The man at the gate wanted change. He knew the law and wanted to be "admitted" to it. However, the gatekeeper would not let him pass, and the man just blindly accepted the order. As he grew old, he tried everything to get the gatekeeper to allow in to pass; bribery, following directions, and even talking to the fleas. The man wastes his whole life sitting outside the gates of the law, never getting the chance to enter the gates.
This parable symbolizes the law and the struggle one has to go through to change it. People can have ideas about changing, adding, or subtracting laws; but they don't normally do anything about it. Our system makes it very hard to make a change. Therefore, we break the laws in our own way. If the man had only chosen to break the gatekeepers order, he would have reached a place where he could have made a change. Antigone realized this lesson and knew that burying her brother properly was the right thing to do. She understood the risk but did it anyways because the law isn't always right.
0 Comments
In some definitions of tragedy, the tragic events are brought on by the characters themselves; this was the case in Antigone. Antigone just wanted a proper burial for her brother; even she knew that the penalty for touching t his body was death. Therefore, for took the punishment with little struggle when we was arrested. Antigone would do anything for her siblings, which is why she would allow Ismene to share her punishment.
Ismene realizes she was wrong about not wanting to go against Kreon to bury her brother. When she is brought in for questioning she tells Antigone, "Now that your in trouble, I am not afraid to weather this suffering with you. I have made myself ready". However, since Ismene didn't actually commit the crime, Kreon wouldn't punish her with death. Instead he punished he with the death of her sister, which is another example of tragedy brought on by the character themselves. Also, Kreon brought the death of his son and wife upon himself. Several people told him he was being to harsh with Polyniece and Antigone's punishment, especially since Antigone was Hamion's fiancé. Kreon was just too stubborn to go back on his proclamation and risk look like a weak leader. Oedipus makes his own decisions in his life to avoid the prophecy he was given; but the prophecy came true anyways. So do we really have control of our own decisions? In the TED talk, Dan Ariely pointed out the people can make a choice almost irresistible. By having one option slightly less appealing to the person will choose the other, even if the first choice more suited them. For example, if there was two guys trying to get a girl it'd be a toss up between the girls preference. However, if we threw in a man that was slightly less attractive but looked really similar to one of the guys, the girl is more likely to choose the better looking of the similar men. He also talked about how our mind plays tricks on us. Optical illusions are hard for our brains to understand; even when we are shown the correct answer, our eyes still can't see it. Therefore, if our eyes can deceive us that easily, imagine what our brains can deceive us with. In relating this to tragedy and Oedipus, it's all about free will. Oedipus knows about this horrible prophecy and wants nothing more than for it not to come true. Should be easy right? Just don't sleep with your mother. However, things fall apart when it turns out that he was adopted; so when he leaves his home town, he runs straight into his birth mothers arms. Does this mean Oedipus wasn't free to make his own decisions? He did everything in his power to avoid this prohpecy and it comes true anyways. Posing the question, if he wouldn't have left his adoptive parents, would it still have found a way to come true? Just the fact that the prophecy comes to is almost too much of a coincidence to be one. This TED talk gave a whole new perspective on the classic tragedies we've read throught schooling, and even in our own lives. Do we really have control of our fate? or is our future already mapped our for us? Tragedy, as Joesph Krutch explains, is about hope. He makes sure to explain that tragedy is not just about being "gloomy or depressing" but it's the "triumphs over despair and of confidence in the value of human life. Essentially there has to be something for the character to look towards to keep them moving through the pain and suffering. If the main character has nothing to work towards the story would loss plausibility. "We accept gladly the outward defeats which it describes for the sake of the inward victories which it reveals" explains this concept well.
Krutch also touches on the fact that tragedy is traditionally for the noble. Aristotle even explains tragedy as "the imitation of noble action". However, we know that not all actions performed by the "heroes" in these tragedies are considered noble. The author uses the example of Achilles dragging Hector's body around Troy. Hero's aren't remembered as such because of the acts the do, but because of the motives behind those actions. Hector is getting revenge which is why he believe dragging Hectors body around is justified, This is true in the real world too. Firefighters, for example, are not heroes because the fight fires. They are heroes because they risk their lives to save people and their homes. Aristotle's tragedy Oedipus was not destined to have a good life. He was given a prophecy that said "A beggar instead of rich he will travel foreign earth, tapping it with his staff. He will be revealed to live with his children as brother and father both; and to his parents he is both his wife’s son and lord and his father’s fellow-sower and slayer". Meaning that he is going to kill his father and have children with his mother, which, in any society, is very bad. Despite his best efforts, the prophecy came true; Oedipus unknowingly slayed his father and married his mother. When news got out Oedipus lost everything he had gained: status, wealth, and family. Tragedy that not only effects him, but his entire family. Oedipus realizes this when he says "My children, what's your prospect? Who will risk the foul reproaches". He knows that his children will grow up as outcast because of his life. This is the real tragedy, knowing that the suffering will reach beyond Oedipus. To deal with his anger, Oedipus wants to kill Jocasta, but after discovering that she killed herself, he needs another means of redemption. He stabs his eyes saying what is the point of seeing if there is nothing worth seeing. Oedipus knows that there is nothing that can redeem himself from this and wishes for death. However, Creon won't give into Oedipus wishes, which is another tragedy that he has to live out the rest of his life blind and suffering. Oedipus We live in a society today where success is all our own. Even though we can't control everything that happens to us, we view people's success as them working hard to get where they are. This is very unfortunate for those at the bottom when it's not their fault they are there. Accidents and events happen that are out of our control, so no matter how hard we try, we may never make it to the top. One example from the Ted Talk that really resonated with me was the comparison to Hamlet. Hamlet lived a very tragic life, and he was at rock bottom. However, we wouldn't call him a loser; we just say he'd suffered may losses. I think our society needs to keep this in mind when looking at others successes and failures. Another topic from the Ted Talk that was interesting was the differences in societies today. There are two types: those who tell you that you can do anything, and those that tell you how to cope with low- self esteem. If you live in the former, when you don't succeed you viewed as a failure. However, in the latter of societies it's okay not to make it to the top because they understand it's not just about how hard you work, but the path your life takes that you can't control. Meritocracy Tragedy of the common man was very informative reading that gave many different views on what tragedy is or could be. One point the article makes is balance. Miller writes "tragedy requires a nicer balance between what is possible and what is impossible", meaning that even though tragedies can be fiction, there has to be some validity to the story line. The reader needs to be able to relate to the story and believe what is happening or the piece will lose it's credibility and moral will be lost. This is also explained when Miller says " The possibility of victory must be there in the tragedy. Where pathos rules, where pathos is finally derived, a character has fought a battle he could not possibly have one".
Another good point the article deals with the author of the tragedy himself. "No Tragedy can therefore come about when its author fears to questions absolutely everything, when he regards any institution, habit, or custom as being either everlasting, immutable, or inevitable". This means that the author cannot write with his views in mind. He has to fully dive into the characters and story he create and write from their point of view. Writing from that point of view adds to the plausibility of the plot. Tragedy of the Common Man. When you first think of the word tragedy, works like Romeo and juliet, and Hamlet come to mind. However, we can trace tragedies back to greek theatre in over 2500 years ago. According to the authors of the tragedy site on wikipedia Tragedy is a form of drama based on human suffering that invokes an accompanying catharsis or pleasure in audiences. This "tragedy" in the story can be little or big; from a death to a simple insult. Things tend to get exaggerated in tragedies in order add entertainment value or show a deeper meaning. And whatever suffering the characters are experiencing is usually brought upon themselves. This type of tragedy can be considered tragedy of the commons, an economic theory of a situation within a shared-resource system where individual users acting independently according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting that resource through their collective action (tragedy of the commons, wikipedia). Authors use this type of tragedy to draw of the human fear of being punished, It's was keeps humans from deviating from what is good. In addition to those two types of tragedy, Revenge tragedy is also common in literature. Whether this desire for revenge stems from a real or imagined injury, this protagonist spends the entire time trying to get revenge. This can be seen in stories like the Illiad, where Achilles will stop at nothing to avenge his father's death No matter what type of tragedy the story is, they will all be exagerated. However, we can still relate to the struggle the characters are going through, even if the situation is otherworldly. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |