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.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
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.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Wild Duck Journal #1
Prompt: Setting: This includes cultural as well as geographical and historical setting. What effect does the setting have on story, character, theme?
There is a contrast between the setting in Act I and Act II. Act I takes place in the Werle's House. It is described as, "A richly and comfortably furnished study, with bookcases and upholstered furniture...brightly lit by lamps and candelabra." (119). Additionally, there are multiple rooms and the scene opens up with a manservant and a hired waiter. Act II takes place in Hjalmar Ekdal's studio. The studio is described as, "The studio is simply but comfortably furnished and decorated...on the table is a lighted lamp with a shade; by the stove an old armchair. Photographic apparatus and equipment of various sorts are set up here and there in the room. At the left of the double doors stands a bookcase containing a few books..." (137). This change in setting can show the different social classes that these two families are in. The Werle's house is much more furnished and shows the wealth that the Werle family has. On the contrary, Ekdal's studio is less furnished and crowded with stuff. This connects with the story because Old Ekdal had all his fortune torn away from him since the scandal. Therefore, the poor furnished studio shows the effect of the scandal on the family. There is also a lack of food in the Ekdal's household. Act II opens up with Hedvig and Gina speaking about the money strains and how hungry Hedvig is. Whereas, there is a banquet at the Werle's household with excess food.
Furthermore, the setting change connects to the motif of blindness. Since the Ekdal family is living in a much more darker home, there is this sense that they cannot see what is going on. Like the plot of the book, there are many unknown truths that will be soon revealed. For example, there maybe an affair between Gina and Hakon Werle. This is unknown to Hjalmar and thus he is living in the dark.
There is also a connection to the theme of improving one self. Hjalmar is set on restoring his family's name. So the setting in his studio illustrates how low he's starting at and the Werle's House serves as what he wishes to achieve.
There is a contrast between the setting in Act I and Act II. Act I takes place in the Werle's House. It is described as, "A richly and comfortably furnished study, with bookcases and upholstered furniture...brightly lit by lamps and candelabra." (119). Additionally, there are multiple rooms and the scene opens up with a manservant and a hired waiter. Act II takes place in Hjalmar Ekdal's studio. The studio is described as, "The studio is simply but comfortably furnished and decorated...on the table is a lighted lamp with a shade; by the stove an old armchair. Photographic apparatus and equipment of various sorts are set up here and there in the room. At the left of the double doors stands a bookcase containing a few books..." (137). This change in setting can show the different social classes that these two families are in. The Werle's house is much more furnished and shows the wealth that the Werle family has. On the contrary, Ekdal's studio is less furnished and crowded with stuff. This connects with the story because Old Ekdal had all his fortune torn away from him since the scandal. Therefore, the poor furnished studio shows the effect of the scandal on the family. There is also a lack of food in the Ekdal's household. Act II opens up with Hedvig and Gina speaking about the money strains and how hungry Hedvig is. Whereas, there is a banquet at the Werle's household with excess food.
Furthermore, the setting change connects to the motif of blindness. Since the Ekdal family is living in a much more darker home, there is this sense that they cannot see what is going on. Like the plot of the book, there are many unknown truths that will be soon revealed. For example, there maybe an affair between Gina and Hakon Werle. This is unknown to Hjalmar and thus he is living in the dark.
There is also a connection to the theme of improving one self. Hjalmar is set on restoring his family's name. So the setting in his studio illustrates how low he's starting at and the Werle's House serves as what he wishes to achieve.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Oedipus Question #2
Defend Oedipus' choice in blinding himself. Why was blinding himself better than any other outcome?
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Oedipus Journal #4
Prompt: Narrative structure: How has the plot (not the story) been constructed? Are there parts? Is the plot circular? Subplots? How important/effective is the ending? Has everything been revealed by the end or are there unanswered questions? Does this matter? What period of time has been covered? Is time important?
How has the plot been constructed? The plot is constructed mostly through word of mouth. The chorus and the messenger provide a lot of the insight into what is happening in the book. There are no insights into the character's thoughts, we are only presented with what is said out loud.
Are there any parts? No, it is a play that moves from scene to scene but there's no clear stop or end.
Is the plot circular? Yes, the play starts with a clear problem and a clear message from the God: find and kill Laius' killer. By the end of the play, the killer is revealed.
Subplots? Partially. Oedipus' search for his biological parents occurs during the same time as the search for Laius' murderer.
How important/effective is the ending? The ending is very effective. There is a sense of irony in the play. Oedipus first learns that he was the killer of his own father by a blind prophet and now Oedipus is blind. The ending is important because it solves the problems that were originally asked in the beginning of the play.
Has everything been revealed by the end or are there unanswered questions? The main problems were solved, but Oedipus whereabouts are still unknown. It is revealed that he will be exiled but there's not clear place that is says he will go.
Does this matter? No, the main point of the novel was not where Oedipus ends but the fact that he was a great leader that lost all of his power.
What period of time has been covered? There was no clear amount of time covered but it did not feel like a lot of time passed between the beginning and end.
Is time important? No, I do not believe it was.
How has the plot been constructed? The plot is constructed mostly through word of mouth. The chorus and the messenger provide a lot of the insight into what is happening in the book. There are no insights into the character's thoughts, we are only presented with what is said out loud.
Are there any parts? No, it is a play that moves from scene to scene but there's no clear stop or end.
Is the plot circular? Yes, the play starts with a clear problem and a clear message from the God: find and kill Laius' killer. By the end of the play, the killer is revealed.
Subplots? Partially. Oedipus' search for his biological parents occurs during the same time as the search for Laius' murderer.
How important/effective is the ending? The ending is very effective. There is a sense of irony in the play. Oedipus first learns that he was the killer of his own father by a blind prophet and now Oedipus is blind. The ending is important because it solves the problems that were originally asked in the beginning of the play.
Has everything been revealed by the end or are there unanswered questions? The main problems were solved, but Oedipus whereabouts are still unknown. It is revealed that he will be exiled but there's not clear place that is says he will go.
Does this matter? No, the main point of the novel was not where Oedipus ends but the fact that he was a great leader that lost all of his power.
What period of time has been covered? There was no clear amount of time covered but it did not feel like a lot of time passed between the beginning and end.
Is time important? No, I do not believe it was.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)