Othello Part 2

Answer questions 1-3 and 5-6 of act IV and questions 1 and 4-6 of act V on
pgs. 1601-1602. Post the answers on your blog.

Come prepared to write tomorrow!


Act IV
1. Othello overhears the conversation between Iago (who plotted it) and Cassio talking about the sexual advances Bianca made towards whose name was never explicitly stated and boom - she comes in and adds fuel to the fire by showing the handkerchief given to him by his "lover." 


2. It's an outlier, I suppose. the probability of that occurring is very rare; it seems too artificial to be coincidental. The handkerchief is very important for Othello and it is what drives him crazy since it's the most tangible evidence. Sadly, it's being manipulated by Iago. It represents Othello's marriage, Desdemona's importance to him, and in her losing it (or him rejecting it earlier); it's as if she's figuratively 'throwing away' the marriage -- it is of not importance to her. 


3. He sees her as a whore of Venice since so many men want her yet she rejected them. He's confident he misjudged her due to her 'cleverness.'


5. Desdemona takes marriage seriously and she's the pinnacle of the virtues of a wife and a woman in society. She's faithful. Emilia, on the other hand, is quite "eh" implying that's she isn't all a role model nor the other side of the spectrum either. She finds infidelity okay. She rationalizes that women have the same urges as men do and doesn't find why they should be allowed yet women aren't. They're as much to blame. 


6. Desdemona requests that her wedding sheets be laid on the night of her murder(?)! Oh, and when Emilia and Desdemona try to find who the suspect is; that the person responsible for Othello's fit is the same that suspects Emilia of sleeping with Othello. Seriously, why would Othello sleep with Emilia when he's faithful? or who else besides your husband would care so much about the suspicion that you may be sleeping with Othello? Your husband, duh. 


Act V
1. Iago plots Rodrigeo and Cassio to kill each other. They fail, Iago finishes the job. Miscommunication happens. Othello kills Desdemona. Emilia explains everything. Iago tries to kill her, but he fails. Everything unravels. Othello regrets; grows angry at Iago; stabs him. 


4.What impels Othello to kill Desdemona is out of betrayal, to say the least. He was faithful to her and expected the same. In hearing accusations that she was unfaithful, it violated what he expected from her and it gave him a sense that he was betrayed. I suppose he decided to kill her because he emotionally invested too much in her and it seemed like she just outright violated it all, which infuriates him. It would infuriate anyone really. The greatest weapon anyone can use is your mind and Iago's good at that. 


5. He loves a person very much, but it isn't always the 'right' person. He is very much capable of love, but he can't choose the right person to love (but you did, stupid). 


6.  Yes, well, he always had his dignity and nobility, the issue was his trust in people. Yes, I agree because he dedicated his life to serving the military and his love. He was great of heart in more than one way. Including his trust. 

Othello Part 1

Well, I don't know what to talk about with the lack of a topic! I need a topic to be deeep! Anyways, our doubts are clarified in the two acts because Othello, unsurprisingly, is very trustworthy. You know what they say, "Be polite. Be Professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet." Lago, however, begins to think that he is evil (no, he's just really selfish), but he rationalizes his actions as helping his men. And Desdemona is coming full throttle with her feminism (because there's a lack of it in the material we've read)!

Oedipus Part 3

Some light reading...

Read pgs. 1490- the top of pg. 1495 (don't read "Antigone's Flaw"). The
reading should comprise four different critical perspectives on tragedy
and Oedipus. Post a BRIEF entry on whichever article you find most
compelling and why you find it compelling.

Have a great weekend!

I found two articles that were the most compelling because they provide a more introspective level of thought on humanity, in general, and ourselves, personally. I found Sigmund Freud's The Destiny of Oedipus very enjoyable because he gives a rational assumption as to why there are stories that 'move' us; that they reflect our primal instincts. That stories move us because they may have been ours. I wonder... is that why Harry Potter and Twilight so famous? Because the former reflects our childhood ignorance/imagination and the latter, forbidden/eternal love? The Oedipus and Electra complexes are referred to in his criticism; it brings a whole new meaning to "Daddy's girl" or "Momma's boy." I believe there is a correlation there or else why would the phrases be popular? Oedipus serves to reflect the other side of who we are. We, according to Freud, have learn to detach ourselves from our sexual impulses which can be compared the philosopher I cannot recall about having two sides to a person: a rational and an emotional side. And it is our choice which to live by. Oedipus, like us, have chosen to repressed (rather unconsciously or not) these wishes due to Nature and in doing so, we should just forget about our childhood. 

In E.R. Dodds' On Misunderstanding Oedipus, Dodds sees Oedipus' greatness not from his position, but in his inner strength to take responsibility in his acts no matter the costs and in pursuing the truth despite the cost. He represents the human need to know. Because we're curious creatures. Heck, it takes a lot of self-control not to be curious. Oedipus would have been a great journalist exposing the horrors human trafficking and government corruption. It's too bad he had to go blind himself. It also brings to mind why happiness is often correlated with ignorance and anger/sadness/cynicism with truth and this article supports it in saying that happiness is an illusion. “Nothing Will Come of Nothing” Isa kai to meden zosas enarithmo. 

In a more broader scale, I believe both criticisms allude that personal conflicts of a person. It seems that there's an internal struggle in who we really are and how we would like to be perceived as. If you want to see who a person truly is, let him wear a mask. Are we true to ourselves or do we live to the expectations of others? And if we are open and honest, can we ever truly be loved? Can we find the courage to release our deepest secrets? Or in the end are we all unknowable even to ourselves

Oedipus Rex Part 2

Finish reading the last 12 pages of Oedipus. Answer questions 1, 3, 5-9,
and 11-12 on pgs. 1434 of your textbook. Post the answers AND a theme
statement on your blog.

We will discuss the play and the questions tomorrow in class. Be prepared
to write first thing, though...


1. How explicitly does the prophet Tiresias reveal the guilt of Oedipus? Does it seem to you stupidity on the part of Oedipus or a defect in Sophocles' play that the kin takes so long to recognize his guilt and to admit to it?
Tiresias explicitly stated the guild of Oedipus; that he is, indeed, the murderer. It is stupidity on the part of Oedipus because he behaves just as any arrogant fool might have. The accusation seems so outlandish and it causes a cognitive dissonance within himself. He takes so long to recognize his guilt and to admit it because he needs tangible evidence and time to process it.

3. "Oedipus is punished not for any fault in himself, but for his ignorance. Not knowing his family history, unable to recognize his parents on sight, he is blameless; and in slaying his father and marring his mother, he behaves as any sensible person might behave in the same circumstances." Do you agree with this interpretation?
A sensible person, in my opinion, is very subjective. Then again, it clearly stated "might behave." Otherwise, I do agree with the quote. His hubris could have easily lead him to victory if it weren't for the tragic irony and he could have lived life without knowing the consequences of having an inflated ego. 

5. Consider the character of Jocasta. Is she a "flat" character - a generalized queen figure - or an individual with distinctive traits of personality? Point to speeches or details in the play to back up your opinion.
She is generally a flat character. not necessarily a generalized queen figure, but more of a wife/mother figure obviously. She nurtures Oedipus, ironically. That is her personality traits and afterwards, that's probably all that's worth mentioning.  

6. What is dramatic irony? Besides the example given on page 732, what other instances of dramatic irony do you find in Oedipus the King? What do they contribute to the effectiveness of the play?
Dramatic irony is, for lack of better words, an irony that is apparent  in the story and to the audience but not to the characters. Other instance of dramatic irony is when, I suppose, Oedipus accuses Creon of treason or when we learn about Oedipus' prophecy. Oh! And his name itself, definitely. We know ahead of time and observe how the character makes choices that just makes their circumstances worse.

7. In the drama of Sophocles, violence and bloodshed take place offstage; thus, the suicide of Jocasta is only reported to us. Nor do we witness Oedipus' removal of his eyes; this horror is only given in the report by the second messenger. Of what advantage or disadvantage to the play is this limitation?
It allows us to focus more on the social ramifications which would be undermined if violence was in the forefront. Conversely, violence would give us a greater sense of engrossment.


8. For what reason does Oedipus blind himself? What meaning, if any, do you find in his choice of a surgical instrument?
Oedipus blinds himself because he cannot live to see the physical anymore. It brings him too much pain. His wife/mother is dead and he's afraid his daughters will be shunned due to his incestuous marriage and them being the by-products of it. He can't live with himself to see what gloom the future brings because he doesn't think it'll be all rainbows and butterflies. I can't find any meaning in his choice of using his wife's/mother's golden pins from her dress to stab his eyes for I am ignorant. Gold is valuable. It's belongs to his wife's/mother's. Yep.

9. What are your feelings toward him as the play ends?
I pity him because of his genetic ties which couldn't be helped. His hubris didn't help either, but it's as though he could not escape this fate. His doom wasn't purely caused by his choices. Besides, what type of person would accept ignorance or no for an answer? Curiosity certainly killed the cat.

11. With what attitude toward the gods does the play leave you? Be inflicting a plague on Thebes, by causing barrenness, by cursing both the people and their king, do the gods seem cruel, unjust, or tyrannical? Does the play show any reverence toward them?
Initially, the gods do seem cruel, unjust, and tyrannical. Its as if they're implementing those misfortunes for their personal enjoyment. Y'know, they need to pass the time since they're immortal and what's better that some drama amidst? If humans go jolly through their lives that would be boring and in time, they take that for granted. It is sublime to suffer and be stronger. It's time to test humans' nature and let them know their place in existence. I think there is a reverence towards them. They didn't forcefully enforce their ideals; they manipulated the people, or specifically, Oedipus. All the rest was up to the person's choice. Oedipus chose to learn about his face. If he had just listened to Tiresias and remained ignorant, he would be going through his life in his merry way.

12. Does the play end in total gloom?
I would say yes. Your leader just gouged out his eyes; you find out he has an incestuous relationship with his mother... all these revelations that just leads to worse circumstances. You have a new leader: Creon. Will be he better or worse? Your family and your friends are dependent on a leader and right now, you need their help to save you from your current problems, but they have their own personal problems. Thebes just seem doomed now. It's time to rack up your things and live a frugal life in the woods and be one with nature.

Oedipus Rex

Good to see you guys again!


Read pgs. 1375-1404 of Oedipus Rex.


Post an entry on your blog about tonight's reading. Address the ways in
which this text compares to other texts we've read and the degree to which
hamartia, catharsis, and pathos have been elements in the play so far.


If everybody blogs, there will be NO reading quiz.


Brandon - Send me the link to your blog BEFORE class.


This text compares to other texts we've read in that the main character(s) all seem to have a tragic flaw; a seemingly harmless "little" flaw that ultimately leads the character to their utter demise. Raskolnikov? His pride, pomposity, whatever. The man? His optimism, whatever. Suttree? His need to find meaning in his existence, whatever. Yet this one characteristic is what ultimately drives their whole being and decide for them. It seems that in almost every character they seem to think they transcend others and then become condescending individuals filled with arrogance.  


Oedipus' hamartia is his his hubris. This is obvious when we confronts Tiresias about the truth only to be declined because Tiresias believes that the truth will only pain. After all, igorance is bliss, right? Well, ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law. We can see why Oedipus wants to know the truth, but we also see the dramatic irony that he himself that he's searching for. Which also brings to mind that he is searching for himself - his true identity, which in this case, comes at a great cost. Initially, it is his pride that figuratively blinds him from the objective truth and accusing Tiresias and Creon of treason. Speaking of Creon, that whole plight plays well for his hand because though he initially showed indications of no interest in power, he almost accepts the position with no doubt following Oedipus' downfall. In Antigone, he becomes just like Oedipus in that he succumbs to his power. It almost seems that Creon did commit treason probably flawlessly but became a victim of destiny itself. It was as if he thought he could play the Gods in their own game. 


Oedipus' catharsis occurs when he meets the two Shepherds, more specifically, when he meets the latter Shepherd, who he learns the truth from and has a revelation: that he killed his father and married his mother. I suppose the true catharsis occurs when he gouges his eyes after witnessing the suicide of his wife/mother where he literally loses his sight yet figuratively gains a new ability: insight. Just like Tiresias. In the end, he ascends into a higher form of being, in a sense. He doesn't even occupy himself with the pain associated with the gouging of the eyes. 


In terms of pathos, I suppose we can give Oedipus pity for the initial portrayal of his character: a true leader. He genuinely cared for his people unlike most of the senators today and especially most of the republican presidential candidates. C'mon, we all new Bachmann wasn't going to win anyway. She and Perry have been transformed into internet memes. Afterwards, however, Oedipus loses our sympathies when he commits accusations of treason against Tiresias. All in all, I think drama is just what it is: drama. A common problem blown up out of proportion due to some flaw. Besides, if there were no drama; it wouldn't be all that exciting, right? There are some people who would love to witness a fight in school due to the drama associated with it yet they don't want to participate in it albeit they criticize drama.  So hypocritical, but aren't we all? We're human. 


"It is well, when judging a friend, to remember that he is judging you with the same godlike and superior impartiality."