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.
Showing posts with label Comparison. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Comparison. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Oedipus Journal #1
Type of Journal: Comparison
Prompt: Readers are attracted to moments of intensity in a writer's work. By what means and with what effect have writers in your study offered heightened emotional moments designed to arrest the reader's attention?
During the first few pages of Oedipus, a tense atmosphere is created. The story begins right when the plot unfolds, therefore the reader is pouring over the pages waiting to see what is going to happen. Therefore, for a work to attract readers by moments of intensity a problem must arise that causes the reader to question where the plot is going. To do so the writer needs to create a problem that is shocking and angers the characters. In Oedipus this is seen first by the description of the setting of Thebes:
"A blight on the fresh crops
and the rich pastures, cattle sicken and die,
and the women die in labor, children stillborn,
and the plague, the fiery god of fever hurls down" (pg 160).
A scene is clearly created that shows the devastation of the city. The reader can picture the death and destruction that has been created by this "plague". The effect that this has is that it causes the reader to want to know more. The reader begins to question when the problem started, why, and for how long. Though this attracts a reader's attention, the heightened emotional moments do not begin until towards the end of the required reading that we were suppose to do today. There, Tiresias accuses Oedipus of the murder of Laius, "I say you are the murderer you hunt" (pg 180). In here we see the problem that has occurred; Oedipus is being accused of murder. This is both shocking because Oedipus is depicted as a high, powerful, and respected being yet there is no reason for the reader not to believe in this statement. Therefore, the reader is drawn into this mystery of believing what is described in the beginning of the book or believing this statement that another well respected being has presented. However, the reading ends with another shocking revelation from Tiresias:
"you're blind to the corruption of your life,
to the house you live in, those you live with--
who are your parents? Do you know?" (pg 183).
Again, another accusation is made that causes the reader to question where the plot is going. The reader begins to speculate what is happening, who is involved and as these questions arise the intensity is created that captures the reader's attention. In this passage we see that Tiresias is extending his accusation to Oedipus family. He's drawing in the reader by showing the flaws in a well respected character.
Likewise, this same intensity has been created in other works. Take for example, The Crucible. In this play, the story starts out with a clear problem. Abigail is sick and quickly the plot starts to show that witchcraft maybe the cause of the sickness. So like Oedipus the story jumps right into a problem that causes the reader to question what is going to happen next. Then the reader must question if the problem is likely to happen; is witchcraft a likely reason to her sickness? If not then what would Abigail be hiding? Another similarity is that accusations begin to emerge. Therefore, by the end of the first chapter a problem and mystery is presented that causes the reader to want to continue to read to solve the problem given, or in the case of Oedipus; a riddle.
Summary of the answer to prompt: The mean is that a problem/mystery is created. This problem incorporates something that leaves questions unanswered while causing the reader to question him/herself. This is seen by the accusations that are given in Oedipus and the Crucible. With the problem and the accusations a tense atmosphere is created because the characters in the books are also questioning the outcome of the accusations. The effect is that the reader sympathizes for the characters or begins to come up with his/her own theories of what will happen. Either way, the reader's attention is drawn into the novel and begins to have emotional attachments to the characters or the story.
Prompt: Readers are attracted to moments of intensity in a writer's work. By what means and with what effect have writers in your study offered heightened emotional moments designed to arrest the reader's attention?
During the first few pages of Oedipus, a tense atmosphere is created. The story begins right when the plot unfolds, therefore the reader is pouring over the pages waiting to see what is going to happen. Therefore, for a work to attract readers by moments of intensity a problem must arise that causes the reader to question where the plot is going. To do so the writer needs to create a problem that is shocking and angers the characters. In Oedipus this is seen first by the description of the setting of Thebes:
"A blight on the fresh crops
and the rich pastures, cattle sicken and die,
and the women die in labor, children stillborn,
and the plague, the fiery god of fever hurls down" (pg 160).
A scene is clearly created that shows the devastation of the city. The reader can picture the death and destruction that has been created by this "plague". The effect that this has is that it causes the reader to want to know more. The reader begins to question when the problem started, why, and for how long. Though this attracts a reader's attention, the heightened emotional moments do not begin until towards the end of the required reading that we were suppose to do today. There, Tiresias accuses Oedipus of the murder of Laius, "I say you are the murderer you hunt" (pg 180). In here we see the problem that has occurred; Oedipus is being accused of murder. This is both shocking because Oedipus is depicted as a high, powerful, and respected being yet there is no reason for the reader not to believe in this statement. Therefore, the reader is drawn into this mystery of believing what is described in the beginning of the book or believing this statement that another well respected being has presented. However, the reading ends with another shocking revelation from Tiresias:
"you're blind to the corruption of your life,
to the house you live in, those you live with--
who are your parents? Do you know?" (pg 183).
Again, another accusation is made that causes the reader to question where the plot is going. The reader begins to speculate what is happening, who is involved and as these questions arise the intensity is created that captures the reader's attention. In this passage we see that Tiresias is extending his accusation to Oedipus family. He's drawing in the reader by showing the flaws in a well respected character.
Likewise, this same intensity has been created in other works. Take for example, The Crucible. In this play, the story starts out with a clear problem. Abigail is sick and quickly the plot starts to show that witchcraft maybe the cause of the sickness. So like Oedipus the story jumps right into a problem that causes the reader to question what is going to happen next. Then the reader must question if the problem is likely to happen; is witchcraft a likely reason to her sickness? If not then what would Abigail be hiding? Another similarity is that accusations begin to emerge. Therefore, by the end of the first chapter a problem and mystery is presented that causes the reader to want to continue to read to solve the problem given, or in the case of Oedipus; a riddle.
Summary of the answer to prompt: The mean is that a problem/mystery is created. This problem incorporates something that leaves questions unanswered while causing the reader to question him/herself. This is seen by the accusations that are given in Oedipus and the Crucible. With the problem and the accusations a tense atmosphere is created because the characters in the books are also questioning the outcome of the accusations. The effect is that the reader sympathizes for the characters or begins to come up with his/her own theories of what will happen. Either way, the reader's attention is drawn into the novel and begins to have emotional attachments to the characters or the story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)