"…certain European and American dramatists of the 1950s and early ‘60s who agreed with the Existentialist philosopher Albert Camus’s assessment, in his essay “The Myth of Sisyphus” (1942), that the human situation is essentially absurd, devoid of purpose."
Response to essays
in
By now you should have read the two essays on Oedipus Tyrannus by S.M. Adams and Robert Cohen. They do not align with each other in many respects: Cohen has a point to make about the relevancy of Sophocles's work to the 20th century concept of absurdism. His reference to Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot makes clear his familiarity with what came to be known as the Theatre of the Absurd, a post WWII phenomenon of plays written by (says Encyclopedia Britannica)…
I hope this explanation clears up any confusion you might feel about Cohen's use of the word "absurd." His is a different view on the nature of Oedipus's role as tragic hero than the one that Adams presents. How you react to them very much depends on your own perspective. Which of the two writers expressed for you the most stimulating and revealing ideas and insights. Were any of your own ideas overturned? Did you learn anything about Oedipus, or about interpreting Oedipus, that might affect your own future writing?
That's the blog post for Monday and Wednesday. It will remain open until Tuesday night.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
I find Cohen’s interpretation of Oedipus more revealing about the tragic element of the play than Adams's. According to Adams, Oedipus is tragic because he aspires to be pure and noble more than any man but is condemned to a most wretched fate. This, however, is the tragedy that befalls Oedipus before the play even begins. It does not explain why the events with which the play is concerned—Oedipus’s quest for the truth and the consequence of it—is itself tragic. Cohen, on the other hand, makes the connection between Oedipus and the absurd, showing that what is most tragic about Oedipus is not his awful past, but his irredeemable present. Oedipus, in seeking truth, cannot alter his fate but falls into greater despair. The conclusion of the play is crushing indeed—as Oedipus finds out about the truth, he is not relieved but horrified by it, and assigns himself to additional torture by plucking out his eyes. He reaps no reward for his persistent quest for truth, except the terrible truth itself.
Although my own ideas have not been overturned and I still disagree with the two authors on some points, I learned a great deal more about Oedipus after reading the essays. From Cohen, I learned about the “duality” in Oedipus and the friction between his two images of himself, which I did not notice before. I also learned from Cohen’s essay an aspect of the term “tyrannos” that was not discussed in class or in Adam’s essay. Finally, of course, Cohen’s essay introduced me to the concept of the absurd. From Adams, I learned about the specific dramatic significance of the term “tyrannos” (how Oedipus’s position as a tyrannos contributes to the coming of the truth) and the nuanced notion of responsibility and guilt in Oedipus.
I believe I agree with neither of these essays, and it is difficult for me to decide which resonates with me most clearly. I would have to say Cohen, but that brings to mind his comments about Oedipus being like the theater of the absurd.
Theater of the absurd is a branch of comedy, not tragedy. Having Cohen compare Oedipus Rex (Tyrannos) with something like The Bald Soprano clashes with my definition of tragedy. I belong most definitely with the Aristotelian beliefs of tragedy. To me, when Cohen compares theater of the absurd with Oedipus, you might as well compare it to Romeo and Juliet. There are some overlapping themes, but the general populace would scream sacrilege to having the 'pure' love of Romeo and Juliet compared with the incestuous disaster in Oedipus.
Theater of the absurd is comic, in many bizarre and wonderful ways. While Oedipus may elicit some small, frantic, uncomfortable giggles, it doesn't have anything to do with being funny.
My thoughts on Oedipus have not been changed. But I shall be thinking a lot more about tragedy and comedy in the future.
Disclaimer: This reflection was written while on cold medicine. Please ask me for further clarification when I am coherent again.
Robert Cohen’s essay provided better insights for me. His examination of the need, and tragedy, of Oedipus to unite his inner and outer self provided and a different way for me to think of Oedipus’ drive for the truth. I agree with Cohen on the conflict of reconciling with onself: “All men suffer a dual identity: the outer one that they inwardly feel and the one they receive from the outside world.” I used some of this idea in my own BNW essay, and I wish I had read this article earlier, because his wording is very descriptive.
The tone of S.M. Adams’ essay put me off. The academic derision he has towards those who look for greater meaning in Oedipus frustrates me. I think that part of a work is how it connects to the reader, and I look for how Oedipus is reflected in all of us. In some ways, the studies of literature and history have the same constraints; we can only examine it through our own experiences. The distinction between dramatic responsibility and guilt, though a little obscure, fascinates me and is something I may use in my essay. It is also something that partially overturned my own tendency to blame characters for unfortunate events; sometimes fate is unavoidable.
Well, all I can say is that I'm glad Emilia has some background with the theatre of the Absurd because I was about ready to take Cohen's word for it that that his connections were legitimate. Just goes to show how much an author can get away with without even arousing skepticism if his audience is sufficiently uneducated(ahem).
Mr. D, I'm sorry but I don't know if that quote really cleared up my view of the use of the word Absurd. In fact, I might be more confused. I took the definition of the theatre of the absurd to mean the dramatization of the inner turmoil created by there being a difference between people's views of themselves and the world's view of them, and absurdism as simply the belief that there was a difference between those two views. I didn't really get how that had anything to do with the human situation being "devoid of purpose."
In answer to the question, I'd say Cohen did the most for me, (he better have, seeing as how his essay was like three times as long) simply because he brought to my realization that Sophocles might have been more then a sick man trying to feed the public desire for blood. That he might have had a deeper purpose in writing Oedipus.
Frankly though, I have this sneaking suspicion that all these famous Ancient Greek and Roman poets and writers didn't really have all these deep and profound hidden messages in their works. I'm begining to wonder if something in the course of translation to english (or the phrasing of early english) has provided a type of structure in the Ancient's writing that has allowed generations of over-analyzing seekers of wisdom to pull out unintended proverbs and concepts. Have the generations of readers simply desired to see deeper meaning in ancient writings that have led them to glorify writers who never intended to write more then was required to please the crowd and pay the bills? To parody the words of F. Foresster Church, "Shakespeare is the human response to being alive and having to read." The question then remains, are they not even greater writers for providing stories that help solve life unintentionally.
After reading the essays, while both interesting, I found Cohen's more insightful. His opinion that "All men suffer a dual identity" was especially intriguing (Cohen 179). This statement supports his conviction that Oedipus is a "wholly archetypal play" and contradicts that of Adams, who says, "Oedipus is not 'man,' but Oedipus" (Adams 109). If the latter were true, I do not think that the play would have had the impact it has had on society throughout history. If Oedipus is just Oedipus and Sophocles does not have a greater meaning within his play, as Adams suggests, why is this regarded as such a great piece of literature? Oedipus' "absurd revolt against his duality" is what distinguishes him from the conflicting identities of so many men in the past who never confront their true self, despite the fact that he knows the truth will only bring him more anguish (Cohen 181). Contrary to what Adams believes, it is my conviction that there is deeper meaning to Oedipus and that the tragic hero does stand for something other than himself.
To be honest, when we first finished reading the play I didn't quite understand what the hype was about. Now, after reading these essays and taking a second look at Oedipus, I feel like I have a more profound and comprehensive idea of the themes and ideas expressed in the play. Duality and the difference between our own opinions of ourselves and others' opinions of us is something I find very intriguing and will try to address in the future.
I felt that in both essays there were several points that I found interesting (some I even adopted into my view) and others that seemed way off and rather unbelievable. Both authors had arguments I agreed with and ones I rejected.
Cohen had many good points about Oedipus's case being "an extreme one." I also thought that the actions embodied in Sophocles's work were sometimes quite outrageous. What other being have you known to gouge his eyes out when he finds out something utterly horrendous? How many men have been prophesied to murder his father? Cohen points out that this extremity clarifies the moral truth of the story. This was something I followed closely in his argument that this was Sophocles's intention. However, I disagreed on several other points in his essay, such as his description of Oedipus as "stubborn, bullheaded, frequently stupid, often rude," etc. From the text of Oedipus Tyrannos I found a much rounder character than Cohen portrays, one with several of these characteristics(though less absolute than Cohen leads one to believe) and yet others, more similar to the Oedipus S.M. Adams depicts. Cohen did overturn my idea that Oedipus was a nearly perfect man (not including his hot-temper), and that he had several of what you could call his "tragic flaws."
Overall, Oedpius Tyrannus, the essay by S.M. Adams, held more of the substance I agreed with, though, to speak very frankly, I did not much care for Adams's quite lofty tone. I had not thought about it before reading this essay, but when Adams presented the idea that many of Oedipus's negative characteristics arose from his position, I was inclined to agree. The hybris Oedipus exuded stemmed from previous success, something I can relate to my own experiences as well, adding a subtle bit of personal ethos to his writing. This perspective of Oedipus affected my view of his character, something I was glad to have changed and expanded.
There was one passage from each reading that stood out to me and made me think.
Adams writes, "...As for Oedipus, what past guilt can be assigned to him? Obviously, he cannot be blamed for what happened when he was a baby or before his birth. The most that can be said is that he pays, with his parents, the inevitable penalty for what they did; in any case, he is just "unfortunate". With regard to parricide and incest, it is asserted that Oedipus could have avoided these by refraining from killing or marrying anybody. But is this reasonable? He does not know the facts, as we do; and he has done what he thought necessary to avoid fulfilment of his oracle..."
The oracle is fate, it can't be changed. Oedupis was destined to kill his father and marry his mother no matter what he did or didn't do. Adams says it was 'asserted that Oedipus could have avoided these' but he couldn't have. Oedipus blames himself, and puts fault on his character, when he shouldn't. If Oedipus didn't kill his father at the crossroads, he would have killed him some other time, not because of his character but because of fate.
Cohen writes, "...he is following Delphi's more general imperative: "Know thyself!" There are actually two Oedipus's in the play. There is the foundling...And there is the tyrant... Oedipus, at the conclusion of the play and after a terrible agony, knows himself."
I do think that at the end of the play Oedipus knows himself, but he needs to accept himself. Duncan made the point that tragedy could be in not knowing yourself or knowing yourself. I believe however, that there is no tragedy if Oedipus would accept that his character is not to blame for the murder of his father and marriage to his mother and he is able to overcome the negative with the 'good' aspects of his character.
For me, I thought that both essays contained interesting yet somewhat different ideas. Yet Cohen's essay revealed insightful ideas that I had not really thought about before. Cohen talks about the life Oedipus led and describes it as “absurd”. His depiction of Oedipus as the “tragic hero” is quite different from Adam’s. Cohen states that Oedipus is searching for his self, his identity. Oedipus is on a “collision course with destiny” and yet does not stray away from his search for the truth. The idea of having a dual identity was also an interesting viewpoint. Cohen relates that most men find ways to deal with the confrontation of the two identities yet Oedipus’s perseverance in his search leads him to a catastrophic collision of these two identities.
The description of Oedipus that Adams portrays fitted my image of Oedipus better than Cohen’s. Cohen describes Oedipus has flat, stubborn, frequently stupid, and various other unpleasant comments. Adams view of Oedipus was that he was extraordinarily good and his stubbornness and impetuosity was a result of him being a tyrannos. However, my ideas about Oedipus have not changed but I found the part where Adams states that Oedipus’ fatal flaw was part of him being tyrannos, so in a sense, Oedipus’ tragedy was already fated. Some new ideas for me were that in a dramatic sense, Oedipus was responsible yet not guilty. It was also interesting to learn about how Oedipus is “unfortunate” and Oedipus’ dual identities.
To me Cohen's essay was the easiest to follow. I was able to understand his ideas easily compared to Adam's essay. This may be due to the fact that I read Cohen's essay first and then when I went to read Adam's essay I had already had ideas about the subject for Cohen's piece. The most insightful piece of information I found in the essays was in Cohen's piece when he outlined the play. He wrote, "Structurally, it is one of the simplest plays ever written: Oedipus seeks the truth, finds it, and acts upon it." This really stuck out to me because I hadn't thought about the play being so simple. It seemed as though the play was very complex with riddles and murders but it really has a simple outline.
I also thought what we had talked about in class was very interesting. The fact that at the crossroads Oedipus was fighting not only his dad but himself is an interesting concept that I would have not realized otherwise. Cohen did not state this exactly but he did write about how there are two Oedipus's in the play and they struggle against one another. Just like the crossroads fighting with his father, who Jocasta had explained to be like him.
Cohen's essay was the most enlightening for me because his ideas were so different than my initial thoughts after reading Oedipus. I guess that I always supposed that because Oedipus was part of a classic play that has been admired for many centuries that everyone saw good qualities in Oedipus. He also points out that the structure of the play is quite simple, which I agreed on. During the whole time we were reading it I was waiting for a sub-plot or multiple conflicts which never happened, and I wondered if I was missing something. It is reassuring to know that I was not.
I started to think about how Cohen says that "Virtually all men suffer from their inability to unite their failures with their ambitions, and their successes with their self-doubts." I think this has a lot to do with what we were talking about in class about how Oedipus has two sides to himself. He has the Tyrannos side where is a brave leader of his people who is concerned about their welfare and also the side that finds out he has done something utterly shameful that he can not escape. He does not have the ability to accept both sides of his identity, and I think this is
partly because of his impulsive promises to punish Laius's murderer at the beginning of the play. He feels somewhat like a hypocrite and knows that he has to be exiled even after Jocasta's death.
So of course like we discussed in class there is no wrong or right way to view Oedipus and I do not quite disagree with either articles that we have read. It was very difficult for me to disagree with one article because I really haven't made my own opinion. So of course I could see both perspectives. Although the author's opinions were vastly different they both backed up their perspectives extremely well and after reading one article and agreeing with it I still found myself agreeing with the other also.
Even though I can understand both perspectives I think I fall more in line with Cohen. He views Oedipus as a representative of all man kind. No matter his difficulties he does seem to pull through like any other average man does or would. This story of Oedipus puts him in a higher perspective than I think he really is. At first readers view him as superior but look deeper and this is how most men would react. It is just that his fate is so rare that how he reacts to his fate and how he over comes it makes Oedipus seem very heroic. Which in the story he is but to the rest of the world I think he is fairly average.
Its possible I agree more with Cohen's article because I understood more but I do really like some of the points he made. For instance I didnt really think of what the moral of the story was and Cohen stated bluntly "that to find yourself is at the same time to destroy yourself" (180). That was a pretty extreme point and it was interesting to me that I hadnt thought about that myself.
The piece by Robert Cohen had me thinking of new perspectives that I had not originally thought of when we first read Oedipus. Because he associates Oedipus as a general man, fighting for the truth (which all men face in their lifetime when confronting who they truly are), I felt that Cohen made more sense when explaining why Oedipus proves to be a legitimate tragic hero. I initially thought of Oedipus as a mighty king, who had great responsibility and power. “Oedipus is not a ‘king’... He is simply a tribal chief; or the lead wolf in the wolfpack, who receives his position through brute power and loses it the moment he can no longer exert that power” (Cohen 178). Oedipus represents all mankind; so, he must answer the question that troubles every man, which is “Who am I?” This reminds me of one of our summer readings, “Great Expectations,” in which Pip also wishes to find out who he is, even if it means sacrificing his whole lifetime and happiness in doing so. It’s tragic for the readers to follow, but that’s what makes these dramas so great. A revealing idea I got from Cohen, was the dual identity of Oedipus: the Foundling and the Tyrannos. I learned that it was the collision of these identities and how Oedipus acted upon his fate (by being quick to judge and acting quickly on initial thoughts) that causes his tragic end.
On the other hand, Adams distances Oedipus for modern use. He’s not an ordinary character, and cannot be comparable to modern circumstances or figures. One point that Adam makes that I agreed with was how vulnerable Oedipus was to his fall. Because he’s a “tyrannos,” he was born into great wealth and power, which causes him to “pride himself on his position and behaves with the inevitable suspicion and mistrust that accompany it” (Adams 109). This high position, which comes with great responsibility, gives him space to plummet down.
Upon finishing the play I was still sorting my views on Oedipus and both essays shed some light on Sophocle’s play. To me, Cohen revealed more radical ideas that I would have had a difficult time deriving, while Adams led me along a path that had already been paved for me by Mr. Duncan. The ideas of quick to action by Oedipus, how a tyrannus ought to behave, and self-blinding were redundant from what was already stated in class. Without this background information, Adams’s ideas may have been more insightful. One thing that really caught my attention in Adams’s writing was the idea that fate ultimately led Oedipus to his doom and that he had no control whatsoever in avoiding his fall into an abyss. This argument of Oedipus’s character, that “nothing suggests that Oedipus is to blame” and that “he is just ‘unfortunate,’” I disagreed with because it makes him sound like a futile pawn trapped in a larger picture, and I thought Oedipus was far greater and more important than that. If fate decides everything, I think the whole notion of a tragedy is diluted because of its inevitable and already foreseen end; I truly think that he played a big part in his own downfall.
I, personally, thought Cohen’s ideas made me mull the play over and over again in my head after reading his essay because they were concepts that I had yet to notice within the play. The “characterization” of Oedipus being “rather flat” was fairly insightful, because for the most part he was exactly that, his ignorance and stubborn stature was seen throughout the play, but with the argument of Oedipus having dual identities that clash forming a more detailed outline of who Oedipus truly is, I think it is hard to say that he was actually flat. Another interesting point is when we think of someone who solves a riddle as a highly intellectual being, but Cohen states that Oedipus is “no genius.” That was enlightening, because we and the chorus put him on a pedestal for solving a mystery that troubled the city of Thebes and it was from that height from which he fell.
Overall I thought these essays were on a different level from the BNW essays, because there was less summary and more stimulating insight. This became a learning experience to read how others dissect and interpret the same events.
Though the papers presented conflicting views, I found myself agreeing with aspects of both. I think it's valid to think, as Cohen says, that Oedipus represents mankind's struggle with dual identities; however, I also agree with Adams's opinion that "Oedipus is not 'man', but Oedipus" (109). It is refreshing to see that theory in literary criticism, as so many authors write essays which find meaning in every little detail of books; it was nice to see one author maybe start to move past that. I think Cohen's description of Oedipus is more accurate than Adams's: Cohen says that Oedipus is "stubborn, bullheaded, frequently stupid..." (179), while Adams is of the opinion that Oedipus is "...not evil; he is extraordinarily good. That is what makes his tragedy" (110). I think that here, Adams is doing just what he showed contempt toward at the beginning of his essay: overanalyzing. When I finished Oedipus, I liked it because I didn't see an extraordinarily good or an extraordinarily bad person; I just saw an ordinary, albeit unlucky, man who showed sincere remorse for what he had done. If the story were longer, and showed what happened to Oedipus after he left Thebes, perhaps we could make judgments as to how good or evil he is; however, I think that his story is powerful simply because he was not extraordinary.
I liked these essays better than those about Brave New World, mainly because by the time we read the BNW essays, we had already discussed the book so much that I felt like most of the essays were summaries or stating the obvious. With these essays, I felt like I gained some insight into the play, and many interesting ideas were presented.
I agree most with Cohen. The only thing that I have a problem with Cohen's essay is that he repeatedly calls Oedipus "stupid" while I believe that he is more in denial, simply choosing not to make painful connections until they are too obvious to deny. This is also brought up by Cohen when he says "Whereas a wiser, better-adjusted man would simply let the dialectic ride and the questions go unanswered, Oedipus perserveres" (180). It is this that makes Oedipus a hero in my mind, not the fact that he is "not man, but Oedipus" (Adams 109). The fact that he is a tyrranos does not effect him in my mind, with the ammount that he suffers so much yet perserveres does. It wouldn't matter to me if he was just a lowly farmer or a King, what occurs to this man is tragic. It is also in Adams' "I know this the best, don't listen to these fools" attitude that loses me.
Adams’ essay provided me with some revealing insights about Oedipus. He makes the point that many people say that Oedipus stands for humanity or the ideal man, when in all actuality, “normal sufferings are slight compared with his” (109). I think that a lot of the time, as readers, we try to bring tragic heroes down to our level, to make them seem like more of the average man. Oedipus was a “tyrannos,” and as a result, he was greater with respect to wealth, power, and pride than the average man is. Consequently, I don’t think we can look to Oedipus as some sort of representation of humanity because he is clearly unique and far from average. Moreover, I don’t think Sophocles gives us reason to view Oedipus as a representation of the ideal man.
In addition, I was in agreement with Adams’ characterization of Oedipus as “impetuous” (111). As the author states, this quality in Oedipus is apparent throughout the play, especially at the crossroads where he murdered his father, in his treatment of Teiresias during their conversation about Laius’ murderer, and the act of blinding himself near the end of the play. Adams also affirmed my idea that Oedipus is not to blame for his downfall. He was unfortunate, having to suffer harshly for such things that were beyond the realm of his control, similar to Job. I think some have a tendency to blame Oedipus because we know more about him that he essentially knows about himself for the majority of the play. I think we forget that he has no idea that his wife is his mother and that it was his father he killed at the crossroads. I also think we forget about Oedipus’ fate. He did not intentionally do any of the things some people are blaming him for (with the exception of the self-blinding as Adams points out), but rather it was his destiny from his birth. Furthermore, if he was truly to blame, I don’t think we would feel the sympathy that we do for him by the end of the play.
In contrast, I found Cohen’s characterization of Oedipus to be rather brusque. Although I did not find Oedipus to be the most incisive man in Thebes, he was not, at least from my point of view, “frequently stupid” as Cohen claims he is (179). It seems as if Cohen was trying to bring Oedipus down to that common level that Adams’ warned about doing. He compares Oedipus finding his identity at the end of the play to all humankind saying, “[a]ll men suffer a dual identity” (179). But again, I don’t think that Oedipus Tyrannus can be compared to the average man, and I don’t think he was intended to be. Also, Cohen refers to Oedipus’ relentless quest for the truth as his “absurd courage” (181). After reading Mr. Duncan’s blog post, I assume that he means “absurd” as in “purposeless,” but I don’t think Oedipus’ search was devoid of purpose. I don’t think any pursuit of truth is. Maybe some think it’s absurd in that his search brings about his ruin, but at least Oedipus came to terms with himself in the end and realized who he truly was. I believe that is what is most important, and why we see Oedipus as a tragic hero.
So I see the tab key didn't quite work. My post was supposed to be three paragraphs; I don't normally write one big paragraph like that :) My apologies to anyone who tries to read it.
Along with Austin, I feel that reading these two essays, despite certain points that I don’t agree on, have made me appreciate the tragedy within Oedipus Tyrannus. I found Cohen’s interpretation of Oedipus’s tragic fall as a clashing between his “dual identity” very insightful. Rather than it being a simple tragic ending, the play becomes a struggle and battle between two different sides of Oedipus: who he was born to be and who he has become. However, Cohen’s description of his two identities as being one “inwardly” and one for the “outer world” gives a false sense of who Oedipus is. Although there are two sides of him, Oedipus is completely ignorant of his foundling. He does not attempt keep his ulterior side hidden; he simply doesn’t know it exists. The clashing between the two sides of Oedipus occur when the unknown identity, his foundling, reveals itself.
Although Cohen’s interpretation provides a new perspective of Oedipus, I appreciate that Adams feels that Oedipus should not be interpreted as a representative of “man”. Even though fictional characters need to have that human correlation in order for the audience to connect with the emotions, the tragedy of Oedipus is much greater than those that an ordinary person suffers. Claiming that Oedipus “stands for” mankind is simply unnecessary. Oedipus can simply be Oedipus without any overarching meaning. Adams also pointed out that responsibility for Oedipus’s fall does not belong in the hands of anyone. It is merely “unfortunate”. This was a very interesting point to think about because it seems as if people always gravitate towards blame. No matter the occasion, we always must identify the origins of a regrettable event. I think sometimes tragedies happen with no one or nothing to blame except for fate.
My initial impression of both of these essays was negative. Adams seemed to give Oedipus too much credit (he describes him as “extraordinarily good”), and Cohen didn’t give him enough credit (he describes Oedipus as “stubborn, bullheaded, frequently stupid, often rude”). However, both essays introduced differing views and interpretations of Oedipus that I would not have considered otherwise.
I agreed with Adams’s insight on how the tragedy happened to Oedipus because of fate and his natural disposition as a tyrannos, not because of him or because of the Gods. This had been my interpretation as well, that it was not really Oedipus’s fault at all. While Adams says that Oedipus is greater than most men and was not meant to represent humanity, Cohen offered some opposing viewpoints. Cohen described how the play is timeless, simple, and powerful; and how Oedipus represents the average man, trying to find himself. According to Cohen, Oedipus’s “terrible persistence” to find the truth brought about his own downfall. I partially agree with both authors on these ideas. Additionally, I learned from Cohen the unique idea of Oedipus’s dual personalities, as many people have mentioned already. Certainly, these essays showed me that works like Oedipus Tyrannus can be interpreted differently by different readers, and helped me form my own ideas from their insights.
Cohen's argument that Oedipus's quest of self-discovery is not unique rings true in the sense that most people ask " the fundamental question of man of any age-'who am I?'-" Cohen also tries to argue that Oedipus is the common man, no more and maybe even less as he places him in a primitive age. I tend to agree more with Adams characterization of Oedipus that he is stronger than the average man who might cower in light of his situation. Cohen's disparaging view of Oedipus's passion for truth as little more than stubborness or ignorance. He acknowledges his strength only on the physical level.
I think Cohen's statement ,concerning the absurd life, that Oedipus's obsession of truth(if going with the above definition) is "devoid of purpose" really takes a negative stance that Oedipus is wandering aimlessly like a ruderless ship. I have to disagree with this conclusion as Oedipus's quest , I find,for legitimacy
has a quantifiable purpose. If Cohen wishes to make a parallel between the common man and Oedipus, then he is claiming the voyage we must make into our deeper self is basically meaningless.
I find Oedipus's endearing quality to be his persistance, or as Cohen depricatingly jabs " his quest into the darkness of human existence. Oedipus resembles the better man. As Adams suggests he is greater than "man".
I definitely DEFIANTLY agree with Cohan!!! (Just kidding Mr. Duncan)
What I truly found fascinating was the Cohan's idea of two Oedipuses (Oedipusi?) and the problems he faces because of the differences between them. While he does face the fate the Gods have assigned him, I find the conflicts between his foundling and tyrannos self. I also really enjoyed discussing the two "selves" clashing at the cross roads which is represented in Oedipus and his father. I realize that this doesn't come from the essay exactly, but we came to that idea while discussing Cohan's ideas. However, I am not in agreement with Cohan's characterizations of Oedipus. He is not stupid, he is simply impulsive and quick thinking. I also don't think that his courage could be classified as absurd. I would say that the quest for truth and one's actions after learning that truth could entail large amounts of courage. The fact that Oedipus takes responsibility and voluntarily leaves proves that he's courageous on a deeper level. He's able to face himself, not just a sphinx. However, this does not make him extraordinarily good as Adams puts it. I think that he still has his faults. What I'm saying (in sort of a round-about way, sorry) is that I agree with certain points that both the authors make. I consider both their arguments to be well founded and valid, but with certain aspects that seem to be too much of a generalization.
Oops, sorry. Forgot to finish a sentence up there. "I find the conflicts between his foundling and tyrannos self to be more interesting." Ok, that should make more sense.
I found that both essays address different aspects of Oedipus Tyrannus, both the play and the character, and I could draw ideas from both essays to use in my writing. However, I would especially utilize the thoughts conveyed by Adams because he is more impartial in his analysis of Oedipus and unlike Cohen, attributes the weight of the story on fate. Adams does not regard Oedipus as a symbol for the common man, but simply as Oedipus - a good man who is "just unfortunate" which I agree with. Oedipus, although he does express hubris throughout the story, is an upstanding citizen and leader and that is why his tragedy rings soundly. The circumstances of how Oedipus came to be were not under his own control, though he is responsible for his actions as an adult, it is hamartia that plays the deciding role in how his life would unravel.
The definition of "tyrannus" or "tyrannos" is also interpreted differently in both essays. Adams defines the term as having "implied abundant wealth and power" while Cohen takes it as a title not equaling king but that of a tribal chief. These opposing views of the role of Oedipus in society are the foundations of the conflicting views of his character as well. Adams regards Oedipus's hubris and personality is the result of his tyrannos title and birth. Having been under the impression that he was King Polybus's son, he grew up with the sense of entitlement and self-pride. Cohen, on the other hand, finds Oedipus to be of flat character and that he is accountable for the outward faults that cause his fall.
I disagree with Cohen's view of Oedipus as being "stubborn, bullheaded, frequently stupid, often rude, and admittedly and unashamedly untutorted" because although Oedipus is stubborn and bullheaded, none of the other traits are present at any point in the play. Cohen tears down and wears away at the character of Oedipus so much so that his later statements cannot console his views. How can a man of such poor character represent the common man, as Cohen implies? If Oedipus was so horrible and flat at the beginning, why is then that his tragedy stands out? His poor character surely would have met its demise and it's only fitting for someone so wretched to blind themselves. But this is not the case. It is in fact opposite, as an observer, I am compelled to pity and sympathize for Oedipus because he was so upstanding and met an even greater fall.
I read the definition of what absurd meant in relation to the essay by Cohen before reading the actual essay, and I don't agree that Oedipus lived an absurd life. The theater's definition of absurd, one that is devoid of purpose, I don't find true about Oedipus. He does have purpose. His purpose is to lead his city-state of Thebes and help his people, to find the culprit that unleashed the plague on the city. His courage and conviction are anything but absurd. They all have purpose and a reason: to help the citizens of Thebes.
On a unrelated note, I found parts of each essay that were enlightening. Like many of my fellow students here, I liked Cohen's idea of dual personalities. I agree that most humans share this trait, but I don't think that Oedipus's dual personalities are the ones that Cohen describes. He believes the two personalities of Oedipus are the foundling, "the son of Laius and Jocasta, who has his feet pierced and is left to die on Cithaeron" and is the inner self of Oedipus, and the tyrant, "son of Polybus and Merope, who destroys the sphinx..." and is the outer self. His inner personality is not the foundling; Oedipus knows nothing about that part of him until very late in the play. The foundling is not a self-opinion, rather it is another identity that people give him.
Another central argument to each of the essays was that of Oedipus representing man. I agree with Adams on this point. Oedipus certainly does not represent man. Oedipus is Oedipus. He is unique. Oedipus might share traits with other men like the dual personality or the confrontation with themselves, but so does any other character out there in fiction. Oedipus does not represent man as a whole. Nobody can suffer the scale of Oedipus's tragedies, and most people today would shy away from a truth like Oedipus's.
I also enjoyed the discussion of the title of the play by both authors and agree with both of them about it. Language always loses some of its magic when it is translated. Connotations, nuances, and other such implied meanings are lost when works are shifted from one language to another. Thus is the same with tyrannus. Using the examples and insight from both Adams and Cohen, one realizes that king is not an apt name for Oedipus. Only the original Greek word will do.
It is amazing how different people's interpretations of the same work can be. With all this information, my conception of Oedipus has changed. I align the interpretations with my own then against the play and see that some of Cohen's and Adam's ideas work better than mine.
Adams states that in Oedipus, that as the audience, “we try to find in him some guilt sufficient to account for everything that has ever happened to him” (111). I cannot help but feel that Oedipus has some fault in his so-called “inevitable” fate. A true subject of the Gods would not attempt to flee from the fate put upon on their head. For if the events are predetermined and set in stone, what is the point of deviating, is this deviation not an example of little faith? Although Oedipus’s father and mother committed the first act of heresy with their bounding of “the foundling”, and the following abandonment, but I cannot ignore that Oedipus did have free choice. I know it was a different time, possibly more brute, and “barbarous”, but if a man could search for truth, could he not discern whether or not to hit back at the crossroads? Adams blames Oedipus’s “impetuosity”, but this does not seem it should be an explanation in of itself. I do not think of Oedipus as a stupid man, but I merely wish to see Oedipus as a man who made his choices, not a victim to his “fate”.
In blindness, often sight arises. As Cohen argues, Oedipus was a “demonstration of a man slamming into his own self at an inopportune and unguarded moment”(178). The realization that you are not who you thought yourself to be is absolutely mind-boggling. Man exists in the image he has of himself, in his own mind. To be called a partaker in patricide, and incest, was defeating to Oedipus. Unconsciously, Oedipus was searching, grasping, for who he really was, but in the meantime destroyed himself. Internal truth, but external ruins. I agree with Cohen on his ideals of Oedipus’s “divorce, confrontation of self”, but find his inclusion of the specific “foundling” and “tyrant” (179) weakening to his argument. Those labels seem terribly sweeping, I found the confrontation true as Adams later explained, a problem universal to all human kind, “ all men suffer a dual identity: the one they inwardly feel and the one they receive from the outer world” (179).
I must say, the story of Oedipus mystified me. The simplicity is striking, and often timeless, clearly this parable was not lost in time for any old reason, it impressions those who take the time to decipher. Not often do you see men of present time atoning for their errors by gouging out their eyes; in modern times it is far easier to escape that truth, for truth is not recognized by society. (Maybe I am digressing :)
As I discovered in class, I realized that I connect well with both essays. Because Oedipus, as a work of art, is subject to interpretation, both Cohen and Adams had plausible arguments.
However, I feel I more directly align with the arguments of Adams and his idea of the importance of Oedipus as a "Tyrannus." I have felt that the true tragic flaw for Oedipus was his power, implied by the word "Tyrannus." It wasn't so much Oedipus had political power, he had the knowledge of the oracle. That, in itself, is more power than I think Oedipus is willing to be hold. I believe that we talked in class of the time period Sophocles wrote Oedipus, a time when Athenians were straying from their strong belief in the oracle? Anyway, I think that Oedipus' knowledge of the oracle and belief that he could overcome the prophecy was his ultimate down fall. Adams claims that "it is because Oedipus is a tyrannos that he learns the truth," this is because he "prides himself on his position." I feel like Oedipus purposely looked beyond the facts in front of him, ie. the initial clues to Jocasta and Laius as his parents, because he has an arrogance and pride in his power. He felt like he could over come the prophecy and did on that day he came across the Laius. Sophocles presents both a compelling argument that the Oracle can not be outsmarted and that the Oracle could be the tragic flaw bringing about an individual, in Oedipus Rex. His play reflects the changing state of Greece at the time and I feel like Adams more directly argues in relation to early Greek tragedy and the intentions of Sophocles.
-Megan
I found Robert Cohen’s essay to be most revealing. Although I did not realize the duality evident in Oedipus Rex previous to reading the essay, I now identify with Cohen’s idea of dual identities. I agree with Cohen that, “All men suffer a dual identity: the one that they inwardly feel and the one they receive from the outer world” (Cohen 179). Using no qualifications this is a broad and bold assertion that Cohen makes. However, it rings true for me. I think for some the change is small, while for others it is big. Whether it’s a change in tone or character, this “it” is creating a dual identity with in oneself. Cohen infers that at some point we must face the big question, “Who am I?”, while standing at these cross-roads we must asses ourselves and decide which side will come out victorious and strong.
This being said, I have to ask myself, was Sophocles really aiming to address all of future mankind, or as Trevor writes, “Was he just trying to pay the bills?” This is where I start to take a second look at Adam’s essay.
In the end I MOST agree with Cohen’s essay. I enjoyed the format and literal writing of the essay along with the ideas presented.
Both authors had valid points depending on your interpretation of Oedipus. As a whole I found Adam’s piece lined up more with my perspective. It was not Oedipus’ hands, but fate’s that killed his father. Oedipus strives to be a good tyrannos as exemplified through his promises, but the stars align against him. However, this is not to say that Cohen wasn’t correct in some sense. I thought that, rather than having the ignorant, prideful tyrant butt –heads with the foundling, it was the good Oedipus. The irony in all of his attempts at goodness being futile is what led to his downfall, not the plummet from greatness. I also found Adam’s essay more compelling because it brings up the discussion of the morality of Oedipus’ actions. If it were fate’s rather than Oedipus’ hands that slay his father, can he be held responsible? Does the deterministic path absolve him, as it was not his choice? Or can we not forgive him regardless?
…
The more I think about it, the more Cohen’s perspective explains Oedipus’ hubris. Did the pride lead to Oedipus’ ascension, or was the rise to tyrannos the cause which led to an obligatory hubris? The fact that Oedipus cannot turn the other cheek when insulted by his true father leads me to believe the former. However, as a whole I still believe Adam paints a much better picture of Oedipus being good at heart.
First note (unrelated to blog post): Is it anyway possible to have a 'comment' feature on the blog (something like Mr. Hardin's blog)? It would be extremely helpful in directly replying to the original commentator and have a stream of discussion instead of a list of comments. I just feel that it would make for a smoother discussion.
Second note: I do not agree that Oedipus is a work of the absurd. Using Mr. Duncan's given definition of the theatre of the absurd, Oedipus Rex would not be a very fitting work for such a genre. Oedipus had a purpose in the play. His purpose was to protect and prosper Thebes and in doing so, find the truth of Laius's death (thus finding the truth of himself). Oedipus's life was not devoid of purpose.
I also appreciated Emelia's theater background because I would've agreed with Cohen that Oedipus was absurd. But knowing that it is a branch of comedy confirms that Oedipus should not be compared to the theatre of the absurd.
Third note: I believe both essays had their strong points; therefore, both essays can be valid. I think I probably coincide with Cohen more because I understood it better, and it was more insightful, especially the mention of a dual identity, because I never thought of Oedipus as two Oedipuses. After reading the play, I just thought Oedipus was this weird, almost-suicidal, disgusting character who married his mother. After reading Cohen's essay, I realize that Oedipus might have a deeper meaning: the contrast between "the foundling" and "the tyrant" (Cohen 179). It gives the play a more meaningful purpose rather than the gouging of eyes after hearing bad news.
I was going to say that I agree with Adams's statement that "Oedipus is not "man," but Oedipus. To an extent, I do agree with it still because sometimes, the character is just what the character is. However, now that I look back, I can see how Oedipus *can* represent all men, specifically the dual identity / seeking of oneself. Oedipus is like most people who try to find themselves and find who they really are; however, Oedipus's situation (with the incest and eye gouging) is only unique to Oedipus and therefore, it is then that Oedipus is his own man. I'm sort of wishy-washy on this, but now, I can see how Oedipus is a representation of most, if not all, men.
In response to Shruti's post, I disagree that the greatness of Oedipus is his ordinariness. I also see "an ordinary, albeit unlucky, man who showed sincere remorse for what he had done," but it is because of this that makes him extraordinary. He is a human who persistently searches for the truth even when the truth seemed to hurt him. He continues that search until he finally finds it. This is a virtue that most people don't try to live by. The fact that he is able to want, search, and find the truth and still take responsbility of his action makes him great, which makes him a tragedy at the same time. So I don't think he's just ordinary. He's something more, something greater. Those are just my thoughts.
Sorry for the length!
Like Chris, I believe that Oedipus is not ordinary, but for a different reason. In a tragedy, there is a great fall meaning that the person who fell must have been at a great height. Oedipus had everything when he was blind (figuratively) and lost everything when he found himself. Oedipus has suffered more than most will ever endure. Ordinary people will never find out one day that they are married to their suicidal mother and have killed their father. This is why Oedipus functions better as an archetype than a person in our world.
I also agree with Trevor that we may be adding nonexistent meaning to Oepidus for our own sake. None of the parts of the play really seem as complex as we are making them. Many of the crucial aspects of the play are very simple: the irony of Oepidus searching for the man who killed his father and finding himself and the simple and ever present contrast of sight and blindness. I feel that our over analyzation of Oedipus is like taking the Titanic two thousand years from now and analyzing for its dualities and metaphors when it reality its significance was a combination of Leonardo Dicaprio and the song, My Heart will Go On.
Erm.. my post was eaten: "Your request cannot be processed"
One of Adams’ points was that Oedipus doesn’t represent “man”, but only Oedipus. This was one of the points that changed my perspective, which was that he represented something. This is made even clearer when he gouges out his eyes and says that it was him who gouged his eyes, not the gods. Also, not very many people will experience something as bad as he did. Although I agree that Oedipus represents his self, he can also represent “man”. However, I see Oedipus as being greater than the average person.
On the other hand, Cohen’s essay seemed too harsh, which took away from his points—IMO. He says Oedipus is "stubborn, bullheaded, frequently stupid, often rude", etc. A large portion of his essay was just bashing Oedipus. But it made me aware of the "dual personality"--two Oedipuses
While I disagree with both authors on some pretty key points in their essays, I find that I rather preferred Cohen's in term of illuminating Mr. Oedipus. His claim of duality within every living person made me go back and notice some really interesting things within the play that I hadn't noticed before. But Adams also had a pretty interesting idea with his claim of Oedipus as a "Tyrannus". Adams too made me go back and try and find new themes and symbols in the reading that would help me lean to one side or another. While i personally am more aligned to the truth in Cohen's work, both essays have valid points and I think both are fantastic at making the reader want go back and try to discover new things, which I think is really neat.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
You can also follow any responses to all entry through the RSS Comments feed.