Fun Hamlet stuff!

I've been meaning to share this stuff with you guys for a while:

Simpsons' Hamlet Too cute.

Hamlet Facebook Newsfeed by McSweeney's Magazine Hilarious.

Richard Burton "To Be or Not to Be" Soliloquy Classic.

Song summary of Hamlet

Iambic Pentameter Rap "The best rapper alive was who? Will Shakespeare!"

Student video on Iambic Pentameter
 

Please post anything you find related to Hamlet that you think others would enjoy (appropriate, of course).

Blog HW #5!!!!!

Why do you think the authors made these choices to reveal or not reveal more of the character in question's past? What is the effect of that choice in each story? How does that choice contribute to the meaning of the work as a whole?

PS. Here are links to both stories:
"Free Fruit for Young Widows"
"The Book of the Dead"

I think that the authors chose to reveal, or not reveal, more of the characters past because not revealing the past of one character can leave the reader with the element of surprise. It also gives the reader a chance to assume the best for a character who may be guilt ridden and want to become a better person. For the character whose past is indeed revealed just lets the reader in on what happens next and the reader can sort of fill in the blanks and make the connection all on their own. As a whole the final decision would be up to the author and how they want the story to be told, as well as how they want the meaning of the work to come through.In the case of the character whose past was not revealed it adds suspense but, when the past is revealed it simply like putting a puzzle together as to why that particular character made certain decisions in their lifetime.

Blog Hw # 5

I think the main reason these two very different authors chose to reveal or not reveal the truth about their charecters all revolves around how they want their story to be portrayed. I also think it may have a lot to do with the authors themselve weather they are more the silent or talkative type, this can be reflected amoung their charecters. I think one authore wants to leave you wondering and wanting more, while the other wants to give you a deep look into their charecters life and emotions, therefore portraying completey diffent types of storys. The effects are very different in that each story gives off a completely different point of veiw and plot just by giving away a charecters backround, or keeping it closed off, and I think this is the main goal of the authors, to make their storys unique.

Blog Hwk #5: "The Book of the Dead" and "Free Fruit for Young Widows"

In both these stories, individuals try to understand their parents' ethical choices. In Nathan Englander's "Free Fruit for Young Widows," Etgar tries to make sense of his father's kindness to Professor Tendler, whom he judges to be a bad person. In Edwidge Danticat's "The Book of the Dead," Ka tries to take in her father's revelation that in his past he was "the hunter" and "not the prey." Interestingly, Englander lets us (and Etgar) hear the details that explain why Tendler elicits Shimmy's empathy, while Danticat gives us (and Ka) much less to work with in our attempt to understand Mr. Bienaime's dark past.

Why do you think the authors made these choices to reveal or not reveal more of the character in question's past? What is the effect of that choice in each story? How does that choice contribute to the meaning of the work as a whole?

PS. Here are links to both stories:
"Free Fruit for Young Widows"
"The Book of the Dead"

Blog # 4

I think this quote is so resonant for authors and script writers because it is so well known, for young and older poeple. Even when it was not as famous, I beleive authors saw this as an opportunity to cite an amazing work of literature and saw the potential in it's popularity as an older quote in a new type of setting/genre. I also beleive it is a very witty and catchy line to read, or to speak. For that reason I beleive screen writers have used this quote so much in the in their movies. This is a timeless quote and im sure it will be used much more in the future by every type of author and in every kind of genre, comedy/spoofs,dramas,romace, and much more.
My favorite type of allusion is "to think, or not to think" because i think it is very powerfull, and it is very hard not to think, therefore this quote does not really make a lot of sence, but is very unique and stiffling. :)

Procrastination!

Just read this great article in The New Yorker about procrastination. Much of the article made me think of Hamlet, and his inability to make a decision about avenging his father's murder.  Doesn't this quote from the article sound like the author must be talking about Hamlet: "Viewed this way, procrastination starts to look less like a question of mere ignorance than like a complex mixture of weakness, ambition, and inner conflict."

Check it out if you're interested. Of course, I know nobody in our class has any idea what it's like to put something off...  :)

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2010/10/11/101011crbo_books_surowiecki?currentPage=1

Oh! And did you know that writer "Victor Hugo would write naked and tell his valet to hide his clothes so that he’d be unable to go outside when he was supposed to be writing." How great is that?!

Blog Hwk#4: "To be or not to be..."

"To be, or not to be, / that is the question" (III.i.63).

Why is this (arguably) the most famous line in all of English literature? Why has this line been so resonant and memorable for readers? What does the line connote for you or evoke from you?

Also, "Hyper Hamlet" is a fantastic site that has attempted to create a record of every time allusions to lines from Hamlet have been made. Look up "To be or not to be" and check out how many allusions others have made to these words! Extra Credit if you post about your favorite allusion to the line!

http://www.hyperhamlet.unibas.ch/index.php/hyperhamlet/hh2


*Please post your answer as a COMMENT to this post!

Citing a play!

Here is an example of how lines from the play should be cited:

At the end of the play, Richard tries to regain his kingdom by imagining his thoughts as his subjects, "And these same thoughts people this little world, / In humours like the people of this world" (V.i.9-10).

Notice that "9-10" lets us know that both Lines 9 and 10 have been quoted. You DON'T need to cite each line separately. Also, please notice that the period goes at the very end--there is NO PERIOD before the last quotation mark.

Please check out this link for more info. on citing from a play using MLA format:
http://www.colby.edu/personal/l/leosborn/quotes.html

Blog Hwk# 3: Puns in Hamlet

Find a moment in Hamlet in which Shakespeare uses a pun to build on the possible meanings of what is being said. Make sure to use a dictionary to explore the multiple meanings of the word (there might be a meaning that existed in Shakespeare's time and does not exist in ours).

A pun is an often humorous use of a word/phrase that has more than one possible meaning.
Examples: 

“The pigs were a squeal!”

“Those scientists should date. They have chemistry!”

"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana." -Groucho Marx

"Kings worry about a receding heir line."

If you're stuck, you may discuss one of the following puns in Hamlet:

p. 38: "sun"

p. 60: "tenders" 

p. 112: "privates"

p. 114: "beggar"

Please explain how Shakespeare uses the pun, what different meanings he is playing with, and what the effect of the pun is.

*Please post your answer as a COMMENT to this post!

HW # 2

On page 49 in Roche's version of Oedipus the chorus says to the messenger, "This is his palace, sir, and he's within. / This lady is his wife and mother... of his children."

On page 211 of the other version of Oedipus the leader says to the messenger, "This is his palace, stranger. He's inside. / But here is his queen, his wife, and mother/ of his children."

Both of these lines are trying to reveal that Oedipus is married to his mother, the queen. In Roche's version its a little more obvious because of the elipses. The elipses adds a dramatic effect that makes the reader pause and say the line two diffeent ways. In the other version, it's not as obvious because there is a line break, however it still has the same effect.

Homework Blog #2

"Jocasta, dearest wife, why have you called me from the palace here?"(p.50. Roche)


"Dearest, what now? Why call me from the palace?"(1041,p.213. Fagles)


There is a HUGE difference in these two quotes. In Roches' version, Oedipus seems to be a loving and calm husband answering to Jocasta's call, but in Fagles' quote, he seems demanding and very like "what is it now?" kind of tone. Almost like he is annoyed that she has called for him. i find it funny because it seems like Roche is more on Oedipus' side to make him appear like a good guy and really there isnt much wrong with him other than the fact that he killed his father and married his mother O.o And then Fagles makes his appear like the power hungry ruler who shouts at his wife... or mother :-x

HW #2

"Jocasta, dearest wife, why have you called me from the palace here?" (p. 50) -Roche

"Dearest, what now? Why call me from the palace?" (1041, p. 213) -Fagles

Both the quote from the original Oedipus story and the updated version by Fagles convey the same message in this line. Oedipus is inquiring about why his wife has called him from the palace, however the main difference between the stories is that the authors' diction convey a different tone to the readers. In Roche's version, Oedipus seems to be speaking very politely to his wife when he says her name and addresses her as "dearest wife." This makes him seem like a very affectionate husband because he acknowledges her and then moves on further to ask her what it is that she had wanted. In Fagles' version however, Oedipus only says "dearest" when he refers to Jocasta. He also says "what now?" which gives a sense that he is a little aggravated that she has disturbed him. Roche creates a more dramatic feeling of love before proposing the question, while Fagles gets straight to the point.

HW2

JOCASTA: At least your fathers death has lightened up the scene.
JOCASTA: But your father's death, that at least, is a great blessing, joy to the eyes! (modern version)

This is suppose to be the same sentence, but they both have completely different tones and therefore throws the whole moment off. In the first line, Jocasta says that Oedipus's father is dead, and at least that calms things down. What she says brings out a content tone; no type of remorse or anything. Though in the updated version, Jocasta emphasizes the death by saying "it is a great blessing, joy to the eyes!". Where did THAT come from? This changes the whole mood of the conversation; and over-exaggerates what she said in the previous version. Its a little too blunt. It makes Jocasta talks more in a open minded way rather then a "safe but truthful" way. The older version is much better due to the fact that it retains its "authenticity" as a Greek novel.

Oedipus HW #2

"Aieeeeee- man of agony- that is the only name I have for you, that, no other- ever, ever, ever! " Fagles, (ln. 1176)
"Good-bye, my poor deluded, lost and damned! There's nothing else that I can call you now." Roche, (pg. 60)

After reading both translations, I've taken notice of a relatively significant change in the diction used by Roche and Fagles. In Roche's translation, Jocasta uses the possessive pronoun "my," which I feel displays a certain amount of guilt on her behalf because she recognizes that Oedipus is her son and takes responsibility for the prophecy becoming true. On the other hand, in Fagles' translation, Jocasta seems to be relatively indifferent and detached, giving Oedipus the name "man of agony" which shows she views Oedipus as a man, an indiviual who has damned himself to the his fate. Although the change in text doesn't seem to be too significant, I think the two translations can be interpreted in different ways, creating different images of Jocasta.

Hw #2

-" (Oedipus)"World's apart? He was my father wasn't he?"/"(Messenger)No more than I who tell you this." Roche, pg 55
-"(Oedipus)What are you saying-Polybus was not my father?/"(Messenger)No more than I am. He and I are equals." Fagles, 1114-1115)

These two different translations sound almost the same, but for Fagles, his translation was more easier to understand in my opinion. Fagles uses words that are more in use and easier to understnd. Both translations are great, anyway. These lines strike me the most. These are the lines where Oedipus' downfall is beginning to come alive. The messenger is exposing the pieces and Oedipus isconnecting them. The messenger is telling Oedipus that his parents from Thebes has just given him up and was ready to kill him when someone found him. Oedipus is learning that the person who he thought where his parents weren't in fact. In Roche's translation, his words are less modern and it took just a little bit more of thinking to realize that the messenger was telling Oedipus that he was given up at birth. In Fagles' translation, the obvious is given to the reader. Oedipus is now knowing the truth.

HW # 2 (Oedipus)

" Aieeeeee- man of agony- that is the only name I have for you, that, no other- ever, ever, ever! " - Fagles (ln. 1176)

"Good-bye, my poor deluded, lost and damned! There's nothing else that I can call you now." - Roche (pg. 60)

I think there is a interesting choice of diction for these two translations. Both quotes are drawn from the moment when Jocasta figured out the truth and she is pleading with Oedipus, who is still oblivious, so he can call off his search. In Fagels' translation, she calls him a "man of agony" and then repeats "ever" thrice. This coveys a feeling of intensity in both thought and emotion. While Roche translation also depicts the same feeling, it evidently shows you that Jocasta has finally see Oedipus for who he is. She has recognized his stubborn an delusional ways and she sees that his faith is hopeless. Fagles doesn't show that, and that's why I feel like Roche translation gives more substance to the story.

hwk 2

"Everything you say would make good sense were my mother not alive-she is; so all your comfort cannot quiet me." -Roche
" Brave words, and you'd persuade me if mother weren't alive but mother lives, so for all your reassurances i live in fear , i must." -Fagles

The difference between this 2 translation is that Fagles translation show that Oedipus has extreme fear about this situation while Roche's translation makes it seem like a simple worry. The fact that Fagles uses the word "fear" heightens the situation that much more and makes reading the book a lot more intense. However, Roche's translation is very mellow and it doesn't seem to do justice to what Oedipus was trying to say. The reader does not feel any tension but the reader feels as if reading a love story by Jane Austen

HW # 2 (Oedipus)

Messenger: "Heaven bless her always and bless hers:
the perfect wife blessed perfectly with him." (The Oedipus plays Of Sophocles)

Messenger: "Blessings on you, noble queen,
queen of Oedipus crwoned with all your family-
blessings on you always!" (Sophocles: The Three Theban Plays)

Both books are extreamly simular in the fact that they are telling the same story and for the most part, in the same format. The differnce between these two works of lituature is that the language and style used are very differnt, due to the fact that one is more current than the other. "Sophocles" is an easier read and the language is a bit more dramatic and exciting than "Oedipus". I think the author of the more current Oedipus plays was trying to convey a more entertainable read than that of the first author because of the wording and punctuation used throught the dialogue. The author of the first tales of Oedipus used a lot more of old english than the second author, conveying a more sophisticated outlook on the book, making it a bit more challenging, or intriguing for some. I think The Oedipus Plays of Sophocles is a bit more fun to read than the newer version just because the english is so much more dramatic and exciting to read than the second version. To analyze the difference in how we speek now and how people spoke back then is extreamly interesting to me and i consider dialogue's such as this as a work of art.

Oedipus Hw#2

Roche:

Messenger- Then, dont you understand, youre terrified for nothing.

Oedipus- Nothing? How--when I am their son?

Messenger- Because Polybus and you were worlds apart (55)

Other dude (I forgot):

Messenger- Dont you know? Youve really nothing to fear.

Oedipus- But why? If Im their son--Merope, Polybus?

Messenger- Polybus was nothing to you, thats why, not in blood (218)

The messenger in Roche's novel tells Oedipus that Polybus isnt his father in a creative, "I'm going to tell you but I'm going to let you figure it out as well" type of way, while the newer novel is more blatant. As the paragraph develops the messenger becomes more and more agitated because he knows the truth is not something Oedipus wants to hear. However, in both novels, Oedipus refuses to listen and pushes answers out of the people around him. The newer version, in my opinion, seems like a reaction to how hardheaded Oedipus is, and so the novel is more straightforward than Roche's version.
-C

Fagles... That's it.

Oedipus Blog#2

Oedipus: "No more nor less than you? Than nothing then."(pg55) ~Roche
Oedipus: "My father- how can my father equal nothing? You're nothing to me!"(Lines1115-1116) ~Fagles

Roche and Fagles both handle the diction and syntax of the lines of the play very differently at times. For example, in this line said by Oedipus, Fagles makes the situation sound more dramatic by adding an exclamation point at the end of the line. This, in my opinion makes the line seem more modern, as if in today's world people will say the line "You're nothing to me" in a harsh and loud tone. On the other hand, Roche uses the same line as if in that century, people would just state it without having any significance. Roche's line of "Than nothing then" is so plain and I when I first read it I was thinking what is the nothing that he's talking about, but when I read Fagles, I understood in a heart beat. I noticed that Fagles uses much more exlamations in his modernized version which makes it more dramatic and which is why I like his version better.

"The lady is his wife and mother. . . of his children." (49)- Roche

"But there is his queen, his wife and mother of his children." (Ln.1017)- Fagles

I was very disappointed with Fables translation. In Roche’s translation the use of the ellipses gives a sense of a dramatic pause. And in Fagles’ translation it is basically breezing through these very significant and ironic lines. The “mother” needs to be emphasized which Roche does but not Fagles. Putting emphasis on the mother shows that he is the mother of Oedipus and his children. Fagles is changing the meaning of the quote which is not making a light bulb go off in the reader’s head. I like Roche’s translation better.

Homework #2

Fagles: "Oedipus is beside himself. Racked with anguish, no longer a man of sense, he won't admit the latest prophecies are hollow as the hold-he's at the mercy of every passing voice if the voice tells of terror." (1001-1005)

Roche: " For rampant fancies in a legion raid the mind of Oedipus. He is so far from sense he cannot gauge the present from the past but pins his soul to every word of fear." (48)

I find this translation difference to be interesting. In Roche's translation, the diction confuses me and I had to re-read the sentences a few times before understanding what was being said. In Fagle's translation the diction is made simple and straight to the point; although the second sentence is much longer than Roche's second sentence. The first sentence in Roche's translation is probably describing the current state of Oedipus' mind. In Fagle's translation, that is clearly stated. In the second sentence of both translations, the same meaning is given and understood. If the diction is more modern, then the reader will have a better understanding of what is going on.

AP English Literature at MHSIS 2010-2011: Blog Hwk #1: Oedipus

"And those who disobey, I'll ask the gods to curse, with fields that never sprout and wombs that never flower..." -p.16

This Quote is ironic because Oedipus, although he doesn't know it yet is cursing himself. It is also ironic because he is basically wishing nothing but malice to the kingdom that he is ruling. The citizens of the kingdom probably disagree in his approach of finding the murderer. The Greeks who are familiar with the myth would find this ironic because they know that Oedipus is basically setting up a perfect trap for his death, he could have just let it go.

AP English Literature at MHSIS 2010-2011: Blog Hwk #2: Oedipus

AP English Literature at MHSIS 2010-2011: Blog Hwk #2: Oedipus: "Find a moment when the Fagles and Roche translations of Oedipus have an interesting difference. What is the significance of the difference? ..."

Roche: "We should live carefree as we may. Forget this silly thought of mother-marrying. Why many men in dreams have married mothers, and he lives happiest who makes the least of it" (52)

Fagles: "Better to live at random, best we can. and for this marriage with your mother- have no fear. Many a man before you, in his dreams, has shared his mother's bed...Live Oedipis, as if there's no tomorrow"

During this time in the story Oedipus has been just found out that the man he believes is his father in Corinth as dies a natural death. But he is still not convinced the prophecy has been derailed because he fears "his mother". Jocasta who I believe at this time has put the pieces togther is trying to finds ways to divert Oedipus' search for answers. In the Roche translation I feel as if there isn't that deep connection between Jocasta and Oedipus in a sense where she uses the term "mother-marrying" and she states how it really only happens in dreams where men could marry there mothers. And how she and he should just live as they are, forgetting about the world. But in the Fagle translation I feel Jocasta's words are strongly stated as if she "is" Oedipus' mother saying "as for this marriage with your mother, have no fear". Jocasta in this translation, which I preferr over the Roche translation isn't as forward in saying live a carefree life, but live as if there is no tomorrow. The sense of forgetting the past is more pronounced.

Blog Hwk #2: Oedipus

" This lady is his wife and mother... of his children." Roche translation

"But here is his queen, his wife and mother of his children" Fagles translation

When reading roche's translation he uses the ... to give it the irony of the Chorus inroducing Yocasta as his mother and also mother of his children, giving it double meanings for those who are familiar with the story. For Fagles translation he is simply introducing Jocasata as Oedipus wife and mother of his children, no double meaning. The meaning of the quote ofcourse changes in the sense that the sentence is unimportant for the readers of Fagles, while Roche keeps the irony going through out the whole play making every word and sentence significant.

homework 2

Jocasta " Worth Nothing- as i told you even then "

Oedpius " You told me, yes but i was sick with fear". Sophocles (52)

Jocasta " There Didn't i tell you from the start?"

Oedpius " So you did i was lost in fear " (215) latest translation

 

 The latest translation sounds very modern and different from Roche's translation . Roche's translation sounds like what the characters would actually say and actually sound vs the later translation sounds it was written so readers can understand it better. Also this dialogue between Jocasta and Oedpius i believe that Jocasta deeply knows thats her son but doesn't want to lay more problems against Oedpius because he already is confused and trying to save the city of thebes so the situation about his ' father ' dying was perfect timing for her to say " i told you so , don't worry ' she's trying to persuade him out of his worries . 

Hwk #1: Oedipus

"Ask away, but don't expect to find a murderer."

Ofcourse as we read this we notice the great irony in Oedipus say, not only is he a murderer but he is the murderer of his own father. And many hints are thrown at him but he is too bussy looking to blame someone else that he does not see all the acts point to him. In that scene he is accusing Creon his "brother in law" who is really his brother, of plotting againts his own death. But ofcourse someone who is familiar with the story such as a greek audience would even laugh to themselves as those words come out of Oedipus mouth, ofcourse he is a killer and the only one to blame. Sophocles used those words to create irony in the sense of Oedipus being so sure of not being a killer, but ofcourse as we read this we know he is infact a killer, the killer.

Blog HW #2: Oedipus

Quote from Roche: "The lady is his wife and mother. . . of his children." (49)

Quote from Fagles: "But there is his queen, his wife and mother of his children." (Ln.1016-1017)

I found this quote from Roche's translation to be very significant and ironic. Since Roche uses the ellipsis it creates more of an ironic significance because Jocasta is in fact Oedipus's wife and his mother. When I noticed that Fagles had changed that part in his translation it upset me. By taking away the ellipsis it also takes away from the irony when it is read. In Fagles's translation that quote now just stands almost as a fact or statement while in Roche's translation it creates irony and a sense of foreshadowing for what is to come in the next few pages of the play. It completely changes the meaning of the statement and I prefer Roche's translation.

Blog Hwk #2: Oedipus

Find a moment when the Fagles and Roche translations of Oedipus have an interesting difference. What is the significance of the difference? Does the meaning change? How so?

"How can a man have scruples when it's only Chance that's king? There's nothing certain, nothing preordained. We should live as carefree as we may." - from book

"What should a man fear? It's all chance, chance rules our lives. Not a man on earth can see a day ahead, groping through the dark. Better to live at random, best we can. " - from the earliest translation

Both of this quotes are saying the same thing. However it is much easier to understand the second quote from the earliest translation (atleast for me it is). The quote is telling us that we should live our lives as if the today was our last day . We shouldn't think so much about what could happen tomorrow and we certainly should not fear life because anything can happen and fearing it won't prevent what needs to happen. It is better to go with the flow of each and every day and leave the worries aside !

Homework Blogg 1

" And if you really think a brother - in law can get away with murder , your not thinking at all " - Oedipus (30).

This Quote is ironic because Oedipus is getting all upset at his brother in law / uncle , falsely accusing him about something him he didnt do . And oedipus is the one that killed the last king and wont believe anything anyone says his just just to help the city of thebes without considering himself

Hw # 1 (Oedipus)

"Go then, let him go, though I go
abundantly to die,
or flung from here and fated;
Yours not his the cry that breaks me.
He a thing that's hated."

I beleive this quote is extreamly ironic and relevent to Oedipus' situation because it wont be Creon who is hated in the end, it will be him, not only by his people, but also by himself. Oedipus in this quote has so much hatred directed towards creon that's really meant for him, and his own fate that was thrust apon him. He has so much pride that he cannot just leave the situation alone, and by doing this, it will lead him to his downfall. The quote also has a very poetic feel in which i think adds to the drama of the situation and makes it so much more powerful and tragic.

Homework #1

"Did you think that I would
never spot such treachery..." (29).

I believe this quote would be ironic to a Greek audience familiar with this play because Oedipus has failed to realize he is the murderer of his father. He doesn't believe the Oracle that was spoken years before he was born, even when it is repeated to him during his reign. Tiresias, the blind Prophet, mentions the oracle in a not-so-subtle way but Oedipus refuses to believe the truth. Sophocles might have made those particular word choices because it is what Oedipus, as well as the town of Thebes, are thinking. This play has had irony on almost every page from the very beginning.

Oedipus Hw #1

"Such ties swear me to his side as if he were my father. I shall not rest until I've tracked the hand that slew the son of Labdacus... (15)"

Like many other people have already mentioned, this line presents irony because Oedipus is completely unaware of his relationship to the man he killed and is determined to find the murderer. I also find it ironic that the means by which Oedipus becomes king ultimately decides his fate. Having been abandoned by his parents, Oedipus leads a false life and to add onto that he ends up paying for his parent's mistake with his life. Had his parents chosen not to believe in the prophecy of the oracle, Oedipus would have still been the successor to his father's throne, became king, and escape the destiny that would have led to his demise at the fault of his parents. Unfortunately, Oedipus is orphaned and as a result is punished for it.

Oedipus HW#1

"The king has pledged us all our pleas/ and we have heard Apollo's voice./ Oh, may he bring salvation in his hands and deal death to all disease." (11) - Priest

Obviously the priest didn't realize that in order for Oedipus to deal death to all disease, he would need to deal death upon himself. I thought that the choice of words-the use of salvation and death- wasn't coincidental because we know that Oedipus' blood needs to be spilled in order to save Thebes. So I guess the irony was in the Priests way of saying how he wishes that Oedipus can save them again.

Oedipus HW #1

"I speak of course as a stranger to the story/and stranger to the crime/...who killed Laius son of Labdacus?"(14)

This quote portrays Oedipus asking the people of Thebes to help in finding the killer of Laius. The irony of what he's saying is that he claims that he's a "stranger to the story and crime" when he knows more about it than anyone else. He was the one that killed Laius! He murdered him and now it's almost like he's asking the people to find him! It's ridiculous. Oedipus is putting himself deeper and deeper into a hole. If he would just let things go then he would have never found out the truth, which maybe would have been better for him. His pride would not subside and it needs to before it gets too late....

Oedipus Hw#1

"Oh, what anguish to be wise when wisdom is a loss (18)"

Tiresias exclaims this to Oedipus at the beginning of their discussion. The quote itself is ironic because usually being wise in any situation is very convinient. However, Tiresias means that Oedipus' wisdom, which is finding out that he is the killer, is a disadvantage to him because he's determined to kill whoever the murderer is, himself. Tiresias warns Oedipus about the information he holds, but Oedipus is very stubborn and feels that he is capable of handling the truth. Maybe sometimes it is better be ignorant...

-C

AP English Literature at MHSIS 2010-2011: Blog Hwk #1: Oedipus

AP English Literature at MHSIS 2010-2011: Blog Hwk #1: Oedipus: "Find a quote (no more than 3 sentences) from Oedipus the King that would be viewed ironically by a Greek audience familiar with the Oedipus ..."

"Such ties swear me to his side as if he were my father. I shall not rest until I've tracked the hand that slew the son of Labdacus... (15)"

Well we have all realized and have been told this book is full of irony, and that is the purpose of Sophocles writing it this way. I researched a little about "Labdacus" and I found out that according to Greek mythology he is Laius' father, who in turn is Oedipus' grandfather. I did not write the entire quote, but it goes on to name Polydorus and Cadmus who are also past relatives. This whole quote is ironic because Oedipus is calling vengence on the killer of Liaus in the name of all these predecessors of Thebes. He not knowing he killed his father, Liaus, and in a way is disrespecting his past by calling vengence for these "kings" is just a whole lot of irony in one quote. Sophocles may have made these particular word choices because in the ancient times, it was a real threat to call upon your ancestors for retribution, especially if they had great authority over people.

Oedipus blog #1

"I say you see and still are blind-appallingly: Blind to your origins and to a union in your house. Yes, ask yourself where you are from (23)?

Tiresias is basically telling Oedipus that he is clearly blind about the act of murder that just occured. He not only insults Oedipus by saying that he is "blind appallingly" about the whole murder, but also insults his life in general. Like he said, "Blind to your origins and to a union in your house," refers to Oedipus' family and where he actually comes from. Since he doesn't know that the person that was murdered was his father, even more he killed him. Later on, he marries his own mother which he doesn't know either, so his blindness continues throughout the play.

Oedipus HW # 1

"Such ties swear me to his side as if were my father. I shall not rest until I've tracked the hand that slew the son of labdacus."(15)

This quote is basically summing up the whole ook in that one line. It is ironic how Oedipus is the progeny of the king. And he does know that he is hunting for himself. I think Oedipus is trying way too hard to find the murder, which is himself. But I guess he is trying to show that he is confident just like solving the Sphinx's riddle , he can find the murderer and the plague will vanish. His pride and being so curious, will lead to the downfall of his reign. I love how he says "if were my father", it is Oedipus' father. I think when he finds out he is the murderer, this will be the climax of the play.