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 you answer you should refer to any two or three works you have studied.
My own ability to create separation between the individual and their public role actually varies between the plays way more than I thought it would. Specifically, I find it much easier to create this distinction in The Wild Duck than in Blood Wedding. In The Wild Duck the setting is much more domestic and there is little time spent where the characters actually perform their stated roles. There are a few instances, such as Hjalmar retouching the photographs, but for the most part there is little mention of individual's occupations. The characters come to be associated their ideas and traits as a whole rather than what they actually do. A good example is the character of Relling, who we never see doing any doctoring except when he declares Hevig to be dead. Instead of being confined to his role as a doctor Relling becomes defined by his attitudes and the opinions he shares with others. By not portraying his occupation as a major facet of his character Ibsen allows Relling to break away from the usual connotations of a doctor (nurturing, protective, kind, etc.) and fleshed him out as a character with a unique worldview.
I find that Blood Wedding is the exact opposite in this regard, it is much harder to separate individuals from what we see to be as their public role. I think the major factor contributing to this effect is Lorca's use of titles as opposed to names. The only named character in the play is Leonardo and it really feels like he is the only person with very many unique traits or opinions. By using the titles Lorca purposely evokes the connotations for each character and plays off of them. In the case of the Bride, Lorca first plays straight most of the connotations of an actual bride; the Bride is soft-spoken and demure when speaking to the Bridegroom and his mother, giving a sense of purity usually associated with weddings and brides. This changes when the Bride and her Maid are alone, the Bride's language transforms and takes on a much harsher tone. This tone clashes with her previous demeanor and the connotations the Lorca just played off of are now being averted. Although this contrast creates a lot of characterization for the Bride the image that is created is a jarring one. The image of a bride interferes with our overall perception of how she should behave, altering our view on her and her actions
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Tragedy Unit- Comments
In response to Jarrad's Journal 5 (Wild Duck)
I agree Jarrad. I would also like to point out the fact that, at least in Oedipus, the audience already has knowledge of how the story will play out. This provides a greater focus on Sophocles as a playwright. Otherwise good stuff.
In response to Travis' Journal 6 (Wild Duck)
I agree that often an author can manipulate the mundane to great effect but I also believe that every event included plays a highly significant role. You mentioned conversation as an example of the mundane but when in a tragedy has a conversation between two characters revealed absolutely nothing? You never see anybody just shooting the breeze and awkwardly talking about the weather, instead each conversation serves to foreshadow, characterize or advance the plot. Even though talking might not be action-packed, the exchanges we see in tragedies are a far cry from a conversation you might have with a friend.
In response to Hannah Taylor's Journal 6 (Wild Duck)
I would disagree that the plot of Oedipus the King was unimportant. Although his character traits are important, his actions (the premise of the plot) are really what defines him. His life, from birth when he was thrown out to his own punishment of blindness can be traced back to the driving force of the plot (the gods, fate, etc.) And ultimately, if you were to ask someone who Oedipus was they would immediately begin to reference his achievements, failures, etc, rather than his personality.
I agree Jarrad. I would also like to point out the fact that, at least in Oedipus, the audience already has knowledge of how the story will play out. This provides a greater focus on Sophocles as a playwright. Otherwise good stuff.
In response to Travis' Journal 6 (Wild Duck)
I agree that often an author can manipulate the mundane to great effect but I also believe that every event included plays a highly significant role. You mentioned conversation as an example of the mundane but when in a tragedy has a conversation between two characters revealed absolutely nothing? You never see anybody just shooting the breeze and awkwardly talking about the weather, instead each conversation serves to foreshadow, characterize or advance the plot. Even though talking might not be action-packed, the exchanges we see in tragedies are a far cry from a conversation you might have with a friend.
In response to Hannah Taylor's Journal 6 (Wild Duck)
I would disagree that the plot of Oedipus the King was unimportant. Although his character traits are important, his actions (the premise of the plot) are really what defines him. His life, from birth when he was thrown out to his own punishment of blindness can be traced back to the driving force of the plot (the gods, fate, etc.) And ultimately, if you were to ask someone who Oedipus was they would immediately begin to reference his achievements, failures, etc, rather than his personality.
Monday, May 23, 2011
The Wild Duck - Journal 3
Point of View/Characters: From whose point of view is the story told? Does this change? How reliable is the narrative voice? How well does the reader get to know the characters? How credible are they? How are they presented? How does the writer persuade us to like/sympathize with some characters and dislike others?
The Wild Duck does not have a true narrator or point of view from which the story is told. Instead the audience is allowed to observe the scenes in a more naturalistic way. This is evidenced in the fact that there are no characters that appear continuously throughout the play, instead the focus shifts between different moments and individuals that serve to give the audience a greater understanding of all of the characters (as opposed to Oedipus the King, where the titular character is the focus of the plot and provides the point of reference for the story). One thing in particular I find interesting about this shifting of focus away from an individual is how it really brings to light the characteristics of every character. The audience is never given a traditional protagonist to latch onto throughout the play and instead must connect with multiple characters of varying viewpoints. The only weakness to this is that it can be hard to judge the different characters (along with their views/philosophies) all at once.
Ibsen definitely attempts to influence the audience in how they see and connect with various characters. The best example of this is Werle, he only appears very little and his only real actions are his arguments with Gregers. At first it would be easy to write him off as malicious or cold-hearted, but he is obviously more complex than that. Our perceptions of him are tainted by Gregers arguments against him, that he(Werle) is to blame for the downfall of the Ekdal family and only serves his own self interests. But looking beyond just his interactions with Gregers it can be seen that Werle could have multiple character interpretations. Without the character of Gregers to insinuate his (possible) ulterior motives, both the audience and Hjalmar could take various actions as hints of kindness. For example, Werle's gift to the elder Ekdal could be seen as compassion for an old friend. Another interesting point to look at when considering Werle is his relationship with Mrs. Sorbe, there is obviously a caring connection between the two and Mrs. Sorbe comments on the matter supports this. Ironically, Werle, who Gregers hates, is the closest one to having Greger's "true" marriage, suggesting that in actuality Werle is a much better person than Gregers makes him out to be.
The Wild Duck does not have a true narrator or point of view from which the story is told. Instead the audience is allowed to observe the scenes in a more naturalistic way. This is evidenced in the fact that there are no characters that appear continuously throughout the play, instead the focus shifts between different moments and individuals that serve to give the audience a greater understanding of all of the characters (as opposed to Oedipus the King, where the titular character is the focus of the plot and provides the point of reference for the story). One thing in particular I find interesting about this shifting of focus away from an individual is how it really brings to light the characteristics of every character. The audience is never given a traditional protagonist to latch onto throughout the play and instead must connect with multiple characters of varying viewpoints. The only weakness to this is that it can be hard to judge the different characters (along with their views/philosophies) all at once.
Ibsen definitely attempts to influence the audience in how they see and connect with various characters. The best example of this is Werle, he only appears very little and his only real actions are his arguments with Gregers. At first it would be easy to write him off as malicious or cold-hearted, but he is obviously more complex than that. Our perceptions of him are tainted by Gregers arguments against him, that he(Werle) is to blame for the downfall of the Ekdal family and only serves his own self interests. But looking beyond just his interactions with Gregers it can be seen that Werle could have multiple character interpretations. Without the character of Gregers to insinuate his (possible) ulterior motives, both the audience and Hjalmar could take various actions as hints of kindness. For example, Werle's gift to the elder Ekdal could be seen as compassion for an old friend. Another interesting point to look at when considering Werle is his relationship with Mrs. Sorbe, there is obviously a caring connection between the two and Mrs. Sorbe comments on the matter supports this. Ironically, Werle, who Gregers hates, is the closest one to having Greger's "true" marriage, suggesting that in actuality Werle is a much better person than Gregers makes him out to be.
The Wild Duck - Journal 2
“What is drama but life with the dull bits cut out?” To what extent do you find this statement applicable in at least two plays you have studied?
I would tend to agree with the above statement. I find that although dramatic works may not be action-packed all of the time, every action and conversation propel the plot forward or in some way serve to build upon or influence an individuals views and ideals. Take, for example, The Wild Duck. It would be hard to claim that the plot within the play is filled with a large deal of action and excitement, on first inspection it would be quite easy to pass of the play as uninteresting, or "dull". But looking closer to the conversations and interplay between characters you can see that this is fact a dynamic and (if not exciting) important point within the lives of these individuals. The introductory act of the play serves to confirm this view; Gregers, one of the main characters, returns to his father's home after a long time away. Simply the non-ordinary occurrence of his homecoming propels the events of the play away from the dullness of everyday life. Gregers finds and creates conflict between both himself and his father as well in the Edkal household. Each conversation, although maybe not actively engaging to us, is a continual revelation of hidden truths and individual views that can and do have a profound impact on how they view the world and each other. It would be hardly apt to call what is revealed to Hjalmar dull when compared to what we can assume of the rest of his life is like.
The dramatic elements of Oedipus The King are more evident at first glance. Rather than deal with the day to day events preceding the crisis that Oedipus faces, the play begins with the citizenry of Thebes beseeching Oedipus for assistance. The plot of the play then takes over and Oedipus is absorbed in finding out the truth of Laius' murder and Oedipus' own birth. Again, the play contains more dialogue than actual action but we can easily see the significance of the conversations that take place, each serves to reveal another clue to Oedipus or set up his eventual self punishment. At no point in either of the plays is there any need for frivolous actions or conversations, this is true of both theater and any other medium. The fact that we can find meaning any significance in every action and spoken word illuminates that life with these dramas is never dull, the authors present an engaging world for an audience in order to more clearly and effectively portray their own thoughts.
I would tend to agree with the above statement. I find that although dramatic works may not be action-packed all of the time, every action and conversation propel the plot forward or in some way serve to build upon or influence an individuals views and ideals. Take, for example, The Wild Duck. It would be hard to claim that the plot within the play is filled with a large deal of action and excitement, on first inspection it would be quite easy to pass of the play as uninteresting, or "dull". But looking closer to the conversations and interplay between characters you can see that this is fact a dynamic and (if not exciting) important point within the lives of these individuals. The introductory act of the play serves to confirm this view; Gregers, one of the main characters, returns to his father's home after a long time away. Simply the non-ordinary occurrence of his homecoming propels the events of the play away from the dullness of everyday life. Gregers finds and creates conflict between both himself and his father as well in the Edkal household. Each conversation, although maybe not actively engaging to us, is a continual revelation of hidden truths and individual views that can and do have a profound impact on how they view the world and each other. It would be hardly apt to call what is revealed to Hjalmar dull when compared to what we can assume of the rest of his life is like.
The dramatic elements of Oedipus The King are more evident at first glance. Rather than deal with the day to day events preceding the crisis that Oedipus faces, the play begins with the citizenry of Thebes beseeching Oedipus for assistance. The plot of the play then takes over and Oedipus is absorbed in finding out the truth of Laius' murder and Oedipus' own birth. Again, the play contains more dialogue than actual action but we can easily see the significance of the conversations that take place, each serves to reveal another clue to Oedipus or set up his eventual self punishment. At no point in either of the plays is there any need for frivolous actions or conversations, this is true of both theater and any other medium. The fact that we can find meaning any significance in every action and spoken word illuminates that life with these dramas is never dull, the authors present an engaging world for an audience in order to more clearly and effectively portray their own thoughts.
The Wild Duck - Journal 1
“Visual action can be as important on the stage as speech.” How far do you agree with this claim? In you answer you should refer to two or three plays you have studied.
I would agree to this claim to a pretty large extent, theater in itself is a visual medium, the audience can the actions taken by individual characters and these movements can inform the plot, characters and even themes. Oedipus the King and The Wild Duck use stage directions of differing magnitudes to achieve separate but substantial effects.
In The Wild Duck, Ibsen's stage directions are very detailed, fully describing both the settings in which the play takes place and almost every action and word spoken by the characters. This excessive direction would, in a theater, give the director and actors very little ability to change their portrayals of the characters and themes and force them to stick to an authentic version of Ibsen's vision. Within the play, especially when reading it, the stage directions serve to create a more fleshed out and detailed scene for the audience to connect with. The directions allow for greater depth in the portrayal of Ibsen's ideas. It is as if you are looking in on an actual family with lives removed from the play rather than watching actors stand and speak with little motion or backdrop.
Oedipus the King is more traditional in regards to the use of stage directions. They are sparse and simplistic and portray mostly the entrances and exits with few descriptions of specific character actions. It is in these actions that I believe we can find significance, for Sophocles to have included them they must of held some sort of importance. An example of this is when Oedipus is questioning a messenger and he references Laius, here the stage directions indicate that "Jocasta turns sharply". This simple action stands out in a play that has little depicted action within it and thus gains importance. Jocasta has not been shown to have any knowledge of the blood relations between herself and Oedipus and here, in the visual action upon the stage, it is suggested the possibility has dawned on her and from this point her attitude toward the whole investigation changes.
I would agree to this claim to a pretty large extent, theater in itself is a visual medium, the audience can the actions taken by individual characters and these movements can inform the plot, characters and even themes. Oedipus the King and The Wild Duck use stage directions of differing magnitudes to achieve separate but substantial effects.
In The Wild Duck, Ibsen's stage directions are very detailed, fully describing both the settings in which the play takes place and almost every action and word spoken by the characters. This excessive direction would, in a theater, give the director and actors very little ability to change their portrayals of the characters and themes and force them to stick to an authentic version of Ibsen's vision. Within the play, especially when reading it, the stage directions serve to create a more fleshed out and detailed scene for the audience to connect with. The directions allow for greater depth in the portrayal of Ibsen's ideas. It is as if you are looking in on an actual family with lives removed from the play rather than watching actors stand and speak with little motion or backdrop.
Oedipus the King is more traditional in regards to the use of stage directions. They are sparse and simplistic and portray mostly the entrances and exits with few descriptions of specific character actions. It is in these actions that I believe we can find significance, for Sophocles to have included them they must of held some sort of importance. An example of this is when Oedipus is questioning a messenger and he references Laius, here the stage directions indicate that "Jocasta turns sharply". This simple action stands out in a play that has little depicted action within it and thus gains importance. Jocasta has not been shown to have any knowledge of the blood relations between herself and Oedipus and here, in the visual action upon the stage, it is suggested the possibility has dawned on her and from this point her attitude toward the whole investigation changes.
Oedipus - Journal 3
Diary,
I know not what I shall do, for my life has become unto the greatest sin. The gods, led me along with that accursed prophecy, mocking my blindness to my fate. And it is now that an an actual blindness has been chosen, in my one act of self determination, as my mortal punishment. Imprisoned within the recesses of my mind I have no sense but all is calm, clear to me. The divine have chosen my soul as a savior and scapegoat, destined my mortal soul to an unknowing horror, whose grand intentions and precautionary measures wither to ruin. And my poor children! Antigone and Eteocles! Ismene and Polynices! Woe to you that has been a product of such a monstrous union of man and mother. I hold no doubt in my breast that no good will come of your lives, the only escape in following blood's course: suicide of the mother or self ordained imprisonment of the father.
Now I become a hermit and nomad, exiled from the ancient land and populace I won through my own merit and skill. There is no path for my eyes or mind to follow in my exile, the gods' prophecy holds no more weight on my actions but the implications of my atrocity will haunt me until the end of my days. The sin bears heavily about me, both physically and within my spirit, it is slowly draining my life but death is my greatest fear and punishment; for to die is to face my parents, my father whom I killed in coldest blood and my mother who I defiled in ignorance. Better to live; deaf, dumb and blind; than to face the judgement of the gods and see those that my prophetic actions have ruined. I must wander, healing and atoning for my misdeeds. I can only hope that my fears concerning my children never come to pass, but this in itself is too great a gift for the divine to bestow on a miserable figure such as myself. I weep for their eventual failures, caused by my tainted blood.
Oedipus
I know not what I shall do, for my life has become unto the greatest sin. The gods, led me along with that accursed prophecy, mocking my blindness to my fate. And it is now that an an actual blindness has been chosen, in my one act of self determination, as my mortal punishment. Imprisoned within the recesses of my mind I have no sense but all is calm, clear to me. The divine have chosen my soul as a savior and scapegoat, destined my mortal soul to an unknowing horror, whose grand intentions and precautionary measures wither to ruin. And my poor children! Antigone and Eteocles! Ismene and Polynices! Woe to you that has been a product of such a monstrous union of man and mother. I hold no doubt in my breast that no good will come of your lives, the only escape in following blood's course: suicide of the mother or self ordained imprisonment of the father.
Now I become a hermit and nomad, exiled from the ancient land and populace I won through my own merit and skill. There is no path for my eyes or mind to follow in my exile, the gods' prophecy holds no more weight on my actions but the implications of my atrocity will haunt me until the end of my days. The sin bears heavily about me, both physically and within my spirit, it is slowly draining my life but death is my greatest fear and punishment; for to die is to face my parents, my father whom I killed in coldest blood and my mother who I defiled in ignorance. Better to live; deaf, dumb and blind; than to face the judgement of the gods and see those that my prophetic actions have ruined. I must wander, healing and atoning for my misdeeds. I can only hope that my fears concerning my children never come to pass, but this in itself is too great a gift for the divine to bestow on a miserable figure such as myself. I weep for their eventual failures, caused by my tainted blood.
Oedipus
Oedipus - Journal 2
To what extent would you agree that plot should be valued more highly than style in the work. In you answer you should refer to two or three works you have studied.
I would agree in some cases that plot is more important than style when regarding a specific work, however this is wholly dependent on the work itself. In the tragic plays we are currently reading I believe the plot needs to be viewed in greater focus due their nature; a tragedy focuses on human suffering and their fall from happiness/power/etc. To do so a playwright must bring attention to the actions and occurrences that brought the individual to ruin. This is evident in Oedipus the King, Sophocles brings much of the focus on the plot. All of the characterization that goes on is based around the driving actions the propel the plot forward, for example Oedipus' well meaning but arrogant nature being explored in his declaration to hunt down Laius' killer. Sophocles use of literary techniques, namely foreshadowing and allusion, also supports this. Admittedly, the techniques are partially a reference to the common knowledge of the audience, but nevertheless they draw attention to the plot's ideas and direction. In contrast would a be a more serious novel such as The Stranger, which is designed to present ideas and views rather than to entertain. Here there is a much stronger case for a greater attention to style; the actual plot of The Stranger seems mundane but it is in the details of the novel that we are able to decipher Albert Camus' worldview. Our ideas and opinions of Meursault are formed to a greater extent through Camus' use of language than the actions taken by the characters; we learn more in Meursault's description of the beach and sun than through his (seemingly random) murder of the Arab. Ultimately it would be a fruitless effort to focus singularly on either plot or style, both must be considered to create a full understanding of the work. Although we may see Oedipus the King as plot driven, it must be understood that Sophocles was neither the first nor last to tell the story of Oedipus, and looking beyond plot can flesh out our understanding of the work.
I would agree in some cases that plot is more important than style when regarding a specific work, however this is wholly dependent on the work itself. In the tragic plays we are currently reading I believe the plot needs to be viewed in greater focus due their nature; a tragedy focuses on human suffering and their fall from happiness/power/etc. To do so a playwright must bring attention to the actions and occurrences that brought the individual to ruin. This is evident in Oedipus the King, Sophocles brings much of the focus on the plot. All of the characterization that goes on is based around the driving actions the propel the plot forward, for example Oedipus' well meaning but arrogant nature being explored in his declaration to hunt down Laius' killer. Sophocles use of literary techniques, namely foreshadowing and allusion, also supports this. Admittedly, the techniques are partially a reference to the common knowledge of the audience, but nevertheless they draw attention to the plot's ideas and direction. In contrast would a be a more serious novel such as The Stranger, which is designed to present ideas and views rather than to entertain. Here there is a much stronger case for a greater attention to style; the actual plot of The Stranger seems mundane but it is in the details of the novel that we are able to decipher Albert Camus' worldview. Our ideas and opinions of Meursault are formed to a greater extent through Camus' use of language than the actions taken by the characters; we learn more in Meursault's description of the beach and sun than through his (seemingly random) murder of the Arab. Ultimately it would be a fruitless effort to focus singularly on either plot or style, both must be considered to create a full understanding of the work. Although we may see Oedipus the King as plot driven, it must be understood that Sophocles was neither the first nor last to tell the story of Oedipus, and looking beyond plot can flesh out our understanding of the work.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Oedipus -Journal 1
Setting: This includes cultural as well as geographical and historical setting. What effect does the setting have on story, character, theme?
Oedipus takes place in the historic and religious lore of Ancient Greece. Sophocles, the playwright, lived in the fifth century BC and the events of the play supposedly took place well before his time. What I find interesting, historically, is the audience to which Sophocles writes. It is evident that he expected to only have the play performed in Greece (rather than surrounding countries such as Italy or Egypt across the Mediterranean) due the enormous amount of references to their mythology and history without any introduction or exposition. This is important to note because it gives an honest account of the ancient Greek worldview and mindset, Sophocles was unrestricted in writing as he catered to an audience of people with an understanding of Greek culture and religion and thus presents an accurate depiction of their values through his writing. The play itself takes place in Thebes, and while Sophocles had no real choice in his depiction of the setting Thebes plays a major role in how characters, specifically Oedipus are viewed. Thebes was one of the major city-states of Greece and one of the more commonly known locations to the average Greek and Oedipus, through his kingship is elevated greatly in importance. This importance is one of the greatest factors in creating the tragedy that befalls Oedipus, Greek Tragedy relies on a fall from power or virtue which would only occur to a much lesser extent if Oedipus was a lord or leader of a smaller town/city. Mythologically Thebes also plays an important role, the average Greek citizen at the time would have a limited knowledge of the locations within Greece so the well known setting provides an anchor point to which individuals can view the play.
Oedipus takes place in the historic and religious lore of Ancient Greece. Sophocles, the playwright, lived in the fifth century BC and the events of the play supposedly took place well before his time. What I find interesting, historically, is the audience to which Sophocles writes. It is evident that he expected to only have the play performed in Greece (rather than surrounding countries such as Italy or Egypt across the Mediterranean) due the enormous amount of references to their mythology and history without any introduction or exposition. This is important to note because it gives an honest account of the ancient Greek worldview and mindset, Sophocles was unrestricted in writing as he catered to an audience of people with an understanding of Greek culture and religion and thus presents an accurate depiction of their values through his writing. The play itself takes place in Thebes, and while Sophocles had no real choice in his depiction of the setting Thebes plays a major role in how characters, specifically Oedipus are viewed. Thebes was one of the major city-states of Greece and one of the more commonly known locations to the average Greek and Oedipus, through his kingship is elevated greatly in importance. This importance is one of the greatest factors in creating the tragedy that befalls Oedipus, Greek Tragedy relies on a fall from power or virtue which would only occur to a much lesser extent if Oedipus was a lord or leader of a smaller town/city. Mythologically Thebes also plays an important role, the average Greek citizen at the time would have a limited knowledge of the locations within Greece so the well known setting provides an anchor point to which individuals can view the play.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)