'Oedipus Rex' Guide Questions for test on TUESDAY!

1. Creon tells Oedipus that he has “lost his sense of balance” and is “sullen in yielding and brutal in rage”. He also asks aloud: “Was he in his right mind?”.  How would you describe Oedipus’s madness?  Is he crazy or merely confused?  Is his pursuit of the truth noble, or merely insane?

            Oedipus’s madness is one rooted in his fear and anxiety over his fulfillment of fate. His destiny, foretold by the Delphi, weighs on him and in his efforts to defy it he simply succumbs to its inevitability. Oedipus is not crazy by nature but his confusion over his prophecy and the role he was to play in his father’s death and mother’s bedding drove him to insanity. Oedipus does all he can to prevent his fate by isolating himself from who he believes to be his biological parents, but his confusion over his origin causes him to unknowingly fulfill his destiny. His pursuit of the is noble for he strives to prove the opposite of his unfortunate reality, and his pursuit of knowledge originates from his quest to save his beloved Thebes and all of it’s citizens, for he vows that, “once more I must bring what is dark to light,” “To avenge the city and the city’s god,” “By avenging the murdered king.” (Page 9) Since Oedipus renounces the truth he searches for his own truth to prove that he is in control of his own destiny, and while some might consider this idea of free will a naïve, even insane, belief his actions are only done in with the noblest intensions.

2. Oedipus calls himself an “abomination” for killing his father and marrying his mother. If he was aware of neither, why does he call himself evil? Is a man responsible for the evil of his actions if he is truly unaware that they are evil? In other words, is ignorance a good excuse?

Teiresias explains to Oedipus that, “you live in hideous shame with those / Most dear to you. You can not see the evil.” (Page 20) and for this reason Teiresias attempts to save Oedipus from the horror of the truth and allow him to live in blind happiness. Although Oedipus was unaware of the identities of his real parents he called himself an “abomination” for his actions, he cannot forgive himself for his trespasses committed while unaware of the truth. The terror of killing his father and bedding and marrying his mother is too great to overcome, and Oedipus will never be able to justify his actions to himself even though his unknowingness in his infractions and his efforts to combat his fate were noble and he deserves forgiveness rather than the title of evil. Everyone should always be accountable for his or her actions, but when a man is truly unaware of the evil for those actions he should be partially pardoned. Ignorance is therefore a moderate excuse for Oedipus’ actions, he didn’t know the man he killed was his father but he stilled slayed multiple men just because they wouldn’t let him pass which in itself is a horrible crime regardless of familial ties. In regards to his mother he should be forgiven for he was unaware of her true identity and therefore when he married her and had children with her he was acting under the knowledge that she was just any other woman. Since Oedipus tries to defy his fate by leaving his home and coming to Thebes to prevent himself from trespassing against who he believes to be his parents he shows that all his actions of evil thereafter were committed blind from the truth and therefore less evil and partially forgivable.

3. Recount the events that lead up to the self-blinding of Oedipus.  Why does Oedipus choose this form of self-punishment and what is the symbolic significance of this act?

            The events that lead up to Oedipus’ decision to blind himself was the verification of his origin, the horrific realization of the weight of his trespasses against his parents, and the suicide of his mother / wife. Oedipus explains his decision to blind himself in his statements accompanying his self-punishment in which he says, “’No more, / No more shall you look on the misery about me, / The horror of my own doing! Too long you have / known / The faces if those whom I should never have seen, / Too long been bling to those for whom I was / searching! / From this hour, go in darkness!” (Page 69) The symbolic significance of this act is that although before he could see he was blind to the truth of his actions and he was not able to see his bleak reality until the acquisition of knowledge consumed him in self-disgust and drove him to physically blind himself in an attempt to escape the horror that became of his life by the glaring light of truth.

4. What is the significance of Iocaste’s constant admonitions to Oedipus that he stop thinking about the prophecies and stop worrying about his fate?  When does she really learn the truth, in your opinion? Support your answer with examples from the text.

            The significance of Iocaste’s constant admonitions to Oedipus, that he stop thinking about the prophecies and stop worrying about his fate, are that they show her desperate efforts to combat the acquisition of the truth for she already knows, deep inside her, that it would be better to live a happy life of ignorance than to confront and attempt to come to terms with the disgusting reality. Iocaste unfortunately quite quickly comes to the realization of their predicament and despite her great efforts to prevent Oedipus from also uncovering the truth his epiphany soon follows. Iocaste first really learns the truth when the messenger reveals to Oedipus that the man and woman who raised him are in fact not his biological parents and that he saved him from dyeing as an infant. Although Oedipus must still speak to his other savior, the shepherd, until he is convinced of the truth it is at this point they Iocaste has the horrific realization that destiny has been fulfilled and she has married and bared children with her own son. Her early realization can be seen in her attempts to persuade Oedipus against pursuing further investigation, the first of which contained the plead, “For God’s love, let us have no more questioning! / Is your life nothing to you? / My own is pain enough for me to bear.” (Page 56) Unfortunately for Iocaste she was unable to persuade Oedipus’ to end his obsession and investigation into his origin and therefore his consequent discovery condemned them both to suffer rater than for her to try to shoulder the load of the truth alone, which she was attempting to do by preventing Oedipus from verifying the truth for himself.

5.  How is this play actually about repression?  What are some examples of Oedipus repressing memories or feelings that he would prefer not to confront?

This play is deeply rooted in the characters attempts to repress the truth in order to sustain a semblance of normalcy. An example of Oedipus repressing memories and feelings that he would prefer not to confront is when he comments to Iocaste about. “How strange a shadowy memory crossed my mind, / Just now while you were speaking; it chilled my / heart.” (Page 39) Iocaste had just told him of how the king had inflicted harm on his son in an attempt to murder him so he would not live to fulfill his fate of killing his father; this awakens a subconscious memory in Oedipus of his abuse and abandonment as an infant. If he were to give any validity to this vision he would have realized the truth of his origin then, he instead chose to continue his charade and re-repressed this memory that was trying to surface so that he could continue to live in blissful ignorance. The entire play revolves around Oedipus’ pursuit to defy his fate and repress anything that would hint that he is in fact fulfilling it.

6. While the entire play contains multiple references to the eyes and sight, there are also many references to light and darkness as well.  How are these motifs related to ideas related to personal responsibility and self-knowledge?

            These motifs of eyes and sight along with light and darkness related to ideas related to personal responsibility and self-knowledge for people are responsible for expanding their self-knowledge, and while eyes might lift their dark lids to educate one about the exterior world it is the gain in knowledge that gives you sight into the soul and provides true enlightenment. Teiresias points out the difference in physical and spiritual sight early on in the play, when he reluctantly tells Oedipus of the fate he has already fulfilled, by explaining, “You mock my blindness, do you? / But I say that you, with both eyes, are blind:” (Page 22) Teiresias is physically blind yet he can see the truth of Oedipus’ identity and his trespasses against his parents, while Oedipus is physically visually enabled but knowledgably crippled for he cannot see the horrific reality he has fallen into. Once Oedipus gains the burden of the truth and is blinded by its horrific glare he inflicts such a blinding shock onto his physical being by blinding himself and turning off the light, explaining, “From this hour, go in darkness!” (Page 69) This play shows that it is one’s personal responsibility to balance the light and darkness of their life in order to enable them to only see the essential truths without blinding them with the horrors of total reality.

7. Discuss a few ways in which Oedipus Rex demonstrates the conflict between fate and free will. Ultimately, is Oedipus more a victim of prophecies and fate or is he a victim of his own bad decisions?
             Oedipus Rex demonstrated the conflict between fate and free will for by trying to oppose his fate and assert his free will Oedipus ultimately plays into his fate. The importance and the controversy of prophets is also addressed in this play, for if Laïos had never been told by the Delphi that his son was destined to kill him and bed his wife then Laïos would have not been driven to try and eradicate his son only days after his birth, furthermore if Oedipus hadn’t been told by the Delphi that he was fated to kill his father and bed his mother than he would have not tried so hard to distance himself from the man and woman he believed to be his adoptive parents and therefore wouldn’t have met his actually parents and committed the trespasses against them. Although, if one considers the prophets and their prophecies part of fate itself and it’s tool to wield humans to its will than the existence of prophets such as the Delphi are just are crucial for by informing people of their fate makes them strive to exemplify free will and defy it, which only plays into them ultimately falling into fates plan for them. Under the circumstances Oedipus was forced into, living in constant fear of carrying out a horrific fate, he did all he could to oppose it and nobly made decisions the best he could. Therefore overall he was a greater victim of fates inevitable destiny for him and the prophecies help in leading him to seal his own fate, than a victim of his own bad decisions. It should be noted that this victimization stands on the fact that Oedipus was ignorant to the truth and therefore his decisions were the best they could be based on his limited knowledge, if he had known the identity of his true parents from the beginning and with this knowledge carried out the same actions then he would have been a victim of his bad decisions. Overall, even if we all have a pre-determined destiny we should all strive to live our lives to the fullest, under the assumption of free will, and make well-informed and responsible decisions based on the knowledge currently available and allow ourselves to be held accountable for our actions.

The Birds Analytical Response

The Mysterious Murderous Birds

Question: Scholars and critics have argued for years over the CAUSE of the bird attacks. In the original story, the author is careful to provide one, while Hitch leaves it ambiguous. What do you think is the cause and do you like the fact that Hitchcock does not provide a cause for the attacks? Remember that your answer could be more literal or purely symbolic- you can make a decent argument either way.

            I actually quite enjoy the fact that Hitchcock does not provide a cause for the bird attacks. I don’t really think that any explanation would make very much sense or be realistic and therefore if a reason was given I would have been annoyed at the absurdity of it and it’s inadequacy to explain the birds behavior. Omitting the explanation let Hitchcock play with the randomness and outrageousness of the attacks without being constrained to justify them with a fictitious reasoning system. The ambiguity of the bird attacks plays well to the confusion of the characters themselves, for although prior attacks are referenced they are also not explained, which creates an even greater sense of fear due to the uncertainty of the bird’s actions. I think this is the cause of Hitchcock’s choice to omit the cause of the bird attacks from the movie; the lack of explanation creates greater drama and more shocking horror. The high contrast of a boring, ordinary town with the scenes of enraged, murderous birds preying on unsuspecting, defenseless everyday people is only amplified by the deficiency of an apparent motivation for the bird attacks. The neglect of a thorough backstory for the bird’s actions creates confusion in both he characters and the observers, and the movie concludes without satisfying the viewer’s expectation of a typical and fulfilling wrap-up. This movie’s culmination that is insufficient in understanding the cause of the bird attacks furthers the horror of the movie for uncertainty breeds anxiety, and the confusion built up in the observer by the unexplained occurrences leaves a lasting impression and annoyance. If the cause of the bird attacks were to be explained in the movie it would have created resolution for the spectators which would have made The Birds duller, for part of the allure of the movie is the horror created by it’s unsettled nature. I believe Hitchcock made a brilliant theatrical decision to omit the cause of the bird attacks from his adaptation of the book into movie form because it made the film more memorable and horrific.

Eye of the Storm

English Homework for Tuesday, Sept. 16

Act 1 Prologue and Scene 1 Oedipus Rex                                     

1.     Who/What does Creon consult to find out what must be done to help Thebes and Oedipus out of their current crisis? 

a.     To find out what must be done to help Thebes and Oedipus out of their current crisis, Creon consults the oracle, Delphi.

2.     Why do the people of Thebes not find out who killed the King before this time?  Also, why do the people of Thebes think of Oedipus as a great leader?

a.     The people of Thebes do not find out who killed the King before this time because there was no witness to tell how the king died, for only one companion of the King survived and he was so frightened by the ordeal that he could only remember that a band of highwaymen attacked and overwhelmed the King.

b.     The people of Thebes think Oedipus is a great leader because he saved Thebes from the Sphinx and it’s song.

3.     How does the play raise the topic of FATE early in the first two scenes?  Cite and explain one specific example from the text. 

a.     One example of fate occurs in the first act’s prologue when Creon consults the oracle, Delphi, and it predicts that the only way to end Thebes’ troubles is to, “expel from the land of / Thebes / An old defilement we are sheltering. / It is a deathly thing, beyond cure; / We must not let it feed upon us longer.” (Page 7) The oracle tells of the possibility of a different fate than the one Thebes is heading toward if Oedipus can fulfill this task.

4.     What must Oedipus do to solve the murder that is plaguing the city?  How does he go about attacking the problem?

a.     To solve the murder that is plaguing the city, Oedipus must listen to the Delphi and expel the “old defilement,” (Page 7) from Thebes by finding the murderer of Thebes’ previous king, Laïos, and taking revenge upon him.

b.     Oedipus goes about attacking the problem by asking his subjects if they know anything about the murder, assuring them that they will not be penalized for telling information they previously withheld, and even promising a reward for knowledge of the murderer’s identity.

5.     How might Teiresias be able to help them to “detect the criminal”?  What does he proceed to tell Oedipus when he comes before him? 

a.     Teiresias might be able to help them to “detect the criminal” (Page 16) because he is a holy prophet, a blind seer.

b.     When Teiresias comes before Oedipus he proceeds to tell him, “How dreadful knowledge of the truth can be / When there’s no help in truth! I knew this well, / But made myself forget. I should not have come.” (Page 17)

6.     What does Teiresias say about “knowledge of the truth” when he is asked for help?

a.     When Teiresias is asked for help he says that “knowledge of the truth” (Page 17) is dreadful for it provides no help.

7.     Explain the conflict that arises between Oedipus and Teiresias.  Why does the King become so upset with “the seer”?  Who gets the last word in the scene?  Summarize his statement.  What makes this so significant?

a.     The conflict that arises between Oedipus and Teiresias when Oedipus asks Teiresias to use his talents to help find the murderer of Laïos, but Teiresias refuses.

b.     The King becomes so upset with “the seer” because Teiresias admits he knows something but refuses to tell Oedipus.

c.     Teiresias gets the last word in the scene.

d.     Teiresias roughly says that the murderer of Laïos is a man in Thebes who was born a poor Theban but grew rich and married, and had children with, his own mother and killed his father, and that Oedipus is in fact this man.

e.     This statement is so significant because it predicts what Oedipus is to discover as truth throughout the play, as he unearths his identity. 

The Shining Free-Write Response

Unsatisfying Culmination

            I enjoyed The Shining in both book and movie form, but overall I think the book version is better because the ending does a fantastic job of wrapping up the story. In the book Jack has a moment of redemption when he is able to overcome the overlook’s crushing hold on him and help Danny, this enables him to try and amend all his wrongdoings and shows how his love for Danny is so immense it is able to break the consuming power the overlook has over him. Stephen King suggests that to achieve true horror love is needed and in this case it couldn’t be more true because the horror of the overlook finally taking Jack over and smashing his face in with the mallet is amplified by the contrast of his heroic love for Danny just moments before. This contrast of love and horror is lacking in the movie, none of the characters ever really show love for one another which downplays the terror of Jack turning on his wife and son because it isn’t as drastic of a change for he is consistently annoyed and angry at them in the movie. The movie lacks this point of redemption for Jack and, having read the book first, left me with emptiness where my sympathy for Jack once resided. Another feeling of depravity I got when watching the movie was the exemption of the boiler exploding and diminishing the overlook to ashes with Jack’s body inside. Between reading the book and watching the movie I looked forward to the explosive ending, and imagined that in the movie there would be a spectacular eruption and the shots of the Overlook ablaze would be breathtaking, suffice to say I was very disappointed. Lastly, I was probably most unsatisfied with the lack of resolution in terms of Dick, Danny, and Wendy. I enjoyed the fast-forward in the book, getting to see how the three were coping after the ordeal, and the seeing how Dick was becoming a fatherly figure for Danny. Sadly, the movie had none of these, Jack killed Dick and that was the end of that hope for a semi-happy ending. This lack of future insight in the movie was unfulfilling, but I was most bothered by the fact that Dick didn’t live long enough to be tempted by the Overlook. I loved when Dick went to get blankets from the shed and almost becomes one of the Overlook’s meat puppets, the suspense of not knowing if he would be able to fight the pull of the hotel or if he would succumb as Jack did and go out and try to kill Danny and his mother. That split second of unsureness about the outcome of the story was bracing and was unfortunately absent from the movie. Although the movie did contain a lot of brilliant amendments to the book, such as the stunning blood and elevator scene, the lack of a conclusion equivalent to the quality and satisfaction achieved in the book was disappointing.