✔ Add to The Checklist Manifesto to wishlist ❒ Buy, beg, borrow or steal The Checklist Manifesto ❒ Read The Checklist Manifesto ❒ Rate The Checklist Mani...more✔ Add to The Checklist Manifesto to wishlist ❒ Buy, beg, borrow or steal The Checklist Manifesto ❒ Read The Checklist Manifesto ❒ Rate The Checklist Manifesto ❒ Review The Checklist Manifesto(less)
Michael Sheen (Masters of Sex) did a brilliant job in voicing the title role of Oedipus in what I found to be an 'easier' to understand translation by...moreMichael Sheen (Masters of Sex) did a brilliant job in voicing the title role of Oedipus in what I found to be an 'easier' to understand translation by Duncan Steen for the full cast audio.
I'm glad I've finally read the famous, fabulously sensational story of incest and patricide about the man who kills his father and marries his mother, after encountering Freud's derivative Oedipus Complex in psychology class a decade ago.
Sophocles showcases the limitations of prophecy in stating the destination without providing details of the journey, and therefore a way to avoid the outcome. Had Oedipus's father not been told of the prophecy, would Oedipus have still fulfilled it? Laius would never have ordered his son to be ripped from his mother and left to die on a hillside had he not not known of the prophecy; and Oedipus would've grown up knowing his parents whereupon the Westermarck effect would come into play. So, is the Delphic oracle at fault here? Should he take some modicum of responsibility for Oedipus's crimes by putting him on the path to committing them? Every cause has an effect and every effect, a cause.
Coincidence or fate? Again, if Oedipus hadn't been informed of the prophecy he wouldn't have met his real father on that crossroads, but as soon as he did, his fate was sealed.
I liked the symbolism of the action at the three-way crossroads. King Laius and his entourage tried to push Oedipus off the road which resulted in a skirmish to the death. Oedipus prevailed by killing all but one of his attackers who escaped. However, the deaths were reported as a robbery homicide - to save face, perhaps? Obviously the king wasn't well guarded if one man could slay him and all of his men. If Oedipus is right and the king's men instigated the incident, was killing them self-defence? Oedipus is presented as an honest and honorable king who takes great pride in his good character. I doubt he'd lower himself to robbery when outnumbered and afterwards feel no guilt over his 'youthful misdeed' when his latter guilt cripples him.
Free will only applies to the control of one's own actions and the ability to influence that of others'. Oedipus is unable to exert enough control over his life to make informed decisions when he'd been lied to about his identity so it's difficult to blame him for crimes he'd committed unwittingly. Rather than a heinous criminal, Oedipus is painted as a pitiable figure. Self-inflicted punishment is meted out instead of the judgement and execution of societal justice, because no can hurt you more than yourself. Self-condemnation, self-mutilation and self-banishment from his home is punishment enough.
Ignorance and an inability to look beyond the superficial is expressed as a disadvantage of the ability to see, while blindness confers insight into the truth of things with a painfully sharp clarity. Oedipus mocks Tiresias for his blindness, claiming it hinders his ability to see the truth. Tiresias hits back, mocking Oedipus with a statement representing the exact opposite. Yet Oedipus, upon realising the truth of his actions, dashes out his own eyes in anguished horror after witnessing the dead swinging body of his shamed wife and mother, his psychological pain seemingly blotting out the physical.
I completely understand why this is a beloved classic. I'm sure I could get more out of it with each listen or read. I have only one complaint: I didn't really understand the Chorus. On the audio, many people spoke those words in unison and I thought this obscured the pronunciation, however, I did seek out a free ebook edition online to re-read those parts and they still made little sense to me.
I've wanted to brush up on my persuasive writings skills for a while as it's something I've been using quite a bit in recent months...moreAnswer: Not really.
I've wanted to brush up on my persuasive writings skills for a while as it's something I've been using quite a bit in recent months and I always failed that part of my English language studies at school. I picked two books: this one (obtained from the library) and Persuasive Writing: How to Harness the Power of Words (which I bought). I'm glad I made this decision.
Can I Change Your Mind? isn't as useful as I was hoping, whereas quickly flicking through my other choice saw me finding some very clear and immediately handy tips. Of the four sections, the first is the worst. The layout and formatting didn't help which is notably better in Persuasive Writing. Camp rambles so I skimmed, proving him right that 'the reader never reads from start to finish', but helpfully, someone who'd read this book previously had underlined the key points in pencil. Defacing a book is wrong, but in this case, acceptable.
'Understanding the reader' is the best chapter of Section One, but although Camp says we shouldn't assume our reader is an idiot, only lacking knowledge, he appears to treat his readers as such because most of what he advises is exceedingly obvious.
The main points to take away are:
✺ Remember (what's appropriate to) the Reader and the (intended) Result ✺ Is this useful / relevant to the reader? ✺ Is it interesting? ✺ Is it enjoyable? ✺ Will it encourage a favourable Response? ✺ Is it Rewarding to the reader? Is it worth reading?
Section Two is comprised of a 61-page A-Z of tips which is the most useful part of the book e.g. adjectives, alliterations, (being) boring, etc.
Badly Behaving Author sensitivities
'For me, true creative writing - Writing as Art, if you like - comes from a completely different rules apply. Ad the most important of these, I believe, is that genuine artists should be driven by self-expression.
This doesn't mean, of course, that they don't care about how people respond to their work. But what it does mean is that they can never let this dictate to them. Artists must always give absolute priority to finding the best possible way of giving shape and substance to their own vision; regardless of whether that makes it more or less 'accessible' to the general public; easier or harder to understand. A real creative writer would never change a single comma just to please the reader.
As persuasive writers, on the other hand, we're perfectly happy to tweak our punctuation - and do much more besides - if it makes our reader more likely to respond in the way we want.' [Chapter 1, underlining mine]
What?! Why are authors of fiction exempt from being classified as persuasive writers? They have to convince readers to finish their story by making it interesting and enjoyable, and generally worth reading. If you want a favourable response from your potential readers, you have to cater to their tastes. If you don't, then you can't complain when few enjoy your work, as Badly Behaving authors often do, with little respect to their reputations.
Therefore, all BBAs should read Section Three, Chapter 5 for how to handle feedback:
✺ Don't panic ✺ Don't take it personally ✺ Don't get pissed off ✺ Be positive - because some feedback helps
Something that really good persuasive writers never stop doing. [Section Two]
Again, authors of fiction are persuasive writers. Also, this book could've been better edited based on the grammar and syntax. What a coincidence.
So while Camp is chatty, and therefore the opposite of concise, there are some helpful tips to be had, but I wouldn't buy this; borrow it, like I did.
Think of wit as verbal viagra: a little something that can spice up the relationship between reader and writer.