Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Discussion - Oedipus Rex
>
Another random thought
date
newest »
newest »
Jocasta. yes, on the one hand, women I know who have lost a child thru untimely death or thru miscarriage often think, when they see a child of a certain age, "My child would have been that old now."
but on the other hand, perhaps because she herself might have born some responsibility for her baby's "death", or because it had been Laius's decision and there was nothing she could do about it, she turned to denial. Doesn't it strike you, well, it did me, that Jocasta doesn't want to think about things too deeply. She's just going to avoid any painful thoughts. Like Scarlett O'Hara, "I'll think about that tomorrow."
I really like the observation that April (I'm pretty sure it was April) made, that Oedipus perhaps had many of the attributes that Jocasta had found attractive in her husband Laius, but that due to the fact that Oedipus had been raised in a non-anger-centered family, he had a much better disposition that Laius had had.
Regarding the plague: Because we live in the secular age that we do, we attribute the plague to natural causes; we do not question our reasoning: we simply "know" that there are scientific reasons why things occur; should anyone push-back too strongly against "knowing that there are scientific reasons" for events like the plague, their mental facilities might be questioned.
But in the context of the time in which OR is set, people "knew" just as solidly, as unquestioninly, that plagues and such were caused by behaviour that the gods for some reason were against. Who tell the the mind of the gods? But when they have been offended, the people "knew" that there would be a punishment.
Katrina is a good example. I would think that were New Orleans a city in the OR story, the hurricanes WOULD have been seen as punishment. Then the people would have to consult the oracles and seers and try to determine what they were being punished for.
Aids, from the point of view of the time of Oedipus, is a rather more interesting/complex condition. Because it strikes individuals rather than whole cities. Maybe it would be viewed as an individual curse. (I'm working my way thru Antigone.) The wrath of the gods didn't fall directly on Oedipus. He was living, he thought, a nice life.
The punishment of the gods---the plague---struck the entire city before it had any impact directly on Oedipus.
(Oh, I don't think Eve caused Adam to sin. That seems perilously close to blaming her. Even though, :) , I think that women can be VERY persuasive. I think she simply presented him a nice rationalization why they should be able to do what they wanted to do ... even though their God had told them it would be a sin .. She simply made it sound reasonable for them to do what they wanted to do and unreasonable of God not to want to let them. But my thinking is that Adam chose for himself.)
but on the other hand, perhaps because she herself might have born some responsibility for her baby's "death", or because it had been Laius's decision and there was nothing she could do about it, she turned to denial. Doesn't it strike you, well, it did me, that Jocasta doesn't want to think about things too deeply. She's just going to avoid any painful thoughts. Like Scarlett O'Hara, "I'll think about that tomorrow."
I really like the observation that April (I'm pretty sure it was April) made, that Oedipus perhaps had many of the attributes that Jocasta had found attractive in her husband Laius, but that due to the fact that Oedipus had been raised in a non-anger-centered family, he had a much better disposition that Laius had had.
Regarding the plague: Because we live in the secular age that we do, we attribute the plague to natural causes; we do not question our reasoning: we simply "know" that there are scientific reasons why things occur; should anyone push-back too strongly against "knowing that there are scientific reasons" for events like the plague, their mental facilities might be questioned.
But in the context of the time in which OR is set, people "knew" just as solidly, as unquestioninly, that plagues and such were caused by behaviour that the gods for some reason were against. Who tell the the mind of the gods? But when they have been offended, the people "knew" that there would be a punishment.
Katrina is a good example. I would think that were New Orleans a city in the OR story, the hurricanes WOULD have been seen as punishment. Then the people would have to consult the oracles and seers and try to determine what they were being punished for.
Aids, from the point of view of the time of Oedipus, is a rather more interesting/complex condition. Because it strikes individuals rather than whole cities. Maybe it would be viewed as an individual curse. (I'm working my way thru Antigone.) The wrath of the gods didn't fall directly on Oedipus. He was living, he thought, a nice life.
The punishment of the gods---the plague---struck the entire city before it had any impact directly on Oedipus.
(Oh, I don't think Eve caused Adam to sin. That seems perilously close to blaming her. Even though, :) , I think that women can be VERY persuasive. I think she simply presented him a nice rationalization why they should be able to do what they wanted to do ... even though their God had told them it would be a sin .. She simply made it sound reasonable for them to do what they wanted to do and unreasonable of God not to want to let them. But my thinking is that Adam chose for himself.)
I agree with you Dianna. We should not blame others for the problems that befall us. I believe we have to be responsible for our own actions.However, superstition is alive and well and there are many people who still believe that Katrina was a punishment for the lifestyle in New Orleans.
A lot of these same people also refuse to see that much of the death and hardship could have been avoided if those in power had spent their money more wisely to fix the levees instead of the casinos. Perhaps they should have evacuated the people in a more timely fashion.
After the fact, it was far easier to blame someone else rather than deal with their own failed efforts. Fingers were pointed. Blame was placed. Yet, the problem did not begin after Katrina. It began before.
The same thing is true in Oedipus. The problem did not begin with the murder or the discovery of the incest, it think it began when they sought the advice of the oracle.
I completely agree - my boyfriend was adopted and he said he knew when he was very young (7 or 8) that he "didn't quite belong," and it wasn't until several years later that his parents told him he was adopted.
Patrice wrote: "The difference, however, is that OR should have felt that he didn't belong with his adoptive parents. I think there are things we still don't understand about family connections. There is sometimes something that is just "sensed", a feeling of belonging, that may have a biological basis that we have not yet discovered. "Maybe on some level OR did feel that he didn't belong with his adoptive parents. One drunken comment at a banquet starts a chain reaction that sends him to the oracle for answers. He asks his adoptive parents and they deny the rumor but he still isn't satisfied. Maybe there is some genetic belonging that made him doubt them.
TheWanderingJew wrote: The same thing is true in Oedipus. The problem did not begin with the murder or the discovery of the incest, it think it began when they sought the advice of the oracle.
Or maybe even before. You could probably go back a long way: "this would be different if that had been different if something earlier had been different" ...
And yes! I was intrigued with the abducted boy story, too. I was hoping it WAS the same person.
Has anyone heard the story of Judy Lewis. She was raised as the adopted daughter of Loretta Young but she was really the biological child of Young and Clark Gable.http://annettelaselle.com/2008/06/26/...
thewanderingjew wrote: "Has anyone heard the story of Judy Lewis. She was raised as the adopted daughter of Loretta Young but she was really the biological child of Young and Clark Gable.
http://annettelaselle.com/2008/06..."
I checked out the website. Wow.
http://annettelaselle.com/2008/06..."
I checked out the website. Wow.
I like a book that stays with me and makes me keep considering it from different angles. Oedipus does that.
Last Sunday in church the sermon centered on Judges 6:24. Gideon hears the call of the Lord to sacrifice his father's bull to Gideon's Lord, and to tear down the altar to Baal that his father had built years and years previously.
And the passage made me think again about Oedipus and the prophecy that he would kill his father.
Which put in my mind the book "If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him."
Perhaps, I thought, on one level, the stories are the same. A son, in order to become his own man, must tear down -- at least figuratively in his own life -- the shibboleths and altars of his father; he must build HIS OWN ideals and sacrifice on the altars he has built himself, lest he live too much his father's life instead of his own.
Perhaps the oracle's words, "Kill your father, sleep with your mother" were what the prophet that day at Delphi, in his ambiguous wording, meant that Oedipus would psychologically kill his father and sleep with his mother in order to break free from them and establish himself as an independent man.
Last Sunday in church the sermon centered on Judges 6:24. Gideon hears the call of the Lord to sacrifice his father's bull to Gideon's Lord, and to tear down the altar to Baal that his father had built years and years previously.
And the passage made me think again about Oedipus and the prophecy that he would kill his father.
Which put in my mind the book "If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him."
Perhaps, I thought, on one level, the stories are the same. A son, in order to become his own man, must tear down -- at least figuratively in his own life -- the shibboleths and altars of his father; he must build HIS OWN ideals and sacrifice on the altars he has built himself, lest he live too much his father's life instead of his own.
Perhaps the oracle's words, "Kill your father, sleep with your mother" were what the prophet that day at Delphi, in his ambiguous wording, meant that Oedipus would psychologically kill his father and sleep with his mother in order to break free from them and establish himself as an independent man.
Well, I thought about you, too, Patrice, because you had said that you'd been thinking about OR for a week or more. Kept coming up. I like that, "but can he be sure?" Mmmm. Sons...and fathers. Maybe I'll add "Fathers and Sons" to the Possible Read List, eh?
I certainly agree with you, Adelle, about the timelessness of Oedipus (and indeed of most, of not all, of Sophocles). I think that's what defines great books generally; that they are books which get stronger, not weaker, the more you read them; that even when you know what's going to happen, can almost quote major passages, they still have the power to show you more and more depth with each reading.
Adelle,I think what you said was very insightful. :)
Adelle wrote: "I like a book that stays with me and makes me keep considering it from different angles. Oedipus does that. Last Sunday in church the sermon centered on Judges 6:24. Gideon hears the call ..."
Wow Adelle! I don't have anything to add but I wanted to let you know how significant you thoughts feel.
Cynthia
One thing we've talked about in my library book group is the timelessness of the book we're reading (and we read almost all kinds.) Is this a story that has something to say to us personally, and will it be as meaningful years and years from now? Not that everything we read fits that category but we do slip a classic in every now and then.
Well, kudos to Everyman for choosing Oedipus as our starting point. What with all the backandforths and personal thoughts on this piece, I feel like I OWN Oedipus Rex...and it's such an empowering feeling! Like a couple of people above aluded to, it's timeless. Not one of those books I read and then later can't even remember who the main character was!
I am reading Mrs. Astor Regrets for my local book group. The author refers to the struggle within the family as "Oedipal". The term is really larger than life.
thewanderingjew wrote: "I agree with you Dianna. We should not blame others for the problems that befall us. I believe we have to be responsible for our own actions.However, superstition is alive and well and there are m..."
I agree that we shouldn't blame others for what happens to us but I think the point is that in OR's time it was widespread to believe you'd offended the gods and were being punished. This may seem an invalid explanation to us in the 21st century but we need to "see" it from that timeframe, don't we?
Good point!I suppose we could look at in both time frames for the purpose of discussion.
Evalyn wrote: "I agree that we shouldn't blame others for what happens to us but I think the point is that in OR's time it was widespread to believe you'd offended the gods and were being punished. This may seem an invalid explanation to us in the 21st century but we need to "see" it from that timeframe, don't we?"My answer to this yes, but not only.
Yes, we need to understand the classic books in the context of the time in which they were written. It is necessary to help us make sense of how the people in the book are reacting to various stimuli and events (if for example we don't understand the Greek beliefs in Kleos and fate, we can't fairly understand why warriors in the Iliad act the way they do). And we can accept the language in Huck Finn without being offended if we understand that it was normal speech for a boy in that age.
But not only. My belief is (and knowing you, I expect you would have said this if you had gotten around to it) that these are not sterile books, but are living books. In addition to time specific elements, they also have universal messages which are as relevant to our lives today as they were to their original audiences (and maybe even more relevant since we can see what happened to people who did or did not follow the principles of the works). So really, I think we need to see these books both from their own timeframes and from our own, understanding the specific events and actions in the context of their social environment, but also understanding how the overall principles can also apply to our own lives today.
Well said, Christopher! (oops, I mean, Everyman.)
I know there have been times in my life when I tried to do 'God's' work and messed things up worse than they were before but looking back on my life I would not be who I am if I had not experienced the things I have experienced. I am not going to blind myself and such...
I just can't get past the idea that Jocasta should have known he was her son. This and other discussion here on these boards has caused me to think of the story of Adam and Eve in the Bible where the serpent tempted eve and then she caused Adam to sin and then that was the end of their idyllic, innocent existence. But would we want to live in a perfect world? I am not so sure I would. How would we know real joy and love and all if we didn't experience the opposite...