Read and annotate the two literary criticisms I passed out in class today, then choose a topic of discussion from one of these articles and post a response to it. Also, log on and join in the discussion of points your colleagues bring up.
Remember to bring your $ and orders for the Nov. 5th opera (Fidelio) on Wed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
I was reading about Aristotle's theory of human endeavor and it struck me as really interesting what he thought happiness was. He thought that the end of human endeavor find happiness, an unhampered activity of the soul in accordance with true reason throughout a complete lifetime. I thought this is an interesting idea but not always correct. Do we really have any fun if we always act with reason, I think people may find a lot of fun on something like a roller coaster. It is not reasonable to go on some random machine, but it is very fun.
I was reading about Aristotle's theory of human endeavor and it struck me as really interesting what he thought happiness was. He thought that the end of human endeavor find happiness, an unhampered activity of the soul in accordance with true reason throughout a complete lifetime. I thought this is an interesting idea but not always correct. Do we really have any fun if we always act with reason, I think people may find a lot of fun on something like a roller coaster. It is not reasonable to go on some random machine, but it is very fun.
sorry I posted twice... its the same thing.
I think it is very interesting how S.M. Adams acknowledges the fact that "the penalties of any great work of art is that it lends itself to various interpretations," whereas Waldock proposes "the best service a critic can render is to leave the Oedipus Tyrannus alone" -- or just accept the play for what it is and honor the written words and tragic hero of Oedipus as originally concieved by Sophocles. They both discuss the awful attempts to rework the play to modern, "preconcieved ideas of what a drama should be" and act like. But the fact is, the story as laid out by Sophocles is the best possible result in displaying the dramatic ordeals and tragic events in the life of Oedipus, the epitomy of a tragic hero.
It sounds to me like Adams is suggesting people cannot relate to Oedipus' struggles and conflicts. He says, "normal sufferings are slight compared with his." This may be true, very true, but I don't think that means their is absolutely nothing within the play or surrounding his character that we cannot relate to. Sure, we may not walk down the street and discover a horrendous prophecy involving the tragic events Oedipus suffered, but many times people find themeselves blinded by the truth and completely lost within the world--just like the tragic hero who relied upon a pair of sightless eyes to guide him.
Harish, I agree with you. Our fun in life doesn't always have to stem from reason or great thought.
Aristotle believed that the "man who attains perfect happiness...is the wise man who sees all aspects," and Sophocles built a character around a man who has a hard enough time viewing life through one set of eyes, let alone multiple aspects.
What I found rather amusing and interesting was Adams' defining clearly how Oedipus represents no one but himself. Often times with a great piece of literature we try too hard to pull something out of it that quite frankly is not there. I guess one good way we could look at this is the Snowman argument Ms. Minor and Mr. Wells has about the snowman in To Kill a Mockingbird.
Sometimes something simply is itself. I would love to pull this argument out more often as it would make many reading assignments easier, but that is not realistic. However, in Oedipus, we actually have the luxury of simply being able to look at the story of Oedipus in a simple way. We get to see all of the irony and laugh at it, and we do not have to try too hard to see what is "truly meant" by Sophocles.
In light of Harish's comment. I agree in some ways but disagree in others. If you take some really abstract form of reason, I would imagine that you could find a so-called "reasonable" excuse to go on a roller coaster. I think reason is a rather difficult thing to define, and I do want to relax tonight so I will let my class mates either agree or disagree with my statement.
Now for Nick. I too liked that criticism. Sometimes, a work a literature is best in the form it was originally made. I look at Great Expectations as an example. The original movie from the 40's or 50's was alright and sort of followed the storyline. Now, if you really hated that book and wanted to see it sent through a paper-shredder, I highly recommend viewing the 1980's "adapted" version. It's awful.
I think we should never try to retell stories that have already been told well. We (in general I guess...) will tend to ruin them.
I don't know if it's just because I'm young and ignorant, but it seems that people analyze Greek literature MUCH too heavily. I read it for what it is: a story. But, after reading these critiques, I do understand how Aristotle's traditional happiness is in stark opposition to what Oedipus finds.
And both critiques seem to want to make Oedipus applicable to current times, which I also think is useless; society is much different from what it was hundreds of years ago. I do see the merit in trying to find universal truths in Greek mythology, and there are some that hold true (Oedipus' rash reactions lead to his downfall, much like when people jump to conclusions today).
I can see where Harish is coming from, and if roller coasters were around in Aristotle's time, he probably would've thought different :]. I interpreted that more as finding something you enjoy, and you're successful at, and being able to do that all your life. I'd be pretty happy if that was my future.
"Is Oedipus in some way a guilty man thus punished for his wickedness? of course he is not. He is not evil; he is extraordinary good." I believe S.M. Adam's essay glorified Oedipus more than he should receive credit for. Yes, his intentions were good, but were they only for his image? are his tragedies so great that we couldn't relate to them? he is not one of the gods, he is human, like us so what emotions can we not relate to?
" On the other hand, the tragic hero is a man who fails to attain happiness, and fails in such a way that his career excites, not blame, but fear in pity to the highest degree." I agree with what Barstow had to say in her essay because she points out his flaws such as his rash decisions, which makes him human. His failed attempts to attain happiness didn't make me sympathize, but wonder what the definition of a hero was to sophocles.
Regarding what Harish Said, I think that riding on a roller coaster is entirely reasonable. I think the pursuit of an adrenalin rush is perfectly sensible and biologically justifiable as the action is reinforced by the release of Endorphins. True, it does not increase our statistical chances of survival, or lengthen our lifespan but that is not the point. I think the point is that life in itself has no point, and it should be in everyone's best interest to extract enjoyment out of it. It is human nature to argue that there is a point to life, because without one, we all feel quite silly, running around and trying our hardest at one thing or another. Claiming that there is a purpose to life is essentially a defense mechanism, as an insignificant existence leaves us in a pitiful state of vulnerability. Although fun enriches life, it is not the sole way to sponge out meaning and purpose from this collaboration of atoms. I also think there is loads of fun to be had by doing what we are told not to do, which is not necessarily reasonable.
As I read S. M. Adams' Oedipus Tyrannus, I paid particular attention to when Adams mentioned the Greek word “Tyrannos,” and how neither “Rex” nor “King” quite captures the meaning. My first thought was that I wondered why Mrs. Minor didn't mention this seemingly large point. But next, I thought about how Adams claims that the word has a special meaning held only by the Athenians. Adams claims that a “Tyrannos” has much wealth, power, hubris, and a constant fear of betrayal. But, what makes this word so different from “Tyrant”? Are not the tyrants of the modern era all wealthy, powerful, hubristacular, and fearing betrayal? Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il, they have all these qualities. So I do not think the significance it holds to Athenians is so different from the meaning it holds to us in the modern era.
Harish;
I agree with what you're saying. Heck, look at holidays. What sense does it makes to be celebrating a magical egg laying easter bunny, but what fun it is to walk down those stairs knowing many chocolate treats wait below for you.
Additionally, to Aristotle I ask, “If logic is so fun, then why does the unreasonable still exist today?” Not quite a fair question for a long dead philosopher, but it's still something to ponder.
Jonathan;
I'll admit that not everything has a secret hidden symbolical meaning. But the main character? If there's one place where any symbolism at all would go, it'd be the main character. He's not some obscure snowman hiding in the yard, he's the Oedipus Rex.
I agree with Natalie that it does feel Greek Mythology is being analyzed too much. While I was reading the articles I found myself agreeing with points made by S.M. Adams. Adams points out that “excepting the self-blinding, nothing in the play suggests that Oedipus is to blame.” I reorganized the story in my head again and thought that no matter what Oedipus or his parents did the outcome of their fate will still be the same. For me it is more of a story that shows fate cannot be defied, than that of how a tragic hero’s flaw can bring him to his fall. Sophocles indeed employed hamartia in this story but it is as if modern critics focus too much on how the flaw is related to the tragedy. But if the story plot was changed and Liaus and Jocastas never tried to kill Oedipus this oracle that Apollo foretells is most likely to remain true. So just like Adams concluded, “he is just ‘unfortunate’.”
I thought it was interesting how S.M. Adams explained all of Oedipus' hubris by saying that it was because of his position as king that (inevitably) gave him those characteristics. I agree, because it's human nature to feel superior and proud when we have power. However, Adams says: "such hybris as he shows arises solely from his position." Wouldn't a person truly virtuous and good like Oedipus try to conquer that pride, and replace it with humility? That's what I think.
Also, when Adams said that "why it should be so fated, we need not as spectators greatly care," I wonder what's the purpose in living if your path is already pre-determined by fate? Maybe knowing you fate is like a security blanket or a limit on your choices in life??? I'm curious to know - what do you guys think?...
Harish: I agree with you; Aristotle's view isn't realistic at all. Humans aren't reasonable. We have emotions that can't always be explained.
Nick: I understand and respect your point of view, but I think what Adams was trying to say is when people read about Oedipus' tragedy, it'll ease their suffering, and "affords a consolation." At least, we aren't stuck with a horrible fate like Oedipus was.
To Jonathan (and Nick pointed this out too), I completely agree! Sometimes we should just stop symbol hunting like Mrs. Minor said, and leave a good piece of work alone.
Natalie: I look at this play as a story or 'parable' instead of over-analyzing too.
Adams' and Barstow's comments actually reminded me of mini-stories within 2 epics in Hindu mythology, where Destiny and God play a big role in peoples' lives. There are "divya dvaanis" or Voices from the Heavens, similar to oracles, and sometimes tragic events out of their control befall the virtuous and good there too. One difference, though, from this Greek play is that people who were pre-destined usually were evil or had evil intentions. Their Destiny dictated that the good would win over them, no matter how hard they tried to run away.
As I read S.M. Adams' piece I agreed with a lot of it and thought it presented an interesting view of Oedipus Tyrannus. But one thing he said disturbed me slightly, "Oedipus is not a 'man', but Oedipus". I was taken aback because it sounded like the play itself to me, the thought that Oedipus is more than just a man. Now I agree that he is certainly not an ordinary man, or like most men, but I wouldn't go so far as to say he is not a man. When I read it again it seemed less harsh, but really the idea is pretty bold. It really got me thinking; what makes someone more than a man? The author goes on to say that it is the enormity of Oedipus' tragedy that makes him higher than men, but I don't know if I agree with that. His tragedy is definitely very complicated and not common, but everyone has their own trials, everyone suffers and to me it seems biased to say that one person's are greater than everyone else's. The way that Oedipus handles his circumstance, blinding himself to remove his guilt, although possibly crazy is very noble. He chooses to be in good standing with his God over self preservation and happiness. That certainly sets him apart, but it doesn't make him more than a man, it certainly does not make him a god. He still made the mistakes, even though he was unaware of their seriousness at the time, and that means he is fallible. It means he is human.
So, I left my computer and didn't see that others had posted comments when I came back...to reply to them:
I think Hengxin, you make a really good point. The focus of this play is more about how nobody can mess with Fate, than the flaws in the protagonist, Oedipus.
Sean: I'm glad someone pointed out the physical benefits on going on a roller coaster! :) Having what seems like unreasonable "fun" actually makes a lot of sense in that way.
And Connor,that's a good point too. But the special thing about Oedipus is that he's honest and fair, which you can't say for Fidel Castro or Kim Jong Il.
Elizabeth: I agree, the points that Barstow made about Oedipus' rash actions are interesting points that make him more human.
Like Elizabeth, the quote that stood out to me from S.M Adams said: "Is Oedipus in some way a guilty man thus punished for his wickedness? Of course he is not. He is not evil; he is extraordinarily good."
I agree with Adams. Throughout the story, we witness Oedipus' genuine care for his people. A care that is represented by his proactive actions and his desire to place the state before himself. There is no doubt that Oedipus exhibits a sense of hubris, but the arrogance and pride is not what leads to the tragic ending. Oedipus' only apparent flaw is his being quick to anger. It is because of this that the truth is slowly revealed. The truth to Oedipus is the only thing that matters, and he continues to pursue it even after learning that it could lead to the end of him. Therefore, I agree with Adams that Oedipus is extraordinarily good and is not a "guilty man thus punished for his wickedness."
Reading through Adams' and Barstow's analyses, one point I think both writers emphasized was Oedipus' almost hopelessness in his situation. Regarding the oracle and Oedipus' fate, Adams states that Oedipus was "just 'unfortunate'." No matter what Oedipus or his parents may have done would have changed the outcome. Barstow even accounted Oedipus' character flaws as additional components to his misfortune. "At last, too energetic to remain in the ignorance which might have been his safety." Perhaps if Oedipus had given the situation more thought, he may have avoided the problem, but of course the main trait in a tragic hero is his tragic flaw.
I agree with Natalie when she states that sometimes we analyze mythology too much. By tearing it apart and searching for some highlighted symbolism, we often lose the purpose, which is sometimes simply to provide a story. Also Jonathan's point plays into this idea, for sometimes a snowman is just a snowman.
I guess in some ways, Harish, and everyone else who agreed with him, I agree with you. But I don't think that people find it extremely fun to ride a roller coaster just because. They find it fun because of the adrenaline rush or the fact that the machine might break. Some people find that really amusing. (I'm not sure if that's the correct term) Honestly, roller coasters are fun, to me, but they freak me out! I mean these machines take up hundreds of feet (maybe) into the air and twist and turn you around. I mean it's like a disaster waiting to happen.
I think we have fun in the way we act and react to certain situations, but who really knows? That's just how I feel. Things without reason or purpose just seem useless, to me.
And I've realized I've commented about one comment about a roller coaster, but oh well!
Not to contradict one of the greatest thinkers of all time, but I have to say I disagree with Aristotle on this one. I understand what he tries to say about the ideal man achieving happiness. While I fully agree with Barstow that Oedipus is a perfect illustration of Aristotle's ideas, I also think that any person alive can be an equally perfect example.
In theory, we all know that an ideal person "sees in all their aspects the facts or the forces with which he is dealing, and can balance and direct his own impulses in accordance with reason." Unfortunately for mankind, human nature tends to disagree with this idea. Our own personal pride or in Oedipus's case hubris conflicts with what we inherently know is right. While for most people this doesn't end with us killing and/or marrying our parents, we see these real life consequences every day.
Oedipus carries lessons much larger than simply that humans have too much pride. For that lesson we could turn to almost any realistic account of human life.
Harish – I totally agree with you. I believe that each person have their own unique mean s of happiness and their endeavors in finding it. And I guess for Aristotle, it’s the understanding of reason of action and the “unhampered activity of the soul in accordance with true reason, throughout a complete lifetime”. And for some people, like what you said, find happiness in other things out spontaneity and sometimes those things don’t have a logical reason behind it.
Natalie – Yeah, I see what you’re saying about how heavily Greek Mythology is analyzed and making it applicable to today’s society. I think literature has its own universal language and no matter how old or new the piece of literature is, it can still apply to a person’s life. And yes, I totally agree of the fact that society is totally different now than it was then but I think there are some values and teachings from Oedipus that are taught today by different stories and such, that can be brought on in today’s society even though these critiques seem like it’s over thinking it a bit. And at the same time, I guess it’s a good thing that people do over think it because at least we got a deeper insight about Oedipus that we, as the young and the ignorant kids, would miss just by reading it as it is.
Nick, I like what you brought up. The same thing is true with a lot of old plays/novels we still read today. We find them valuable because we feel that we can relate to them. Or we are forced to because a teacher told us we should.
Obviously, we can't directly relate our lives to the events that take place since specific details are irrelevant in our time, but characters' actions can be analyzed and usually teach some sort of lesson. But like Adams suggests, sometimes we over analyze these stories or mold them to fit our expectations. We force it and miss the important details that the author actually wanted us to notice (which Barstow talks about in the first paragraph of her criticism). We can only relate these lessons to our lives when we allow them to. It's like the Bible. Some people take it literally, some people just take the lessons from it, some people just don't care for it at all. "It's all about interpretation."
It's also hard to tell what you're supposed to be looking for sometimes. And sometimes you think to yourself, "Do I really HAVE to care? Because I don't. I don't see it like that at all." It's like analyzing individual sentences in AP Lang. If you want to find the amazing moral lesson that no one else can see, that's your choice. But sometimes you wonder if it's really there or if it's just there because you want it to be.
I agree with Hengxin in that the story shows fate as something that cannot be tampered with, rather than Oedipus’ tragic flaw bringing him to his downfall.
“He (Oedipus) brings to light the truth of Apollo’s oracles” Adams mentions that Oedipus’ “‘flaw’ is surely venial – and we should not look for a parallel in every Sophoclean tragic figure”. It wasn’t Oedipus’ choice to be abandoned and left to die, and it also wasn’t his choice to be rescued either. Everything he had done, he did with good intentions; for the good of the people. No matter what he could have done, the killing of his father would have been inevitable. “Attempts have been made to say that Oedipus ‘stands for’ something” If the moral of the story was to revolve around the character’s hamartia, then Sophocles would have made (I think) the character’s situation, and defining points more humanized, so that the audience would have something that they can connect to. However, that is not the case with Oedipus Rex. The Oedipus’ tragedy is, as Adams describes it, “far greater than theirs (ordinary men)” and it “set him apart from them”.
Harish you make a very valid point. It is often when we cant predict what is about to happen that we seem to get the most enjoyment. Our typical feelings as teenagers are (as you commented earlier) like a roller coaster. We focus on the understanding of 1 viewpoint and rush to conclusions. Like Oedipus, this can lead us to achieve highs when it works and lows when it doesnt. But I think that we cant experience Aristotle's definition of happiness being that we are just too single minded. Whereas for Aristotle, happiness comes from a complete unbiased understanding of oneself and those around you.
I find these readings interesting but I have to read them more thoroughly in the days to come. However, I have a few observations. Aristotle and the emotional discoveries made by Oedipus are at odds with one another as a few other people have mentioned.
I also find Harish's analysis very interesting but you need to be careful about how you interpret reason and apply the term within the realm of Aristotle's works. Reason can be extended to emotional satisfication and even writing on a roller coaster has a basis that can be beyond "some random machine". From my exposure to Aristotle though I think he derives his reason from a anthropocentric perspective that focuses on human interactions. I think there is a lot here to be talked about but I have to read up on Aristotle to make an apposite arguement. Either way, good thinking.
And Natalie nailed it when she said people read too deeply into Greek Mythology.
Aristotle's version on what happiness is somewhat true in that if you work or wait for something for the longest time, possibly even a lifetime, you do experiece this feeling of happiness when you obtain it.(Something about this just reminds me of Mrs. Minor and the ice cream cone thing)
I think that is the greatest part of being human, our reasoning doesn't have to come from being logical, but it does have to serve some purpose in us, our else we wouldn't do it. Would that count as logic, though? We do always have a purpose for doing anything, being that we feel we have to or as simple as feeling that we can.
Michelle Gonzalez said...
Natalie brought up an interesting point. Like S.M. Adams stated,"One of the penalties any great work of art is that it lends itself to various interpretations." We definitely shouldn't over analyze Oedipus, but I think there are some things we can learn from the story. We can learn that one shouldn't be too rash in making decisions and that you should think things through, unless time doesn't help (i.e. Oedipus the solving the riddle). Also, another thing that we could take from the story is to not let your pride blind you from truth.
Marjorie Barstow made an interesting point about the justice in Oedipus' fall. I never really thought that Oedipus deserved the things that happened to him, but Barstow points out that he was not fully innocent. I sort of agree with Barstow, his flaws did contribute to his downfall, but I don't think he truly deserved his downfall because everyone makes mistakes.
Good thoughts Sean, but sorry, I disagree with you on the topic of purpose. Though, I guess logically one can reason that people want to pretend there is a purpose in life, living life without purpose doesn't make sense to me. Many people don't just do things for the heck of it. A lot of times there is a larger purpose or reason for why people do the things they do. We are not as big as we think we are, and I definitely think there is a greater power out there. People like to think that they have ultimate control of everything, but we are not God. Like I said before, we are not as powerful as we think.
I think that Majorie Barstow makes a very insightful analysis of Oedpius Rex in her critique. She points out that he makes very rash judgements, and acts highly on a whim according to his current emotions. She compares this with Aristotle's idea of an "ideal man", someone who takes all the situation into consideration and creates a logical and well thoughout response to it. Barstow criticizes Oedipus and makes the assertion that his main flaw is this quick to respond nature that he has. And although I do agree that someone who takes more time to analyze a situation will almost always have a better result that someone who acts quickly on a whim, I don't think this fairly represents the whole issue. It seems to me, that often is the case, that the benefit gained by taking your time to thoroughly think out something before you engage in action is worth less than the time spent in this further analyzation. Although this may not always be true, I think it is certainly something to be taken into consideration when posing an argument like barstow has.
I agree with Elizabeth that the S.M. Adams essay has really glorified Oedipus by saying he is "extraordinary good". Although Oedipus was able to save the town from the sphinx, one deed is not what makes a hero. I feel that the fact that Oedipus always jumped to conclusions and had an extremely bad temper equally ways into the fact that he was a compassionate ruler and was highly intelligent.
I also agree with Jonathan about the roller coaster. Not everything people do in life needs to be reasonable. If everyone thought his/her whole life and tried to decide whether or not their actions would be reasonable, everyone would just sit at home and think. No one would ever take any action.
I like the way Ms. Barstow compared Sophocles' 'central completion' of the OEPDIPUS REX to the Christian Church's completion of Aristotle. I'm not completely sure what 'central completion' means, but I like to draw parallels from my readings, and studies in the same manner as this sophomore in college.
As she goes on, "the magnanimous man of the ethics, ideal for life" vs. "the tragic hero of the poetics, ideal for death." I guess she finally confronts the Aristotelian man: who attains perfect happiness by seeing the "facts or the forces" in everything, by showing Sophocles' Oedipus as a man who "sees but one side of a matter" and comes to his conclusions, or "facts" in his own mind. So here Ms. Barstow defines "facts" as relative. Men reason within their selves and sometimes error in the outcome. I am concurrent with her explanation, and cannot really find any flaw. Aristotle was the flaw, or perhaps too vague. Maybe the Christian Church took him too seriously.
See guys? Everything Greek is philosophical.
These two literary criticisms prove to be coming from two different points of view. Barstow seems to think of Oedipus as having little knowledge, no voice, and wrong purposes – focusing on the negative aspect of Oedipus. In contrast, the alternate reading talked more about how Oedipus' past makes his faults more forgiving and believeable focusing on the positive aspects of Oedipus.Was Oedipus' tragic flaw goodness? I would venture to believe that his past is his tragic flaw, if that makes any sense…. Like Adams said, Oedipus cannot be blamed for his past, yet I do realize that he must account for his own present actions.
On another note, I picked up on Barstow's statemen that Oedipus has no clear vision, which prohibits him to see things in his life clearly, and non-biased. Just like what we had discussed in class last time!!
Post a Comment