"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
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
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.
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)
"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.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
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.
-"(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.
"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
" 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
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?
Friday, September 24, 2010
"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 !
"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
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.
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.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
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.
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....
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....
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
HW #1
pg. 24
"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"
I caught this specific line quite amusing due to the amount of irony that it had. Throughout this whole page, Oedipus speaks of how he will courageously bring down the killer of Laius. He shows just how determined he is to find the murderer saying " such ties swear me to his side as if he were my father". To pretend to have that kind of strong relationship, shows how serious he really is in finding the murderer. Though what makes this whole speech of his so off is that he is the one who killed Laius. So him expressing how infuriated he is and what he's going to do when he finds this killer can't be taken seriously. what makes this even worse is that this statement "as if he were my father" adds more irony. That actually was his father. Oedipus soon finds out that the killer is himself on page 21 from Tiresias, but highly doubts him. Oedipus shouldn't have done that.
"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"
I caught this specific line quite amusing due to the amount of irony that it had. Throughout this whole page, Oedipus speaks of how he will courageously bring down the killer of Laius. He shows just how determined he is to find the murderer saying " such ties swear me to his side as if he were my father". To pretend to have that kind of strong relationship, shows how serious he really is in finding the murderer. Though what makes this whole speech of his so off is that he is the one who killed Laius. So him expressing how infuriated he is and what he's going to do when he finds this killer can't be taken seriously. what makes this even worse is that this statement "as if he were my father" adds more irony. That actually was his father. Oedipus soon finds out that the killer is himself on page 21 from Tiresias, but highly doubts him. Oedipus shouldn't have done that.
AP English Literature at MHSIS 2010-2011: Blog HW #1: Oedipus
"Such ties swear me to his side as if he were my father." p. 15
In this quote, Oedipus is speaking to the chorus about why he is taking such as crime like the murder of the previous king so seriously. As the new king, he feels obligated to finding out the truth. He is committed to doing so mainly because of his pride, which we can predict will be his downfall in the story. This statement however, is very ironic because those familiar with the Oedipus myth know that he is the true person responsible for committing the crime. "As if he were my father" is what makes the quote so significant because other relatives rather than a father could have been used to represent closeness, for example, a brother. Sophocles' diction makes the audience want to see how Oedipus finds out the truth even more since he is saying such things that will come back to haunt him.
Blog HW #1: Oedipus Response
" But not for you, you purblind man: in ears and mind and vision" (pg 22)
To me, this just screams irony. It's ironic for Oedipus to refer to Tiresias as a "purblind" man, in ears, mind, and vision, when in fact, he is also blind in all of these aspects. He is stubborn and refuses to listen to Tiresias claims. He gets angry and annoyed whenever Tiresias calls him out and label him as the killer. Also, he is so determine to find Laius murderer, that he doesn't think things through properly. His decisions are rash, and he doesn't think before he talk. Finally, he claims that he "lives in the light" and he doesn't. He is so blinded by his pride and eagerness that he doesn't know when to quit, and as a result of that, he eventually finds out that he is the one who murdered Laius, who is his father in actuality. He addresses and teases Tiesias for his blindness, when, that is one of his biggest flaw as well.
To me, this just screams irony. It's ironic for Oedipus to refer to Tiresias as a "purblind" man, in ears, mind, and vision, when in fact, he is also blind in all of these aspects. He is stubborn and refuses to listen to Tiresias claims. He gets angry and annoyed whenever Tiresias calls him out and label him as the killer. Also, he is so determine to find Laius murderer, that he doesn't think things through properly. His decisions are rash, and he doesn't think before he talk. Finally, he claims that he "lives in the light" and he doesn't. He is so blinded by his pride and eagerness that he doesn't know when to quit, and as a result of that, he eventually finds out that he is the one who murdered Laius, who is his father in actuality. He addresses and teases Tiesias for his blindness, when, that is one of his biggest flaw as well.
Blog HW #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
In this quote Oedipus is speaking to his people, asking the murderer of King Laius to come forth. When no one responds to his nice punishment of only banishment and not physical punishment he gets angry and wishes bad upon the king's murderer. It is ironic because he is wishing things such as the things that plague his kingdom. He wishes bad harvest and fertility to the king's murderer(s). The Greek audience familiar with the myth would know that this is ironic because it is what Oedipus's punishment is for killing the King. The Oracle said that the plague would continue until the blood of Laius's murderer(s) was spilt. So now Oedipus is determined to find the murderer in order to save his kingdom and be seen as a great king. But little does he know that he is searching for himself.
Irony in Oedipus
Blog Hwk #1: Oedipus
"I speak of course as a stranger to the story
and stranger to the crime..." (14)
This whole page is full of Irony. This is when he is talking to the people (I think at the alter of Zeus) and he wants someone to confess to the crime and come forward. No one moves and he continues talking about how they shouldn't fear punishment besides being banned or that it's because they're covering for the guilty one - the Irony is that the one talking is the guilty one, and he doesn't even know it! I think Sophocles chose the diction he did because the double use of stranger has a meaning and an implication both which are different but go hand in hand. He says he is a stranger to the story, he doesn't know what's causing the plague, and stranger to the crime but as I read it, it seemed to me, he was implying that the action of murdering is a strange one for someone like him. I think if you read it in that sense, it emphasizes the Irony because he did kill the man. Obviosly, if you're a stranger to the story you're a stranger to what took place in it (the murder). Or so he thinks. Little does he know.
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 myth. Why is the quote ironic? Why might Sophocles have made those particular word choices (diction)?
For example:
For example:
"This quest that throngs you here, poor needy children, is no new quest to me. I know too well, you all are sick, yet sick, not one so sick as I" (7).
Oedipus is telling the people of Thebes that no one is as "sick" over the plague in their city as he is. He means that he is deeply disturbed and worried about his people. Of course, the word "sick" also has other meanings, such as psychologically and/or physically ill. Oedipus is also "sick" in this sense of the word. He has committed murder and incest; acts that most cultures would consider quite disturbed and "sick."
Dystopias for Teens: My Thoughts
This article had many interesting points and ideas but I chose to elaborate on this excerpt:
"Dystopian fiction may be the only genre written for children that’s routinely less didactic than its adult counterpart. It’s not about persuading the reader to stop something terrible from happening—it’s about what’s happening, right this minute, in the stormy psyche of the adolescent reader."
I think all teenagers should read dystopias especially after reading Brave New World and The Handmaids Tale. These two dystopias don't seem entirely too didactic to me and do evoke a "stormy" psyche in the reader - in The Handmaid's Tale, feeling for Offred as she explains in elaborate and wrenching metaphors about her emotional wants and losses stemming from her family, and in Brave New World - Our shifted sympathies from Bernard, The Black Sheep, to John, the black cat among sheep, and how we come to realize the World State is just a fancy lie hidden by illusions.
"Dystopian fiction may be the only genre written for children that’s routinely less didactic than its adult counterpart. It’s not about persuading the reader to stop something terrible from happening—it’s about what’s happening, right this minute, in the stormy psyche of the adolescent reader."
I think all teenagers should read dystopias especially after reading Brave New World and The Handmaids Tale. These two dystopias don't seem entirely too didactic to me and do evoke a "stormy" psyche in the reader - in The Handmaid's Tale, feeling for Offred as she explains in elaborate and wrenching metaphors about her emotional wants and losses stemming from her family, and in Brave New World - Our shifted sympathies from Bernard, The Black Sheep, to John, the black cat among sheep, and how we come to realize the World State is just a fancy lie hidden by illusions.
I think the Teen Dystopias is a genre specifically it's own because not many teenagers, unless it's for an AP English class, will pick up The Handmaids Tale because the question comes up how can I relate to a married woman who lost her husband and child? Or Brave New World and how they implement stability, identity, and community to their world? The only stability I seek is stability of my math grades at school. Despite this, I found myself deeply engrossed in these Dystopia's because at first even though I couldn't really relate to them, as I read them and analyzed them, realized that I could relate in some shape or form and I appreciated the intellectual gain I obtained from them. These novels show what direction society can take if certain situations keep going they way they are. However, they may seem a bit exaggerated in their likelihood however it doesn't bring down the overall enjoyment of reading the books.
Classic Dystopia's like the Handmaids Tale and Brave New World should be introduced first because of the bare and stripped nature of the books. That's what we need to be reading nowadays. Dystopoian Fiction like the Hunger Game is clouded by the glam and glitz of a free wardrobe and scrumtious food to the kids playing the violent games. In a review of The Hunger Games, the article states,
"As a tool of practical propaganda, the games don’t make much sense. They lack that essential quality of the totalitarian spectacle: ideological coherence. You don’t demoralize and dehumanize a subject people by turning them into celebrities and coaching them on how to craft an appealing persona for a mass audience."
I haven't read the book but I would think that If I can't get a deeper, muilti-layered lesson or message out of it, then it is not a Dystopia I would want to read my first time around. I'm not saying all Dystopia Fiction is like that (let's hope not) but I rather stick to the originals being introudced first instead of telling your English class to get a copy of The Hunger Games and analyze it as a Dystopia.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Guidelines for Posting to this Blog
1) All postings should be written carefully and professionally. No "LOL" or "u" instead of "you." This is a blog, but it is also an AP Literature class and preparation for posting like this you might be asked to do in college. Spell words correctly (this site has Spell Check) and use correct grammar, punctuation, etc.
2) All postings must relate to our class. Please do not post links to funny youtube videos, your facebook page, etc.
3) When responding to what other students write, be respectful and constructive. Do not write: "What Sarah wrote was stupid." Instead, "I disagree with Sarah's idea that _____ because ________."
4) When responding to what other students write, it is fine to say "I agree with Mark." However, this needs to be followed with an explanation AND the presentation of A NEW IDEA.
5) Cite when you quote from a text. If it is clear what text you are citing from, the page # is sufficient. Otherwise, author and page #.
6) Posts that count for homework credit must be a minimum of 100 words.
7) Your name on this site should be your real first and last name.
8) Be thoughtful, daring and creative!
2) All postings must relate to our class. Please do not post links to funny youtube videos, your facebook page, etc.
3) When responding to what other students write, be respectful and constructive. Do not write: "What Sarah wrote was stupid." Instead, "I disagree with Sarah's idea that _____ because ________."
4) When responding to what other students write, it is fine to say "I agree with Mark." However, this needs to be followed with an explanation AND the presentation of A NEW IDEA.
5) Cite when you quote from a text. If it is clear what text you are citing from, the page # is sufficient. Otherwise, author and page #.
6) Posts that count for homework credit must be a minimum of 100 words.
7) Your name on this site should be your real first and last name.
8) Be thoughtful, daring and creative!
New Yorker article on dystopias for teens
Interesting article that mentions Brave New World and focuses specifically on dystopias written recently for teen readers. Thoughts?
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2010/06/14/100614crat_atlarge_miller
Margaret Atwood on goodreads.com
Margaret Atwood (author of The Handmaid’s Tale) will be on Goodreads answering questions about her past books and new novel, The Year of the Flood, on her Goodreads Author discussion group, Q&A with Margaret Atwood. She will be available from September 20 - 24, 2010. Check it out!
http://www.goodreads.com/group/show/37292.Q_A_with_Margaret_Atwood
http://www.goodreads.com/group/show/37292.Q_A_with_Margaret_Atwood
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)