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?

To One of the Most Confusing Books I've Read (Heart of Darkness)

There were quite a few archetypes in the novel, "Heart of Darkness." One was obviously water. I mean, HELLO! They're on and are surrounded by water throughout the whole novel for crying out loud. Anyways, water stood for many things one of which was spiritual mystery. This is backed up with the lines, "And indeed no thins is easier for a man who has, as the phrase goes, "followed the sea" with reverence and affection, than to evoke the great spirit of the past upon the lower reaches of the Thames." That one's pretty self explanatory. Next one would have to be the river described in colors: "Flames glided in the river, small green flames, red flames, white flames, pursuing, overtaking, joining, crossing each other-then separating slowly or hastily." The colors all symbolizes different things from hope, to sacrifice, to timelessness which ties in with rivers and its transitional phases of the life cycle. There is also mentioning of the sun setting which stands for death-a very big part of the novel. Marlow was to travel to the yellow which stood for enlightenment and wisdom. Both of which he obtained from Kurtz and his accounts of Africa and imperialism.

Alright on to "The Hero's Journey". For departure, there is a call to adventure when Marlow sets off to Africa. I believe that his supernatural aid was his aunt because without her he may not have gotten the job and was never able to venture out in the first place. The crossing of the first threshold appears when he reaches Africa and is exposed to its horrible conditions and treatment of the slaves. The novel does adheres to "The Hero's Journey", but it may not be as detailed for it is missing white a few steps. Overall though they can be considered similar to one another.

Remember That One Line? (Heart of Darkness)

"It was difficult to realize his work was not out there in the luminous estuary, but behind him, within brooding gloom" (4)

I chose this line because it talks about the Company which seems to be significant to me. It's basically stating that the Company's work is done in darkness and gloom instead of in the luminous estuary. For work to be done in the luminous estuary, this most nearly means that it is in glowing water and is visible to all others. This may suggest that their work may be somewhat shady or evil since it's in a sense hidden behind him. I feel as though this line is important to the novel because it may foreshadow something about the Company (most likely bad).

Besides, the title is "Heart of Darkness" .. How much good can there be?

A complex not yet love but lust story (Wide Sargasso Sea)

Antoinette and Rochester are now married. Just like in Jane Eyre, the marriage transaction of $30,000 is still valid. On the way to their honeymoon in Granbois they are caught in a rain shower and shelters under a mango tree. Sounds familiar (rain, tree, A&R)? As he begins to spend more time with his wife, he becomes lustful of her and her beauty. After touching the rose he comments on how beautiful things have short lives. I mention this because I feel as though it may be of importance for the latter half of the novel. This novel, yet again, continues to repeatedly have scenes that involve fire such as the candle on the table that burned a couple of insects to death while they ate. At one point Rochester begins to believe that everyone knew about Antoinette's family history of lunatics and that was he was tricked into marrying her. As with the fire, the Bible is also being brought up in connection to Daniel and Rochester still has his horse. He also starts calling her Bertha which is who we know her as in Jane Eyre.

I find Antoinette and Jane similar because they are both marginalized in society. Jane was rejected from the wealthy and the poor as Antoinette is rejected from the blacks and the English. I think it is now also safe to say that Mrs. Temple was to Jane Eyre as Christophine was to Antoinette. Let's not forget to mention that part 2 of this novel is told through Rochester's point of view. Rhys may have done this to balance out the novel by giving us perspective through both Antoinette and Rochester's eyes. This helps me, as a reader, to get a better understanding of the two and where they stand as far as the marriage is concerned. It seems as though when Antoinette begins sharing with Rochester her life story, signs of a mental illness becomes a bit visible (her laughing).

This one's about Bertha with AIDS (Wide Sargasso Sea)

This novel gives us a perspective of Bertha, better known as Antoinette, that we did not see in Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre. She is not the same crazy women that is locked up in Mr. Rochester's attic. Compared to her mother, Annette, and brother, Pierce, she appeared to be the sane one in the family. Now isn't that crazy??

I believe I found a few connections between this novel and Jane Eyre. The most obvious one was the presence of fire. It was one of the most important symbols in Jane Eyre and houses were set on fire there too. To have the same event happen so early in the text, I think it may be important to this novel as well. Of course there was also the introduction of Mr. Mason and his family to that of Antoinette's. On a deeper level of interpretation Antoinette, like Jane Eyre, was in a sense rejected by her family and grew up as an outsider to the society around her. There is also a garden in this novel similar to the one in Jane Eyre. Hey, you never know if it may be relevant or not!! Anyways, she has a nightmare I believe twice so far in part one of the novel. Its pretty weird and strangely eerie as well. Maybe this will be important in the latter part of the novel? Who knows. But her mother really lost her mind when the fire killed her beloved son. Now I wonder what may Antoinette lose her mind. Oh and about the whole money thing when Tia stole her dress/pennies, it goes to show you how evil money can be. Both Tia and Mrs. Reed were greedy, money-hungry people who used Antoinette and Jane for their money. I think social status/class plays a bit part in both of the novels too. In Jane Eyre it was more of the rich versus the poor while it is more of the blacks versus the whites in this novel.

Yeah, I think that's about it so far. Its been awhile .. I'm a bit rusty, but hey! Here's my blog for you :)