. Another way to look at it is that the horse does not have control over its action. It is instinct to thirst and drink even if one desires not to. Therefore, water can be a symbol of a renewed life because it is essential to drink to survive.
In the previous two examples we have seen water in a sort of idolized positions because it is given power to bring negative impacts and control others. Towards the end of the second act Mother states after finding the Bride gone, "Honorable women throw themselves into the water, the decent ones" (77). We once again see this idea of water being a idolized, special object. In it it shows that only "honorable women" should have the ability to sacrifice themselves into the water. This is significant because we can connect this back to the horse example and see that both show how water is a symbol of something that has larger control and power over others.
Though I haven't read enough of the play to really understand what the symbol of water represents, I would like to believe that the image is represented in a way to show that it stands for something that has more control over a situation than the most "honorable" of people. And that it will be significant because this "water" can determine the outcome of a situation, whether negative or positive.
I'm not sure if this counts as a "stylistic technique" but I would like to focus on the image of water in Blood Wedding. We first see the image of water in Act I when the Neighbor speaks to Mother, "The children who take water out to the reapers are black from the sun" (16). Reapers are defined as a person who reaps (to cut, gather, or take). Therefore, to take something to a reaper means to give up and lose something. From this it is said that the children will become "black from the sun." This has a negative meaning because to turn black from the sun could indicate that one has been spending too much time under the heat. Additionally, this can be connected to being burned because when something is burned only black ashes remain. So from this sentence we can see a warning that water is a dangerous substance that if given away can have negative impacts. It can also show a sacrifice because the children are willingly giving these things up.
This idea is continued into the the next scene when the Mother-In-Law and Wife are reciting the lullaby. In it it says, "The horse does not want water" (17). This shows that even though water is essential for us to survive, to refuse it means that there maybe negative connotations to the word. Further on into the lullaby it says, "The horse begins to drink[...]The horse begins to cry" (27). Like the neighbor quote, when water is consumed negative outcomes appear. In this quote when the horse begins to drink, it also begins to cry or show sorrow for its action. Another way to look at it is that the horse does not have control over its action. It is instinct to thirst and drink even if one desires not to. Therefore, water can be a symbol of a renewed life because it is essential to drink to survive.
In the previous two examples we have seen water in a sort of idolized positions because it is given power to bring negative impacts and control others. Towards the end of the second act Mother states after finding the Bride gone, "Honorable women throw themselves into the water, the decent ones" (77). We once again see this idea of water being a idolized, special object. In it it shows that only "honorable women" should have the ability to sacrifice themselves into the water. This is significant because we can connect this back to the horse example and see that both show how water is a symbol of something that has larger control and power over others.
Though I haven't read enough of the play to really understand what the symbol of water represents, I would like to believe that the image is represented in a way to show that it stands for something that has more control over a situation than the most "honorable" of people. And that it will be significant because this "water" can determine the outcome of a situation, whether negative or positive.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Blood Wedding #1
Prompt: To what extent would you agree that plot should be valued more highly than style in the work. In your answer you should refer to two or three works you have studied.
I would argue to say that plot and style are connected. It is through the author's style of writing that allows the reader to understand the plot of what is going on in the play. In Blood Wedding the style of writing is very concise. Whereas, Wild Duck focuses more on descriptions to describe the differences in characters and to further the plot. In Blood Wedding the dialogue for each character is very short and by doing this the author makes it clear the feelings that the character has to what is happening. An example is when Mother speaks to Neighbor about Wife's past:
MOTHER: We all like to know more about anything that can hurt us. Who was he?
NEIGHBOR: Leonardo.
MOTHER: Leonardo who?
NEIGHBOR: Leonardo Felix.
MOTHER: (Getting up) Felix!
Though very few words were used in this passage, Mother's dislike for the Felix family can be clearly shown by the fact that she got up. From this we can understand that the Felix family will be involved in the plot and will most likely have some impact throughout the book. Additionally, because the style of writing is so concise, the reader must focus on the extra stage directions to understand the feelings behind the words stated. Therefore, through this style of writing the reader spends more time understanding the characters and the plot that is being drawn out.
Wild Duck also relies on stage direction to indicate the change in plot; however, the book focuses more on descriptions rather than being to the point. In the beginning of each act there is a paragraph long description of each scene. Through this we can see the difference in characters and how the Ekdal family has fallen since the scandal. Additionally, the dialogue is not very straightforward. This causes the reader to deeply think about what is happening and thus this type of style furthers the reader's understanding of the plot. An example of this is Hjalmar's description to how he will regain the family's name, "I will carry it out, I tell you. There will come a day when--And that's why it's good we got the room rented out, for now I'm more independently fixed. Any man must be that, who's got a mission in life. Poor old white-haired Father--lean on your Hjalmar." (156). Though Ibsen could have easily stated the idea that Hjalmar believes he can regain his family's name in a few words, he instead decides to use more abstract sentences to allow the reader to interpret Hjalmar's intentions. Ibsen mentions renting out a room and Hjalmar's father just to illustrate that Hjalmar wants to be the one that rises his family out of their poor condition.
In both plays the plot of the story is captured through two different styles of writing. Regardless of whether it is concise like Blood Wedding or more descriptive like Wild Duck the style of writing helps further the plot of the story. You cannot describe a story without some type of style to the writing nor can you write a story with a style but with no plot.
I would argue to say that plot and style are connected. It is through the author's style of writing that allows the reader to understand the plot of what is going on in the play. In Blood Wedding the style of writing is very concise. Whereas, Wild Duck focuses more on descriptions to describe the differences in characters and to further the plot. In Blood Wedding the dialogue for each character is very short and by doing this the author makes it clear the feelings that the character has to what is happening. An example is when Mother speaks to Neighbor about Wife's past:
MOTHER: We all like to know more about anything that can hurt us. Who was he?
NEIGHBOR: Leonardo.
MOTHER: Leonardo who?
NEIGHBOR: Leonardo Felix.
MOTHER: (Getting up) Felix!
Though very few words were used in this passage, Mother's dislike for the Felix family can be clearly shown by the fact that she got up. From this we can understand that the Felix family will be involved in the plot and will most likely have some impact throughout the book. Additionally, because the style of writing is so concise, the reader must focus on the extra stage directions to understand the feelings behind the words stated. Therefore, through this style of writing the reader spends more time understanding the characters and the plot that is being drawn out.
Wild Duck also relies on stage direction to indicate the change in plot; however, the book focuses more on descriptions rather than being to the point. In the beginning of each act there is a paragraph long description of each scene. Through this we can see the difference in characters and how the Ekdal family has fallen since the scandal. Additionally, the dialogue is not very straightforward. This causes the reader to deeply think about what is happening and thus this type of style furthers the reader's understanding of the plot. An example of this is Hjalmar's description to how he will regain the family's name, "I will carry it out, I tell you. There will come a day when--And that's why it's good we got the room rented out, for now I'm more independently fixed. Any man must be that, who's got a mission in life. Poor old white-haired Father--lean on your Hjalmar." (156). Though Ibsen could have easily stated the idea that Hjalmar believes he can regain his family's name in a few words, he instead decides to use more abstract sentences to allow the reader to interpret Hjalmar's intentions. Ibsen mentions renting out a room and Hjalmar's father just to illustrate that Hjalmar wants to be the one that rises his family out of their poor condition.
In both plays the plot of the story is captured through two different styles of writing. Regardless of whether it is concise like Blood Wedding or more descriptive like Wild Duck the style of writing helps further the plot of the story. You cannot describe a story without some type of style to the writing nor can you write a story with a style but with no plot.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Tragedy Topic Tracking
What I've been tracking: The contrast between inner and outer and how they are used throughout the book.
There were not many occasions of encountering this motif, so I do not have very much to say. In Oedipus I saw the words "inside" used 3 times. First by Tiresias, "The truth with all its power lives inside me." (405). Second by Oedipus, "what envy lurks inside you!" (435). Third by the chorus, "But the heart inside me sickens, dies as the land dies" (739). And once there was a mention by Oedipus about appearance under the skin, "what a handsome prince you raised--under the skin, what sickness to the core" (1528-1529). In these quotes there seems to be a division between a person's feelings expressed on their outside and inside self. This can be seen through the first 3 quotes. The first one associates "truth" with the inside, the second associates "envy" and the third uses "heart" and "sickens". So what can be seen is that the inside self holds more power than the outside. Tiresias has the ability to tell the truth but he rather hold it within him than to let the power and sadness spread outwards. Similarly, Oedipus accuses Tiresias of holding envy within him to show that he has the intentions of hurting others but does not openly show it. And the chorus references their inside as being sick to show the pain and suffering they receive from watching their land die out.
The Wild Duck uses this motif a few times as well. The first can be seen in the first act when Gregers and Hjalmar speak to each other:
GREGERS: Yes, you do, the outer man hasn't suffered.
HJALMAR: (in a gloomier tone). Ah, but the inner man! Believe me, he has a different look. You know, of course, what misery we've been through, I and my family, since the last time the two of us met. (122).
This scene adds to the themes of deceit and disguise that is used in the book. What we see is that Hjalmar presents himself as the same man that Gregers once remembered as the young vibrant man. However, Hjalmar openly admits that this is a disguise as he says "but the inner man[...]he has a different look". This also adds to Hjalmar's character by showing how he is trying to display himself as better than what he is.
The inner self can also show a cover up of different qualities. Gregers speaks of Gina by saying, "But she, too, surely, in the depths of her being, has something authentic, something sincere" (186). So we see this division between an inner personality and an outer one. In this quote we see Gregers accuse Gina of living a fake lifestyle filled with lies but he says that she still has "something authentic" that can be found "in the depths of her being". This is significant because it shows that there is this idea that every person has a different personality within them and what they portray themselves. This idea is present throughout the book as we see Gregers accuse more people of living an unfaithful life.
Relling also uses this motif of inner and outer. He states to Gregers towards the end of the play, "That's an inside look at him [Hjalmar], this idol you're groveling in front of. [...] you always have to have something to admire that's outside of yourself" (202). By saying this Relling is pointing out the flaws in Gregers by saying that he worships people "outside" of himself and that there is a different person "inside" of Hjalmar. Through this we see that Gregers creates a disguise of other people by seeing them as higher than what they are. There is also the division between a person is seen as and what their "inside" self is like. Through this we see that how one portrays oneself or is perceived is different than the amount they can tolerate inside of themselves.
Through the symbols of inside and outside in the two plays we see that there is a division between an inside personality and an outer one. Therefore, throughout these plays we see how there is a difference between how one portrays him/herself and how one is perceived by themselves. This is important because throughout the two plays there is this sense that there is deceit between the characters and lies drive the conflicts that come about.
There were not many occasions of encountering this motif, so I do not have very much to say. In Oedipus I saw the words "inside" used 3 times. First by Tiresias, "The truth with all its power lives inside me." (405). Second by Oedipus, "what envy lurks inside you!" (435). Third by the chorus, "But the heart inside me sickens, dies as the land dies" (739). And once there was a mention by Oedipus about appearance under the skin, "what a handsome prince you raised--under the skin, what sickness to the core" (1528-1529). In these quotes there seems to be a division between a person's feelings expressed on their outside and inside self. This can be seen through the first 3 quotes. The first one associates "truth" with the inside, the second associates "envy" and the third uses "heart" and "sickens". So what can be seen is that the inside self holds more power than the outside. Tiresias has the ability to tell the truth but he rather hold it within him than to let the power and sadness spread outwards. Similarly, Oedipus accuses Tiresias of holding envy within him to show that he has the intentions of hurting others but does not openly show it. And the chorus references their inside as being sick to show the pain and suffering they receive from watching their land die out.
The Wild Duck uses this motif a few times as well. The first can be seen in the first act when Gregers and Hjalmar speak to each other:
GREGERS: Yes, you do, the outer man hasn't suffered.
HJALMAR: (in a gloomier tone). Ah, but the inner man! Believe me, he has a different look. You know, of course, what misery we've been through, I and my family, since the last time the two of us met. (122).
This scene adds to the themes of deceit and disguise that is used in the book. What we see is that Hjalmar presents himself as the same man that Gregers once remembered as the young vibrant man. However, Hjalmar openly admits that this is a disguise as he says "but the inner man[...]he has a different look". This also adds to Hjalmar's character by showing how he is trying to display himself as better than what he is.
The inner self can also show a cover up of different qualities. Gregers speaks of Gina by saying, "But she, too, surely, in the depths of her being, has something authentic, something sincere" (186). So we see this division between an inner personality and an outer one. In this quote we see Gregers accuse Gina of living a fake lifestyle filled with lies but he says that she still has "something authentic" that can be found "in the depths of her being". This is significant because it shows that there is this idea that every person has a different personality within them and what they portray themselves. This idea is present throughout the book as we see Gregers accuse more people of living an unfaithful life.
Relling also uses this motif of inner and outer. He states to Gregers towards the end of the play, "That's an inside look at him [Hjalmar], this idol you're groveling in front of. [...] you always have to have something to admire that's outside of yourself" (202). By saying this Relling is pointing out the flaws in Gregers by saying that he worships people "outside" of himself and that there is a different person "inside" of Hjalmar. Through this we see that Gregers creates a disguise of other people by seeing them as higher than what they are. There is also the division between a person is seen as and what their "inside" self is like. Through this we see that how one portrays oneself or is perceived is different than the amount they can tolerate inside of themselves.
Through the symbols of inside and outside in the two plays we see that there is a division between an inside personality and an outer one. Therefore, throughout these plays we see how there is a difference between how one portrays him/herself and how one is perceived by themselves. This is important because throughout the two plays there is this sense that there is deceit between the characters and lies drive the conflicts that come about.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Wild Duck Journal #4
Prompt: Compare how writers in your study have explored the themes of judgment and punishment, or disguise and deceit, or love and friendship, and with what effect.
In Oedipus and Wild Duck they both incorporate the theme of disguise and deceit in their plays. Through disguise and deceit in Oedipus we see that the truth is not always the wanted option. In the beginning of the play Tiresias tells Oedipus the truth, "You're blind to the corruption of your life, to the house you live in, those you live with--who are your parents?" (183). Tiresias displays the deceit that Oedipus is living in by questioning his past and saying "who are your parents." He also uses the word "blind" to show that Oedipus is not aware of the deceit he is living in. Through this quote Tiresias reveals the unwanted truth that Oedipus does not want to hear. This quote also reveals the stubbornness of Oedipus. After Tiresias speaks Oedipus responds by saying, "Get out--faster, back where you came from--vanish!" (183). By using strong words such as "get out" and "vanish", Oedipus shows his inability to reason with Tiresias. Instead of finding out where this accusation is coming from Oedipus jumps to the conclusion that Tiresias is lying. Through this we see that the play uses deceit and disguise to show a person's inability to accept the truth but instead to continue living in their disguise.
On the contrary, in Wild Duck, Hjalmar accepts the truth that Gregers gives and shows that he is more willing to accept that his life has been covered by disguise and deceit. Additionally, Hjalmar confronts the deceit rather than trying to fight against it. This can be seen when he confronts Gina, "Is it true--can it possibly be that--that there was some kind of involvement between you and Mr. Werle while you were in service there?" (182). By speaking to Gina, Hjalmar shows a quality that is not shown in Oedipus. It is the quality to listen and accept what others say instead of trying to create a different answer to his problems. Therefore, the theme that can be seen in Wild Duck is that one should question instead of living in a deceitful life. Gregers supports this statement by stating, "And I've had a chance to see at close range what such a marriage [one filled with deceit] can destroy in two people" (186). Through this quote, we see that Gregers believes that living in deceit "can destroy" a marriage and thus living in a truthful marriage is the only way to go. Therefore, this is his motivation to tell Hjalmar that Gina has not always been faithful to Hjalmar.
The effect that deceit and disguise is used in both plays is that it creates a conflict within the characters. It also allows the reader to question whether or not they should believe in the statements that are being thrown around. In Oediups, we see through disguise and deceit the amount of pride in Oedipus and his inability to face the truth. On the other hand, Wild Duck shows that one should question the statements are being made. Regardless, both plays, in the end, realize the truth and negative consequences arise from this.
In Oedipus and Wild Duck they both incorporate the theme of disguise and deceit in their plays. Through disguise and deceit in Oedipus we see that the truth is not always the wanted option. In the beginning of the play Tiresias tells Oedipus the truth, "You're blind to the corruption of your life, to the house you live in, those you live with--who are your parents?" (183). Tiresias displays the deceit that Oedipus is living in by questioning his past and saying "who are your parents." He also uses the word "blind" to show that Oedipus is not aware of the deceit he is living in. Through this quote Tiresias reveals the unwanted truth that Oedipus does not want to hear. This quote also reveals the stubbornness of Oedipus. After Tiresias speaks Oedipus responds by saying, "Get out--faster, back where you came from--vanish!" (183). By using strong words such as "get out" and "vanish", Oedipus shows his inability to reason with Tiresias. Instead of finding out where this accusation is coming from Oedipus jumps to the conclusion that Tiresias is lying. Through this we see that the play uses deceit and disguise to show a person's inability to accept the truth but instead to continue living in their disguise.
On the contrary, in Wild Duck, Hjalmar accepts the truth that Gregers gives and shows that he is more willing to accept that his life has been covered by disguise and deceit. Additionally, Hjalmar confronts the deceit rather than trying to fight against it. This can be seen when he confronts Gina, "Is it true--can it possibly be that--that there was some kind of involvement between you and Mr. Werle while you were in service there?" (182). By speaking to Gina, Hjalmar shows a quality that is not shown in Oedipus. It is the quality to listen and accept what others say instead of trying to create a different answer to his problems. Therefore, the theme that can be seen in Wild Duck is that one should question instead of living in a deceitful life. Gregers supports this statement by stating, "And I've had a chance to see at close range what such a marriage [one filled with deceit] can destroy in two people" (186). Through this quote, we see that Gregers believes that living in deceit "can destroy" a marriage and thus living in a truthful marriage is the only way to go. Therefore, this is his motivation to tell Hjalmar that Gina has not always been faithful to Hjalmar.
The effect that deceit and disguise is used in both plays is that it creates a conflict within the characters. It also allows the reader to question whether or not they should believe in the statements that are being thrown around. In Oediups, we see through disguise and deceit the amount of pride in Oedipus and his inability to face the truth. On the other hand, Wild Duck shows that one should question the statements are being made. Regardless, both plays, in the end, realize the truth and negative consequences arise from this.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Wild Duck Journal #3
Prompt: Reactions to specific situations by characters
Point of view: Hjalmar after the walk with Gregers
Can you imagine losing everything you have ever known? My whole life is a lie. Gregers has shown that all my fortunes; the roof above my head, the food I eat, have come from that Old Werle. What more can Gina have hid from me? How could she be so unfaithful. I feel heartbroken. I thought we had the strongest of marriages and now I find out that it is all a lie. I do not know if I should be thankful to finally know the truth or angered by the fact that I have been living a lie for the past 15 years. I am more than angered. I am furious and now I have a large debt hanging above my head. From this point on I have to repay the old man. I no longer have meaning in my life; I must do what is right and cut my ties from him. To further my anger, I now have to ponder if my wife is even my wife. She could still very much be with the Old Werle at this very moment. It is as if I no longer have a home. It is not my home; it is the Old Werle’s. However, no matter how angered and upset I am, I must think of Hedvig. Is she still my daughter? Regardless, this walk has shown me that she is the only truthful person that I know. Her and I are one. Everyone else is just a lie in my eyes. I no longer know what is truth. All I know is that I must work and show that I am capable of taking care of myself. I will filter this anger into my work. I will work feverishly and pay off every penny and never see that Old Werle ever again. This is the life that I am forced to live from now on. I will be in control of everything, this is the only way for me to know what is the truth. As for Gina, I do not know if I can even look at her again. How could she do this to me?
Point of view: Hjalmar after the walk with Gregers
Can you imagine losing everything you have ever known? My whole life is a lie. Gregers has shown that all my fortunes; the roof above my head, the food I eat, have come from that Old Werle. What more can Gina have hid from me? How could she be so unfaithful. I feel heartbroken. I thought we had the strongest of marriages and now I find out that it is all a lie. I do not know if I should be thankful to finally know the truth or angered by the fact that I have been living a lie for the past 15 years. I am more than angered. I am furious and now I have a large debt hanging above my head. From this point on I have to repay the old man. I no longer have meaning in my life; I must do what is right and cut my ties from him. To further my anger, I now have to ponder if my wife is even my wife. She could still very much be with the Old Werle at this very moment. It is as if I no longer have a home. It is not my home; it is the Old Werle’s. However, no matter how angered and upset I am, I must think of Hedvig. Is she still my daughter? Regardless, this walk has shown me that she is the only truthful person that I know. Her and I are one. Everyone else is just a lie in my eyes. I no longer know what is truth. All I know is that I must work and show that I am capable of taking care of myself. I will filter this anger into my work. I will work feverishly and pay off every penny and never see that Old Werle ever again. This is the life that I am forced to live from now on. I will be in control of everything, this is the only way for me to know what is the truth. As for Gina, I do not know if I can even look at her again. How could she do this to me?
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Wild Duck Journal #2
Prompt: "Visual action can be as important on the stage as speech." How far do you agree with this claim? In your answer you should refer to two or three plays you have studied.
Visual action is more prominent in the Wild Duck than it is in the play Oedipus. During the time of Oedipus sets were not created. There was only one backdrop and a few furnishings. To further the plot in Oedipus, the chorus was used to foreshadow the coming events. Therefore, Oedipus focused more on speech rather than Visual action. Additionally, the suicide of Jocasta and Oedipus' removing his eyes were not seen. These acts were known through the Messenger who gave a monologue explaining the events that had taken place. Also, there were few stage directions or actions that the characters were to do. However, the few directions that are given do enhance our understanding and are important to the stage. For example, on page 221 when the messenger states that he was the servant of Laius the stage direction states, "Jocasta turns sharply." These simple words give us a clue as to when Jocasta realized that the prophecy is true and that Oedipus is her son. So though visual action is not used heavily in Oedipus it is as important as speech.
On the contrary, the Wild Duck focuses a lot more on visual action. There are multiple stage directions that help the audience understand the characters. An example is the difference in stage between the Werle family and the Ekdal's. Also, there are more emotions being shown in the play that require visual action to allow the audience to know what is going on. One example of this is when Hedvig receives the menu as a gift from her father. In the scene it shows that she was "swallowing her tears." These actions can only be shown through acting rather than a speech.
Therefore, I believe visual action is sometimes more important than speech. Through visual action we can see the emotions that the characters are trying to express and can help us further understand the plot of the book.
Visual action is more prominent in the Wild Duck than it is in the play Oedipus. During the time of Oedipus sets were not created. There was only one backdrop and a few furnishings. To further the plot in Oedipus, the chorus was used to foreshadow the coming events. Therefore, Oedipus focused more on speech rather than Visual action. Additionally, the suicide of Jocasta and Oedipus' removing his eyes were not seen. These acts were known through the Messenger who gave a monologue explaining the events that had taken place. Also, there were few stage directions or actions that the characters were to do. However, the few directions that are given do enhance our understanding and are important to the stage. For example, on page 221 when the messenger states that he was the servant of Laius the stage direction states, "Jocasta turns sharply." These simple words give us a clue as to when Jocasta realized that the prophecy is true and that Oedipus is her son. So though visual action is not used heavily in Oedipus it is as important as speech.
On the contrary, the Wild Duck focuses a lot more on visual action. There are multiple stage directions that help the audience understand the characters. An example is the difference in stage between the Werle family and the Ekdal's. Also, there are more emotions being shown in the play that require visual action to allow the audience to know what is going on. One example of this is when Hedvig receives the menu as a gift from her father. In the scene it shows that she was "swallowing her tears." These actions can only be shown through acting rather than a speech.
Therefore, I believe visual action is sometimes more important than speech. Through visual action we can see the emotions that the characters are trying to express and can help us further understand the plot of the book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)