Blood Wedding Journal #1

“Defiance becomes our duty in the face of injustice.”  Referring to at least two works you have studied, explore the ways in which writers have attempted to persuade us to accept or challenge this view.

                In Sophocles’ Oedipus the King, Sophocles persuades us to challenge the view that “defiance becomes our duty in the face of injustice.  He does this through the entire play and the tragedy of Oedipus.  Oedipus made it his duty to find out who killed Laius, and we all know how that turned out.  With Oedipus throwing a giant fit and stabbing his eyes out, not so good if you ask me.  Had Oedipus left things alone, listened to Jocasta and not made it his duty to find the truth, things would be much better for Oedipus.  Although he would be bedding with his own mother, at least he and others would not know, and he would be able to lead Thebes which is exactly what is needed.  Sophocles makes one think, whether Oedipus should have made it his duty to find out the truth, or just let it go because at the time, he would think he was innocent.

                Now similar to this, Lorca in a sense challenges this view.  However, the Bridegroom and others who are trying to pursue the Bride are going to be making this injustice worse.  There defiance similar to Oedipus’ defiance leads and builds on the tragedy.  It might be a good idea to think before you go chasing after people, blood-thirsty and ready to kill.  Would that not make you a killer?  Would that not be injustice?  Can those people not be allowed to justify themselves and explain their feelings or why they are doing this?  Maybe Lorca and Sophocles are trying to tell us that we as people should think before we act.  That we are too quick to seek revenge, or seek the truth, when sometimes the truth needs to slip away and be undiscovered.  Is this a key flaw in human nature?  That we are always searching for the truth when we would be better off without it?  Is ignorance truly bliss?

Comments

Like Megan, I am having problems with posting comments on blogs.

Anthony Nguyen- (The Wild Duck Journal #3) I like how you brought examples that people can relate to.  I agree with you on how Sophocles and Ibsen cut out the dull bits and make things more dramatic.  Good work.

Jarrad Schulte-(Wild Duck Journal #5) Great insight on how dramatists create a gap between what the audience and what the character(s) know.  You explained things in good detail.  Keep up the good work.

Montana Agnew-(Wild Duck Journal #2)  You always have great analysis and insight on topics.  I agree with you on the plot structure of The Wild Duck, it does feel like it is meant for a stage. Keep it up.

The Wild Duck Journal #3

Letters the characters might have written

                                Dear father,

I am tired of all the trouble you have caused the people around us.  Such as Lieutenant Ekdal take the blame for the incompetent survey, and the illegal logging on state property.  That was morally wrong.  You should have taken responsibility for the problems you created as well as not allowed Ekdal to take the blame.  He does not where is uniform around anymore as he is afraid he will get in trouble because he “committed” a crime when in reality he was only framed.  Also, your affair with Gina while your wife is still alive.  Or even if mother had already passed away, you should have waited longer before doing anything.  That too was morally wrong.   Now Gina is married to Hjalmar and they have a child named Hedvig.  That child, the one that they care so much about, might not even be Hjalmar’s.  In fact, I think Gina believes that it is yours, but she cannot bring herself to tell Hjalmar.  Hedvig is daddy’s little girl, and that would devastate him to find out that she is not truly his.  You need to start thinking before you make you decisions, generally yours seem to tear apart, or ruin a family.  Though you helped Hjalmar with his career, was that just a “courtesy” thing so that you could make up for the things which he does not know.  You ruined mother’s life, and now you are ruining mine, as well as ruined Lieutenant Ekdal’s life, and beginning to ruin Gina, Hjalmar, and Hedvig’s lives.  There is a tension between Gina and Hjalmar that I have seen while I have been staying with them, and I am going to illuminate the dark secrets to Hjalmar.  Stay away from their family, you only do more damage by being around them, if they wish to visit or talk to you, they will do so on their own accord.

Gregers

I am still confused with the whole "wild duck" comparisons,  what is the "wild duck" supposed to symbolize?

On page 166, is Ibsen using foreshadowing when Hjalmar warns Hedvig, "Don't touch the pistol, Hedvig!  One barrel's still loaded, don't forget."?

The Wild Duck Journal #2

“What is drama but life with the dull bits cut out?”

                Both Oedipus the King by Sophocles and The Wild Duck by Ibsen are key examples of being drama but life with the full bits cut out.  There is nothing dull about either one of these plays.  Both use tension between the characters such as in Ibsen when Gregers is talking to his father Werle on page 132 in act 1, it says “Gregers.  Oh, there are reasons.  Listen, tell me—the time when you developed such warmth for your old friend’s son—wasn’t that just when he was planning to marry?

Werle.  How the devil—how, after so many years, do you expect me--?”  As we can see, there is this obvious tension between Gregers and his father Werle.  This conflict between the two is one of the many examples of how The Wild Duck, is an example of “drama but life with the dull bits cut out”.  There is nothing dull about this passage.  Gregers is hinting at an affair that Werle had with one of the servants, that is not something that should be taken lightly.  This tension could potentially lead to a dangerous conflict, adding to this drama.  In Oedpus the King, there are also prime examples of this drama.  Such as when Oedipus is trying to get the prophecy from Teiresias the prophet.  It says

“OEDIPUS
Monster! thy silence would incense a flint.
Will nothing loose thy tongue? Can nothing melt thee,
Or shake thy dogged taciturnity?
TEIRESIAS
Thou blam'st my mood and seest not thine own
Wherewith thou art mated; no, thou taxest me.
OEDIPUS
And who could stay his choler when he heard
How insolently thou dost flout the State?”

Ibsen and Sophocles are very similar in how they cut out dull bits, or add a sort of “flavor” if you will to their plays.  Both add scenes with tension in them to heighten the audience’s senses.  In this passage, Sophocles’ diction and context creates this tension.  With such words as “monster”, “flint”, “loose”, “shake”, and “dogged”.  These are only a few examples of how Sophocles’ diction and context creates this tension, and this is how the statement “What is drama but life with the dull bits cut out?” is applicable in these plays.

On the bottom of page 149, what does Ekdal mean by hunting?  What is he truly hunting for?

On the top of page 155, what does Greger’s mean by wanting to be a really fantastic, clever dog?

The Wild Duck Journal #1

Personal convictions and shared beliefs.

Both Oedipus the King and The Wild Duck touch on the private and the public life.  Both the private and the public life are different things, hence the different descriptions, and this is why they are at odds in the modern world.  The private is just that, to remain private, and only a few select people know, not for everyone to see on Facebook, or in The Wild Duck and Oedipus the King times, to be told to everyone in the area that knows the person.  Some things are meant to be public though.  Such as Oedipus’ helping the city of Thebes while it is in turmoil.  This is seen as a heroic act, as Oedipus is helping a city plagued with disease and crime.  He couldn’t have come at a better time for the city, and is greatly needed.  However the contrast between private and public is also seen.  When Oedipus admits to the Chorus that he has birthed four children from his own mother.  This is an area where the private life clearly should have stayed private.  He has just ruined his children’s lives because now everyone will know what their father has done.  People will say such things as “Oh, your that kid who’s dad impregnated his mother.” 

Similar to this private life in Oedipus the King, there is also mention of things in The Wild Duck that should remain private.  At this point in The Wild Duck, the private life is kept private, where Gregers is talking to his father Werle, “Gregers: I wasn’t.  But---(Dropping his voice.) there were others in the house who were quite interested in her.

Wirle: What do you mean by that? (Storming at him.) You’re not referring to me!

Gregers: (quietly but firmly).  Yes, I’m referring to you” (Ibsen 132)

Gregers lowers his voice, but still keeps the same tone about this affair.  This is important as he is trying to keep this topic private, however I believe he is also using it to point out to his father Wirle, that he still remembers what went on.  Tension is built up between Gregers and Wirle in this passage because of this topic that he built up.  It could be possible foreshadowing for an explosion of conflict and chaos.

                Both Oedipus the King and The Wild Duck touch on the private and public life.  In Oedipus the King, Sophocles uses the conflict between the private and public life to further illuminate Oedipus’ flaws and the chaos that is occurring.  In The Wild Duck, Ibsen uses the tension between Gregers and Wirle to bring to light this private life, and how much it could affect them both in later decisions.

What is Ibsen trying to say, if anything, when Gregers describes his father Wirle's eyes as "They've always been weak"(Ibsen 133).

Are the Bald-Headed Gest, The Fat Guest, The Nearsighted Guest supposed to symolize something?  Are they significant/what role do they play?

Are they replacing the Chorus?

Oedipus Journal #3

Point of View/Characters

The story of Oedipus the king is told from the third person objective point of view.  This point of view does not change throughout the story.  I feel that the narrative voice is pretty reliable.  However because the narrative voice cannot tell us all that the characters think or why they act the way they do it makes the voice less reliable.  This also could be important because it allows everyone to make their own assumptions about the characters, as well as why they do what they do, and allows some people to relate more with certain characters that are more important.  As I have somewhat mentioned, the reader doesn’t get to know the characters too well.  We don’t know their thoughts, and they do not speak their thoughts out loud such as in Shakespeare’s Othello where Iago speaks his thoughts and desires out loud in different scenes and or settings.  Some of the characters such as Oedipus, Tiresias, the messenger, and the shepherd seem like credible characters from the way they use words and speak.  Jocasta and Creon seem more mischevious.  Jocasta seems to have known more then she said she does about the prophecy, and Creon seems like he just desires the crown.  Sophocles presents the characters and their character traits through each character’s use of language.  Generally Oedipus uses long sentences using many words to answer questions, explain what is happening and other things.  This could be to make him seem more knowledgeable and a more capable leader.  Creon  and Jocasta use more short answers then long answers, and this creates a feeling of mischievous actions or scheming.  Sophocles persuades us to like or sympathize with the characters again through their actions and words  As I have explained before, the words and actions that the characters use and do create this attraction to some characters such as the shepherd or repulsion to other characters.  In my opinion Creon is repulsive just because he seems like a scheming backstabbing kind of shifty character.

Is it in human nature to always desire the truth?  If so, is this a flaw in our human nature?

Is Oedipus still a good person even though he unkownly fulfilled the prophecy?

Why does Jocasta want Oedipus to end his quest for the truth?

Is the motif of blindness used to express a specific theme?

Why does Sophocles use a struggle between those with power and those who lack it?

Oedipus Journal #2

Diary Entry 1

Dear Diary,

So basically I took over the crown from Laius; only to find a country tortured by disease and turmoil.  I have no idea what to do exactly, but I will try my best do what is best for the country.  Apparently someone murdered Laius but everyone was too stupid to actually find out who it was.  I heard a prophecy that says I am supposed to spill the blood of my father, and sleep with my mother.  What up with that? What up with that?  I mean come on, who in their right mind would want to sleep with their own mother.  The person who birthed you, and nurtured you as a child.  Why would you want to do that? It is disgusting.  I felt like I should avenge Laius’ death.  So I inquired the great prophet Tiresias.  All that blind fool could basically tell me was that I spilt Laius’ blood.  What a stone blind fool.  How could anyone believe something like that?  Complete nonsense if you ask me.  Also, the man is old, frail, and crazy.  The kind of person that yells to the kids “eyyy you darn kids! Get out of my courtyard!”  I didn’t even know Laius, why would I spill his blood?  And how am I going to be the cause of my downfall?  Normally other people like slaves, armies, rebellions are the cause of someone’s downfall.  Is my life going to be a tragedy because of some unknown flaw that stains my character. 

Okay so basically I am freaking out because there is a high possibility that I killed my father, Laius.  If Laius is my father, that means Jocasta is my mother whom I have been sleeping with.  Great, I really am going to make babies that no one will want to look upon.  How was I supposed to know?  I fell like puking, I specifically ran away from the person who I thought was my “father” so I wouldn’t kill him, only to end up killing my true father on the highways.  Yeah, that about sums it up for you, basically my life is plummeting to its end, and my death is inevitable.

What is the motif of stone used for?

Is Oedipus' desire to know all the reason for his downfall?  If so how?  What is Sophocles trying to say about this?

Oedipus Journal #1

How writers arrest the reader's attention.

Often times writer's create intense moments in their works where figurative language, tension, conflict, and other literary techniques are used.  In my opinion the best literary techniques used to arrest the reader's attention are conflict, figurative language/intense description.  In Oedipus the King, there is a part on page 206 where Oedipus is describing what he has done.  It reads "Now, Jocasta, I will tell you all.  Making my way toward this triple crossroad I began to see a herald, then a brace of colts drawing a wagon, and mounted on the bench... a man, just as you;ve described him, coming face-to-face, and the one in the lead and the old man himself were about to thrust me off the road--brute force-- and the one shouldering me aside, the driver, I strike him in anger!-and the old man, watching me coming up along his wheels-he brings down his prod, two prongs straight at my head! I paid him back with interest! Short work, by god- with one blow of the staff in his right hand I knowck him out of his high seat, roll him out of the wagon, sprawling headlong-I killed them all-every mother's son!"  As you can see, there is an intense moment of description(syntax and diction), and conflict.  These two literary elements draw the reader's attention.  This is an important point in the play, where Oedipus realizes what he has done.  That he has possibly killed his father, the king.
        Similar to this moment of conflict in Oedipus the king,  Albert Camus uses great description in The Stranger when Meursault kills the Arabian,  "the Arab drew his knife and held it up to me in the sun. The light shot off the steel and it was like a long flashing blade cutting at my forehead. At the same instant the sweat in my eyebrows dripped down over my eyelids all at once and covered them with a warm, thick film. My eyes were blinded behind the curtain of tears and salt. All I could feel were the cymbals of sunlight crashing on my forehead and, indistinctly, the dazzling spear flying up from the knife in front of me. The scorching blade slashed at my eyelashes and stabbed at my stinging eyes. That’s when everything began to reel. The sea carried up a thick, fiery breath. It seemed to me as if the sky split open from one end to the other to rain down fire. My whole being tensed and I squeeze my hand around the revolver. The trigger gave."  This excerpt also includes intense use of figurative language as well as conflict.  "The light shot off the steel and it was like a long flashing blade cutting at my forehead", this plays off the readers senses.  The sense of touch as well as the sense of sight.  The use of figurative language to describe the scene creates a certain tone.  One of panic, Meursault panics because of how sharp and bright the sun is as well as the knife the Arabian weilds.  As we can see, both Camus and Sophocles use moments of conflict and great description to entice the reader.  Both also use these elements to portray more elements such as tone, which can lead to a specific theme which is trying to be portrayed.