Ho, I'm dead!

ACT IV


By this time in the play, Iago is able to add circumstantial evidence to Othello's case against Desdemona. The evidence being the handkerchief that Othello gave to her as a symbol of his love. To Othello it symbolizes Desdemona because just like how Cassio is in possession of the handkerchief, Othello believes he possesses her as well. Because it was woven by a female prophet using sacred materials and his mother used it to keep his father faithful, it may also suggest one's innocence/fidelity. The fact that Bianca was flinging it at Cassio just as Othello was looking on seemt a bit "scripted" if you know what I mean. Can we say good timing? Iago's beautifully evil plan falls into place and the belief that Desdemona has slept with other men and is the "whore of Venice" prevents him from being moved by her words. When ordered to her room, she brings up Lodivico's attractiveness which leads the conversation to the thought of infidelity which reveals their true colors. Desdemona proves to be the woman that Othello wants as his wife; someone who is faithful and cherishes her chasity. Emilia, on the other hand, takes infidelity very lightly and even suggests that Desdemona go and find someone who can keep her happy. The dramatic irony most memorable in this act is the scene in which Emilia states that the villain who made her husband think she was cheating on him with Othello may be the same man that is deceiving him. The irony in this is that the "villain" is her own husband, Iago.

Dun dun dunnn!


ACT V


I must admit that Iago's plan was quite impressive. However, as with any other tragedy, it doesn't quite work out leading to his downfall and own unmasking. This occurs after the death of Desdemona when Othello and Emilia are in his bedroom discussing the motives for his action. Here, the handkerchief is brought up and Emilia proceeds to tell him the true story behind how Cassio got it from Iago who got it from her. Othello finally realizes the truth and falls weeping as Iago's villainy begins to unmask itself. In my opinion, Othello killed Desdemona out of jealousy and a wish to be a public avenger who punishes. He couldn't live bearing the thought of his wife sleeping with other men, or his men at that. To imagine her giving Cassio what he gave her was what really enraged Othello to the point of murder. He may have also killed her so that she won't be able to sleep with anyone else which can lead back to jealousy; if he can't have her then no one can. To call himself "one that loved not wisely but too well" can mean one of several different things. He can simply be describing himself as someone who falls in love quickly without any second thoughts. In other words, he was someone who loved too much and wasn't wise about it. Othello's speech towards the end was very powerful for it was his last. You can never forget about something that has already happened; especially a fault because no one is perfect, but it may be safe to say that he succeeded in restoring his original dignity and nobility. In the end Othello understood/admitted to his faults and like a true man, he suffered his own consequence-death. It is true what Cassio said, "He was a man great of heart."

Love, Marriage, Death

Since you have failed to give us a topic to blog about, let's go on a ranting rampage!

O-freaking-thello! Why so gullible, huh? This play has been so dramatic that it kind of reminds me of Korean dramas. You know .. The typical "I know what's going to happen, but then again maybe I don't why are you doing this" type of thing. You wanna know what really urks my nerves though? IAGU! That guy, I swear .. Now I see why you said some people now refer to bad guys in literature as an Iagu. He's the epitome of all things evil. I've heard of someone being two-faced before, but Iagu no-doubtly already topped that. I must admit though, he does have a way with words. He's pretty good for a guy that knows nothing outside of war and fighting. Its almost as if he's a little philosopher. Haha! As for Desdemona, she's starting to become a real round character. She definitely knows how to stand up for herself and let her voice be heard; especially with the Cassio issue. Othello, how I wish you were wiser for a man of your position! I certainly feel pathos towards these two lovers knowing that their failure in marriage is inevitable. 

Oh Shakespeare, why you gotta be so deep man? 

Interesting point you got there Dodds!

E.R Dodds' critical perspective on the play "Oedipus" had a few compelling points that I must point out. I like how he characterized Oedipus as a man that is "great in virtue of his inner strengths". I totally agree with that. Especially the part where Dodds said he had the strength to "pursue the truth at whatever cost and to accept it when found" because that is exactly what Oedipus did. The part about our first impulses towards our parents was also quite interesting because people, in general, do tend to love their mothers more than they do their fathers. I guess that's just our natural instinct. As for every man being Oedipus, that is true to a certain extent because everyone is blind to something in their lives. I enjoyed this article more than the other one because I think it contained more ideas than the other one. The article by A. E. Haigh was more of just an explanation of tragic irony (conscience and unconscience) and how it's used.

Yo man, that's your mom!

The prophet Tiresias reveals quite much of Oedipus' guilt. It may have partially been Oedipus' fault for pushing him to that point though, but Tiresias begins questioning him about the truth behind his parents, his marriage, and even his children. It seems to me that it was stupidity on Oedipus' part for taking so long to recognize his guilt and even admitting to the truth. He had an idea of what really happened in the back of his mind. He just kept denying it and prolonging the whole process.

As far as the interpretation goes, I agree with it. It's true that he is punished for his ignorance because he doesn't know his true identity and of him slaying his father and marrying his mother. How was he suppose to know that Jocasta was his own mother? And as far as the father is concerned, it was an altercation gone wrong. Maybe he shouldn't have went to the point of killing him, but Oedipus does seem to have some anger issues going on. Things happen .. Oh well.

Now let's talk about Jocasta. I would have to say that she is probably more so an individual with distinctive traits of personality. You can see throughout the play how protective, caring, and calming she is to those she love. For one, she comes up with a list of reasons for why Oedipus shouldn't believe in Tiresias' horrible prophecies to comfort him. She also tries to make peace between him and Creon. When Jocasta realizes the truth about Oedipus she tries to protect him from it, but fails and ends up hanging herself. What a sick and twisted love story.

So what is dramatic irony? Well, let me explain. It is when the character in a play has limited knowledge about what is to later occur, but we (the reader) can foreshadow the events that leads to the downfall of a hero. In short, we know what's going to happen and the people in the play don't. An example would be how we figured out along the way that Jocasta was his mother and he did not. Also that the man he killed was his father. Seems so obvious to us, right? Right, but they have no clue. Dramatic irony helps to show the limit of nature's understanding and causes us to reflect on a certain moment. This can give the play a more intense feel to it. 

The limitation of having the violence and bloodshed take place offstage gives the play a disadvantage. Having it reported to us, on the other hand, is an advantage. Because it is a play there is no narration involved. We, as readers, in order to grasp the whole plot still need to know what happens offstage. The only way of doing this is through another character's dialogue and that is exactly Sophocles does. Both Jocasta and Oedipus' death is reported through the messenger/chorus. Although there's a lack in the description of the events, we get more information on why the characters did what they did through their dialogue. More reasoning, less descriptive action.

Oedipus ends up blinding himself because he's been blinded his whole life to the truth. When he had his physical sight, he couldn't "see" it and now that he does it's "blinding". Haha, get it? Those who are blind ultimately have better vision. The vision being the truth. Take Tiresias for example. He's blind, yet he's a prophet for god sake! Now why would Oedipus use Jocasta's brooches to surgically remove his eyes? Tough question. Well a brooch's job is to hold things together. I would assume that him taking that from Jocasta' dress would make it fall apart similar to his own life. Metaphor type-thing going on here. Oh and cause it's probably sharp, duh! 

As the play ended I felt great pathos for Oedipus. I mean he lost his title, his throne, his family, his sight. Everything. And the worst part is that all of this was his fate. Ouch! As much as I hate to say it this play does end in total gloom. He goes into exile blinded. His chances of survival are zero to none. His wife/mother is also dead and his girls have to live with the family's history. As for the gods, I don't know much of what to make of them. It was Oedipus' fault for trying to avoid his fate by leaving Corinth because by doing so he actually lived his fate. I guess you can consider them tyrannical because they were just carrying out their powers which so happens to be cruel. 

Theme: Power can lead to ignorance of the truth.

Oooo-Edipus!

Unlike the other texts we've read so far in this class, Oedipus the King is a play. The diction used here is very distinctive. Rather than getting straight to the point the characters babble on and on about a simple request/idea. The syntax is also quite interesting. Lots of dashes and dots ...

Anyways! Hamartia is present in many of Oedipus' actions. If he would have never killed the stranger he met (which turned out to be his father), then there wouldn't have been such a problem. It doesn't stop there though. Oedipus begins to create an even bigger problem by seeking to uncover the past. He even sends for Teiresias. What a bad idea! Because he doesn't know who he is, this leads to his downfall.

I believe catharsis occurs when Oedipus thinks back on his past and realizes to himself that he has killed Laius. Although he hasn't yet confirmed it, him and I both know that he did it. Oedipus went through quite some trouble just to find Laius' killer (which was himself) that there must have been some type of relief whether it be good or bad. In this case I would guess bad. He's probably regretting making such a big deal out of the whole thing now.

There was definitely some pathos going on when I finally realized that he was the one who committed the crime. The poor guy is so confused! I mean he killed his father and married his own mother without a clue. They even had children together man. How sickening ..

What does he do now?