Oedipus Questions

1.Who wrote the play?

Sophocles

2. Briefly define the Oedipal Complex.

It is a psychological concept or theory that suggests that boys are attracted to their mothers and resent their fathers. It is considered to be a component of sexual maturity and growth as well as psychological phenomena. The Electra complex is the equivalent for girls wanting to sexually possess their fathers and resent their mothers.

3. What is the setting of the story, specifically, the where?

It takes place in front of the royal palace of Thebes, Greece.

4. As the play opens, what horrible thing is going on?

There is a terrible plague.

5. Whose death must be avenged in order for the horrible thing from number 4 to end?

The former king of Thebes’ murder, king Laius.

6. Who is Oedipus’ wife?

Her name is Jocasta. She is the queen of Thebes and Oedipus’ birth mother.

7. Who is Oedipus’ mother?

Oedipus’ mother is the queen of Thebes as well as his wife, Jocasta.

8. Who is Oedipus’ father?

His birth father is the former king of Thebes, king Laius. His adoptive father is Polybus, king of Corinth.

9. Who killed the King of Thebes (the answer for #5)?

His son Oedipus.

10. What is Oedipus’ tragic flaw?

I would say pride and arrogance. He is smart yes but you could argue that if he were that smart he could have figured out what was going on.

11. As you read through Oedipus, you'll note that sight/vision/seeing (including "second sight") is very important to the overall story--in the literal as well as the metaphorical/symbolical aspect.  You don't have to do this in complete sentences if you don't want---12. Describe/discuss/explain/list how sight/vision/seeing/"second sight" is/are used in the play to advance the plot--to advance the story as a whole.  Include an explanation of why it's important as well as how it helps you (the real audience) understand (get) what others on the stage and in the play don't understand.

The concept of sight is very important in this play. There are many clues for the audience as to the importance of sight, real and secondary.

Oedipus was blind to whom he really was (Jocasta and Laius’ son, the “polluter of the land”), and that is why Tiresias tells Oedipus:

“Hear this, since you have thrown my blindness at me:

Your eyes can’t see the evil to which you’ve come,” (1.417)

The play also provides the audience with the difference between real sight and “secondary” sight. Tiresias is blind but he sees the truth; while Oedipus has sight but is blind to it. Oedipus tells Tiresias:

“This tricky beggar, who sees clearly only
For profit, but is blind when it comes to skill.
So tell me, when are you the wise seer?”(1.410)

Tiresias insists:

“Since you reproach me as blind: You, even though you
See clearly, do not see the scope of your evil,
Nor where you live, nor with whom you dwell.” (1.433)

Tiresias even goes as far as foretelling Oedipus’ fate of losing his sight:

"…Blind, who once could see,

A beggar who was rich, through foreign lands

He’ll go and point before him with a stick.” (1.459)

The presence of real sight is thrown at Tiresias (for he is blind) and at Oedipus for he has sight, and it is juxtaposed to secondary sight, since Oedipus is blind to his real identity, and the blind man knows who he is. Oedipus gauges his eyes out (hence he loses his sight and becomes blind) because of his symbolic blindness to his identity, hence he goes from having sight but being symbolically blind, to being blind but being symbolically able to see the truth. Jocasta is also blind to the truth and when she finds out she is married to her son she kills herself, which could be argued means she can’t see anymore. All these clues given in the play help the audience foretell and prepare for the tragic ending, providing that catharsisis looked for in tragedies by the Greek audiences.

13. As a play, there's a lot that can and cannot be done on the stage.  Explain why you think some things within this play in particular are done on stage while others are done off stage.

The theaters were big, and although the acoustics seem to have been of good quality, maybe placing the chorus or parados groups in various places helped with the distribution of ‘action’. The chorus also served as a model audience, maybe letting the audience know what was expected of them and to announce the scene was about to begin after the  intermission or stasimon.

Also, the special effects I can imagine were not great during 425 BCE, and portraying bad effects would take away from the play, so parts like Oedipus gauging his eyes out were told not shown.

14. Do you believe in fate?  Explain fully your answer.

Yes and no. I believe that some things are meant to happen but at the same time I believe we are the makers of our own destiny, or better phrased in charge of making what we want to happen happen. We are also responsible for our actions and decisions. So for example, there might be a person that is very smart and has the capability of doing great things but if that person puts no effort into actually accomplishing those great things, then fate cannot take the place of personal ownership and responsibility. Another issue is that of life circumstances and how they pre-mold a person’s life. To illustrate this point, a person born in an extreme poverty situation, with no financial or other means to get out of that situation, more than likely is fated to remain poor (very sad if you ask me).

15. Explain how fate plays a role in Oedipus.

No matter what the characters did to avoid what was phrophetizied to happen, it still happened. Jocasta and Laius sent their son to die at a mountainside but by doing so, not only did he not die, but he ended up not knowing who his birth parents were and then killing his dad and marrying his mom (which is unlikely to have happened if his parents had raised him). Fate was the determining factor in Oedipus.

16. Have you ever thought how ironic this play is? It's weird how the events come together and

 make everything happen the way it does. If things were to happen just a little bit different the story would be completely changed.

It is very ironic that if Jocasta and Laius had not heard the prophecy and hadn’t gotten rid of their son, then the prophecy probably wouldn’t had been fulfilled as Oedipus would have known who his parents were and wouldn’t had committed incest and patricide. Also, if Oedipus had listened to Tiresias and not insisted on knowing who the murderer was, he wouldn’t had learned the truth.

Extra: Name either one of the other two plays in the Oedipus Trilogy—punctuation count.

Oedipus at Colonus and Antigone.

Arsenic and Old Lace

First of all, define:  irony. 

Irony is the use of words, gestures, actions or other forms of communication, to state or convey the opposite of what the real message is. It is a juxtaposition or incongruence between the presented truth and literal truth.  

Secondly, list and briefly discuss as many examples if irony that you can find and/or remember in the movie. 

The title, Arsenic and Old Lace, is in itself an irony or juxtaposition, as arsenic is a corrosive and highly destructive chemical, whereas lace is soft, harmless (or so we thought).

The irony that was the most appealing to me was that of Mortimer being the author of various anti-marriage books, including   Marriage: Failure and Fraud, and yet he is getting married.

The Police showing up and being a ‘fixture’ pretty much at the house and not knowing what the aunts are up to or that there is a dead body in the window seat is another irony; just as the police being there when Jonathan is there (him being wanted by the police) and them not knowing it.  

Another funny irony is that the aunts bury the dead bodies in their cellar/house when they live next to a  cemetery. How funny is that! They have the perfect place for a dead body right next door.

The fact that Jonathan’s latest face looks like that of the acclaimed terror movie actor Boris Karloff, greatly hinting at his character and defeating the purpose of blending in and looking harmless.  Which takes me to another irony, the aunts don’t like scary/terror movies and yet they kill people.

Everybody sitting on the window seat when there is a dead body in it and not suspecting a thing is another constant irony in the movie.

Of particular humor is the irony of how Mortimer describes the murder scene of a movie, including the character’s lack of logic to see it develop under his nose, and how Jonathan is doing the exact same thing the scene’s murderer is described of doing and Mortimer is erring just like the murder victim he is describing.

I wonder about Oedipus The King

I understand that we live in a world of real-time information access and we have many ways to access it, including pictures, video, email, television, etc. However, as limited as the Greek’s information and access to images was in 425 BCE compared to now, I am sure that people had access to busts and other portrayals of images. Why then, did nobody, specially the people of Thebes (including Jocasta) notice the very possible resemblance between the late King Laius and Oedipus?

Furthermore, why did Oedipus refuse so stubbornly to see that he was king Laius’ murderer and son?  A man had already stated he was not King Polybus’ son, and Phoebus also tells him of the incest and patricide.  It seems like it took him long enough, even after he was revealed many details that could not be coincidences, such as Tiresias’ forewarning and statements: “ I say you are the murderer you seek.” line 367. He even chose to not believe after Jocasta described Laius (he must have known he fit the description of the man he killed) and described the location where he was killed. I mean really? Can there really be that maybe coincidences? Jocasta even described the group or entourage. You would have thought that all that information was enough to (excuse the pun) open Oedipus’ eyes. The messenger confirms he is adopted, and it is not through hearsay, as he himself delivered him as a child to King Polybus. Oedipus keeps asking for more and more proof, as if waiting for one piece of information to topple down the endless list of accusatory evidence.  Even when the shepherd is forced to tell of how he took King Laius’ son to the mountainside and gave him to a man (the messenger), Oedipus stills refuses to believe he is who/what Tiresias said. Can someone, even in fiction, be so renuent to see what is in front of his eyes? I wonder if the audience in 430 BCE really thought Oedipus did not see the truth until the end, or if they just took it for what it was worth in order to enjoy the play?

Another issue that nags me a little bit is that of how easy it was for Oedipus to attack and annihilate a King and his entourage. Where the men not armed? Did kings back then travel without any security components in place?

I personally feel that there are a few “loose” ends in the play, maybe because nowadays this situation would not be so easily duplicated, or maybe because the veracity of the plot or events was not as important as the themes themselves.

“To –(“Music, When Soft Voices Die”)” by Percy Bysshe Shelley

When I read “To –(“Music, When Soft Voices Die”)p. 644, I felt all warm and tingly inside. I absolutely love the concept or idea the speaker is trying to convey about love outliving life. I enjoyed the poem’s rhythm and the author’s choice of words. I also was very attracted to the flower imagery and symbolism.

I chose this poem to share because love is a universal theme and hopefully everybody has felt about somebody else what the speaker feels and conveys in the poem.

The concept of material things or actions being a way to show affection is present, but it is coupled with the concept of love being so much more than that.

I found a website that used music and video to convey the poem’s message: http://movingpoems.com/2011/01/music-when-soft-voices-die-by-percy-bysshe-shelley/

“On My First Daughter” by Ben Jonson

Jonson’s “On My First Daughter” p. 640 is a verbalized mourning. The poem engages me in it because of its delivered sadness. It is not however a cry of inconsolable grief as it offers the reader a plea of comfort and belief that the baby girl is in Heaven. I find this poem very soothing (even with the pain engraved in it) because it provides me with comfort that not only the baby has gone to Heaven but that others (including myself) don’t have death as the final destination.

 I hope others find the same feeling of comfort and need for God when they read this poem and that is why I decided to share it as one of the blogs.

After some research, I found an interesting piece of information. It seems that Ben Jonson was a rather crude, raucous and rough character. These personality traits or behavior (however you want to label it as) is not evidenced in the poem however. Instead, Jonson’s “On My First Daughter” utilizes a speaker, which I would venture to say is a biographical voice, that is compassionate, God abiding, and gentle. Just a contradiction to ponder about.   

The following website has more information about Jonson’s life: http://kamus3.homestead.com/jonson.html

"The Man He Killed", Thomas Hardy

Hardy’s “The Man He Killed” p. 637, strikes a chord with me. I find human life to be of infinite value and struggle with any intentional cessation of it. I felt bitterness and regret in the speaker’s tone (whether or not those emotions are there or I am just interposing my personal beliefs I don’t know). Hardy is definitely presenting a moral dilemma however, the irony of the speaker having killed someone that he could have called a friend if not under warfare conditions.

This irony is very valid and vivid, especially in the world’s current state of affairs. I know we all have different opinions and feelings about war, so this would be an interesting poem for us to discuss. A sub-issue that would be worth discussing is that of people enlisting in warfare professions because they have no other means to get income, as again this theme resonates today’s economy:

“Was out of work – had sold his traps –

     No other reason why.”

There is a website that supports this movement towards warfare employment due to economic hardship theory or statement: http://azstarnet.com/news/national/article_a8fbca8a-02df-5685-884a-20a57b1e9db3.html

            This poem has so much ethic and personal believes content, and it makes it a fertile ground for interpretation and discussion. Maybe this is the main reason I like it and want to share it with others.

“Stopping by Woods on a Snowny Evening”, Robert Frost

I enjoyed Frost’s “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening”, p. 637 because on the surface, it seems to be a very simple poem about the beauty of the woods and of the snow. Reflecting on the poem’s surface message, I find it very appealing because nature is one of my favorite things in life. Furthermore, I had never seen snow till I moved here, which was 10 years ago; so snow is still a new thing for me as it doesn’t snow that often. I love to see snow fall and it sounds silly but it looks like a swarm of faeries to me (lol).

            On a deeper level, “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening” contains different themes, depending on how you want to see it. It can symbolize the need we all have to stop and smell the roses, but it can also have a darker emotion of death and desire to die.

            This possible double message contained in the poem makes it for me, a great piece to share with others and have a debate on which theme was Frost’s desired topic.

I do wonder who exactly the owner of the woods is. Is it God? Is it the way he wants to die? If anybody has an idea please share it with me.

“Because I Could Not Stop for Death” by Emily Dickinson

Emily Dickinson talks about death in “Because I Could Not Stop for Death” p. 635. Many writers talk about death but most of the time it is with anger or defiance. This poem however, has a steady, cool demeanor about the “Carriage” ride referred to as dying in the poem. It has a very pleasant rhythm and rhyming sequence. I enjoyed reading this poem because it conveys a very mature and yet brave stance concerning death.

Death is a universal theme and issue. Everybody dies. The theme of death is what makes it a good poem for all of us, as we can all relate to it. We have all had somebody dear to us that has  “passed” away. We all have to face our mortality, and we all have our own understanding or ideas regarding “Immortality” in the form of “Eternity.”

Emily Dickinson wrote “Because I Could Not Stop for Death” when she was sixty years old.  She was residing with her family (no husband or children though) but was quite isolated from the outside world. This might explain why she alludes to the seasons of life including “Fields of Grazing Grain—“, which could be analyzed as the fruits of her life or even as children.  This poem seems particularly tied to her life experiences and her emotional/psychological self at that point in her life. If anybody is interested in learning more about her life, these websites are a good start: http://www.biographyonline.net/poets/emily_dickinson.html, http://www.poets.org/poet.php/prmPID/155

Poetry!

I have, as long as I can remember, always loved poetry.  My grandmother used to watch me quite often when I was a child and she would always recite poetry.  Till this day I can recite those same poems she used to (and still does) recite to me. In fact, I recite them to my daughter. So, you could say poetry feels like home to me; it reminds me of my childhood and of my family that is now far away.

But poetry is not just a reminder of childhood for me. I absolutely enjoy poetry. I like reading it and I like writing it. Poetry is an outward flow of feelings and opinions. It is a tangible piece of the author’s soul. When I read poetry, I can hear the author’s most personal feelings and thoughts. Yes, the author is communicating something to the reader, but also to themselves.  To write poetry, you have to be honest with yourself because if you don’t it sounds forced, dead, static.

Poetry is a conduit for passion, denouncement, sadness, joy, confusion, regret, anger, desire… It is your voice; an interactive monologue with the reader. The reader isn’t responding in the poem but is reacting when reading the poem. And because poems are the writer’s inner thoughts, the reader feels safe reacting to those thoughts.

Poetry to me is the most intimate and honest literary presence there is. I feel free to write what I really feel as a poem, and I feel free to react how I want to when I read poetry.