Clytaemnestra: Power Hunger or Out for Revenage?

    It was brought up in class that Clytaemnestra could also (possibly) be like Lady Macbeth, a women who is out to rule. Though this is likely, I highly doubt it is the case for her reason for killing Agamemnon.

    Her sister was kidnap by Paris, and her husband kills her daughter to go reclaim his and his brother's pride. Do you think she might just be sick of the men around her? Grieve stricken at how her family just disappeared in a blink of an eye? That she is really just left alone, with just Agamemnon and her servents for company? She has no one to confide in, no one to express how she truly feels inside, there is no Dr. Phil to come "help her help herself."

    So, she has all this building up inside her until she can't take it anymore, and she snaps. She kills her husband, who I am sure forced her into the marriage, and then she realizes the perks of him being gone! Now she can be the ruler, and decided who gets sacrificed and who gets saved.

    Just another example of how men are the cause of all problems :P

Never Trust a Woman.

Really. Look at the stories we've read.
Eve-The reason we have sin in our lives.
Helen-Caused a war.
Jocasta-Ummm...Yeah
Whatsherface Agamemnon's wife-Just screwed everyone's joy of victory up.

What do all of these characters have in common? They're all women. They're all to blame for tragedy.

Okay, so, MAYBE I don't believe any of this, and I'm just trying to tick Malory off.

Eve was not the ONLY one to blame for sin, although, she is far from innocent.

Helen. I'm not so convinced that SHE is to blame for the war, or the pride and jealousy of the men in her life.

Jocasta.....Yeah....She screwed up. Sicko.

Agamemnon's wife.....she was only avenging her daughter's life. Odd how there seems to be no consequence for her from the God who took the sacrifice in the first place, isn't it? Just thinkin out loud.

Ol' Aggie's wife brings up an interesting topic. Life for a life.
How do we feel about the death penalty, my young freshie friends? Is killing a man justified just because he killed another? And I wonder this not only in society, but in the life of a Christ follower, who has been told to "turn the other cheek", and "Bless those who persecute" them.

Discuss the whole death penalty thing. Not so much the women thing.

Dive Deep.
Drown Willingly.
Jeremy

Hearing and Listening

"Don't you hear sincerity in my voice when I talk?"

-Eminem, "Love the Way You Lie"

I really hate that I quoted Eminem, but that line really sticks out to me. How often do we actually listen to the desperate cries of other people? How many times do you ignore the homeless man or woman on the street corner? How often do you simply tune out when someone is putting their heart on the line? When people speak, are you hearing, or are you listening? The paranoia in me leads me to believe that this happens to me a lot. The root of my paranoia is the knowledge that I have tuned people out before.

For twelve pages total (six, front-back) Cassandra goes on and on in what appears to be a schizophrenic episode, when it is nothing short of true insight and arrant helplessness. At first read, I thought she was hysterical, and in a way she is. But, I really felt her frustration with speaking nothing short of absolute truth and not being heard. A lot of her frustration could be with herself for being the cause of her own predicament, then combine it with the failed hopes of thinking just for once somebody might be listening to her. In a nostalgic way, Cassandra reminds me of the days of yore and The Boy Who Cried Wolf; they both brought on their own miseries and I pity them just the same.

Commented on Alexandra (a.k.a. Captain Awesome).

Agamemnon and Its Revealing Themes

A few themes particularly jumped out at me in Agamemnon. Here are some major ones that I couldn’t help but notice.

The most interesting dynamic in Agamemnon, to me, is the effect of the past on the present, and on the future. Every part of this book is the result of some event in the past. It surprised me how numerously the book referred to Helen, even though she is not at all a character in the book. Many times the chorus refers to her either directly or in metaphor, (my favorite is “the lion cub” we discussed in class). Now, some of you may say, “Of course she is in the book, because this book is closely tied to the Iliad.” I still think it’s interesting that she is a common reference. Could the story go on without referencing to her as much as it does? Helen is kind of an important figure in the story although she is never present in the story. She is an indirect, side character, yet she is a reference point in the story. Including her in the story makes the story even more intense.

I also find it very interesting that Clytemnestra is Helen’s sister. What a cool dynamic to a story! It’s interesting to me that “sisters” ended up serving vengeance to “brothers.” Here we are again, the past rebounds to effect the present, and future. Menelaus and Agamemnon both, are paying for what they’re father did to Thyestes.

These thoughts lead me to the huge theme of vengeance. The story of Agamemnon is essentially about vengeance. First of all, Clytemnestra kills Agamemnon in revenge, for sacrificing their daughter. Secondly, the whole story of Agamemnon, and the Trojan Wars, happens because the House of Atreus is being punished for killing the innocent. Thirdly, Cassandra never receives the benefit of being believed because of Apollo’s vengeance.

Vengeance, vengeance, vengeance… revenge, revenge, revenge, this is such a central theme in Agamemnon! What would the story be without it? I have a hard time trying to choose the good between the bad. Sadly though, this is the way our world is also. Just like any good piece of literature, Agamemnon merely reflects human nature to make the issue wide open to our eyes.

P.S. I commented on Samantha's post.

Innocence

The line of Tantalus is cursed through evil deeds and the destruction of the innocent. As Dr. Mashburn said in class, it began with Tantalus eating his son Pelops and continued through the generations. Not only did it continue, but it got worse as revenge tormented the victims. Lines 1628 and 1629 of Agamemnon say “He picks at the flesh he cannot recognize, the soul of innocence eating the food of ruin” This is talking about the time Atreus tricked his brother Thyestes into eating his own children. I love this quote because it really makes me think. I’m still not sure if I have the meaning right but it seems to me that it could refer to Thyestes pure intentions changing at that moment to revenge, which his son Aegisthus will later commit. As the generations continue they spin more and more out of control. The gods enter the tussle, which always makes everything worse, and choose sides. Artemis helps Clytemnestra kill her husband to avenge her innocent daughter, which angers Apollo who convinces Orestes to kill his mother. The theme of innocence continues through “Agamemnon” to “Eumenides” as Athena tries Orestes against the Furies. It is a hard choice that she has to make. Is it still a crime to kill the guilty? Or is Orestes innocent?

Ps. I commented on Will's post

Hearing and Listening

"Don't you hear sincerity in my voice when I talk?"

-Eminem, "Love the Way You Lie"

I really hate that I quoted Eminem, but that line really sticks out to me. How often do we actually listen to the desperate cries of other people? How many times do you ignore the homeless man or woman on the street corner? How often do you simply tune out when someone is putting their heart on the line? When people speak, are you hearing, or are you listening? The paranoia in me leads me to believe that this happens to me a lot. The root of my paranoia is the knowledge that I have tuned people out before.

For twelve pages total (six, front-back) Cassandra goes on and on in what appears to be a schizophrenic episode, when it is nothing short of true insight and arrant helplessness. At first read, I thought she was hysterical, and in a way she is. But, I really felt her frustration with speaking nothing short of absolute truth and not being heard. A lot of her frustration could be with herself for being the cause of her own predicament, then combine it with the failed hopes of thinking just for once somebody might be listening to her. In a nostalgic way, Cassandra reminds me of the days of yore and The Boy Who Cried Wolf; they both brought on their own miseries and I pity them just the same.

Commented on Alexandra (a.k.a. Captain Awesome).

Talk vs. Deed

“We shouldn't rely on talk alone, we should rely on deed.”

     When Dr. Schaeffer came and spoke for us, he presented this quote. I can't remember for sure if this was from Lincoln's speech or Pericles', and my notes aren't very clear on that, so if you remember please let me know. But when I heard this it reminded me of how we ought to be as Christians. We seem too often to be willing to believe what someone says instead of checking it against their actions. Also this can be bad for our witness if we talk one way but don't follow through with the way we live our lives. I want to offer this as a word of encouragement to all of us. Because we do claim to be Christ-followers, people will be watching our lives, and we want to make sure they see Him.

“By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." 

 John 13:35 (NIV)

“Dear children, let’s not merely say that we love each other; let us show the truth by our actions.” 

1 John 3:18 (NLT)

P.S. I commented on Lucy's post "Assassins"

Artemis

There's one thing that bothered me as I read Agamemnon (Ugh, along with Wednesday I always have hard time spelling it). Artemis is pretty much the goddess of nature, right? That and childbirth. Yet, she gets upset that a few eagles kill some newborn...? Isn't that typical of nature, though? Let's not sugarcoat things here, nature is cold, raw, and uncaring, and this sort of thing is probably going on right now. I mean, I understand that she's the goddess of childbirth, but still...

Then again, maybe I have my gods mixed up or I'm missing something...

Commented on Rachel's post, by the way.

Come On Athena

Athena could have saved so much time and made this book so much shorter if she didn't have to do everything the long way. Orestes runs to Athena's temple seeking safety from the Furies and Athena doesn't even have the decency to show up when he calls her. She decides to wait until the Furies get there to come to the "rescue." At this point in time she could have went ahead and made a decision concerning Orestes and the Furies instead of having to call in a court. The only thing that did was waste everyone's time including another god, Apollo. Then she has the nerve to ask Apollo what he's doing there. If the gods are as smart as they think they are wouldn't she have already know how the jury was going to vote to begin with? Then she decides after the testimonies that she wants to vote aloud before the jury casts their votes. Doesn't she think that might sway a jury member or two? If these all knowing gods are so smart then didn't she know that she was actually setting him free? This is my problem with the gods they have to do everything the hard way. No shortcuts for them EVER. Oh yeah her vote was swayed by Apollo reminding her that she didn't come out of the womb. That's kinda important how do you forget where you came from? I mean really Athena?

P.S. I commented on Brittany's post

Et tu, Brute?

Agamemnon kills his own daughter. Such a drastic measure right? I don't totally agree with his actions. It seems so immoral and greedy. He is stealing from his own wife the life of her daughter. He is stealing from his daughter her own life. And I know parents are supposed to love their children no matter what. So how could he do this? It's all for his own kleos in my eyes. I do see, however, that Agamemnon has "adopted" Athens into his own arms. They have become his children for whom he has fought. He decides he must kill his daughter because he loves Athens more. One child for the many?

-Will

I commented on Olivia's "Poor Agamemnon?" blog from 9/29/10.

Award Winning Greatness

Congratulations. You just fought this horrific war, almost lost but then we won. And you come home and I’ve decided to kill you...

Poor Agamemnon.

He’s kind of like the dad whos been working all day and he comes home and just barely sits down on his lazy boy recliner when his wife screams get up come do this for me...He seems like a genuinely hard working guy fighting for his country and all that jazz, but his wife is just so embittered she just has to kill him. Is that right? Does she have the right to be angry at him? Would Sarah have the right to be angry at Abraham if he had killed Isaac. It’s been 10 years shouldn’t she have gotten over this? hmmm....This seems to present quite a large moral dilemma that “The Eumenides” only elaborates on. Is it okay to kill someone if they killed someone else? It seems to be similar to the issue of the death penalty. (I don’t know how it is here, but in Texas you don’t find many people who are against the death penalty.) While the people in this play do not have as organized of a system to determine this it is similar. Someone is a killer and so Clytaemnestra kills the killer. Further beyond that from the perspective that she is revenging her daughter. This play kind of reminds me of a lifetime movie...

Oppressive male kills the daughter, mom finds revenge killing him and his lover...

Awesome...empower women....kind of...

the fear of not knowing

This observation is not a ground-breaking one, yet I cannot keep it out of my mind. In a baffling number of Greek tragedies, a prophecy is the beginning of the story. Then, the plot unfolds as the characters do everything within their power to avoid said prophecy, which is usually not so great. In the end, they encourage the prophecy's fulfillment simply by knowing about it and trying to avoid it.

Clearly, these characters were unaware of the infinite amount of stories that illustrate the same situation. Or, maybe they weren't, because I'm quite aware of this flaw that has appeared so many times, yet, I still wish that I knew my future. Sure, everyone says, "It's the journey, not the destination,", and I can appreciate that and understand the validity of that statement. However, how many of us would walk away from a chance to know what was to come, good or bad? I doubt that I would.

Then, I observed this from a more personal standpoint. I have this intense fear of the dark. Why would that be? Because I fear the unknown. I fear tomorrow and things that I cannot see, analyze, or know the nature of. This fear also contributes to my constant desire for knowledge and is probably why I'm considered one of "smart kids". So, if I were given the chance to neutralize this fear, and did, then, personally, I would feel no compulsive desire to learn more. Therefore, without my fear, I stop thinking.

The point is that we are not meant to know our personal destinies. If we did, we would cease to think, sit back, and wait for the magic to happen.

P.S. I commented on Lucy Beth's post.

Poor Agamemnon?

I don't really know if I feel bad for Agamemnon or not. I feel bad for him because he survived the Trojan War (which was really rough) to be killed by his little ole wife. That sucks! haha. But then I think about it, and he kind of deserved to be killed. I think I would go crazy too if my husband killed our daughter just so his silly little ship could go to Troy for a stupid reason. I don't condone what she did, but I can understand why. But she gets screwed over too by her son, which she was warned about, but chose to ignore it. Haven't these people figured it out yet? If you are given a warning, then actually listen to it and take it into consideration. Don't just blow it off, because you'll end up dead like everyone else in these stories!!!
                   Oh! And my question is: Did Clytemnestra know about the curse? And if she knew would she have still done it? Hmmm

I commented on Callie's

Assassins

Wow. What an appropriate time to be reading these things. This case between the Leader and Orestes is so much like a battle over the truth in someone's death in assassins. The furies are all worked up and spur on the Leader, who longs to kill Orestes for betrayal of his mother. Of course, Orestes had the motives. He also had the perfect plan. Coronel Mustard with the candlestick in the kitchen. It was a perfect set-up.
It seems like everyone has an opinion. Everyone has a side to the story. I think that Athena was incredibly aware of this when she told the Leader that she needed to hear both sides of the story. I think she is also to be respected for giving up the power to make the decision. She makes a wise decision when she calls a jury together, not wanting to have a biased result. She takes an "innocent until proven guilty" approach, which works in Orestes' favor. Although I am mostly confused/disappointed by the gods, in this instance I think that Athena handled things well. However, it's most likely because there aren't a dozen other gods interfering ;P

P.S. I commented on Brittany's

Artemis VS Agamemnon

Artemis: Goddess of the hunt, childbirth, animals, virginity and the wilderness.
Agamemnon: King of Argos, conqueror of Troy and son of Atreus.

Agamemnon and Artemis are two very powerful beings with some pretty nasty conflicts. Some in 'Agamemnon' and some before. According to Aeschylus, when Agamemnon decided to wage war with Troy, Artemis was upset over all of the innocents that would be killed in this war and prevented his passage across the sea. If we look elsewhere in literature we can find another conflict between these two. In Sophocles' Electra, Agamemnon kills an animal which is sacred to Artemis and claims he's her equal as a hunter. Either story still has the same result, Agamemnon's troops cannot cross the sea without appeasing Artemis.

This brings us to a rather sketchy part of this story.  In order to please Artemis, the goddess who is upset about Agamemnon killing or sending innocents to their death, Agamemnon sacrifices his INNOCENT daughter. I'm not sure how you interpret that, but if I was Artemis I would take it as a slap in the face. Apparently she and I are different, thank god, so she allows their safe passage over to Troy. Although, we may find later that Artemis hadn't actually forgiven Agamemnon.

During the battle at Troy, Artemis stays behind the scenes for the most part. Although, her twin brother Apollo is extremely active, suggesting that she was involved in more ways than we know. We don't hear much about Artemis after this in 'Agamemnon', but I believe she had a hand in the events that unfolded upon the King's return to Argos.

Artemis, as previously stated, is the goddess of childbirth. This would suggest that she's also the goddess of motherhood, and maternal instincts. When Clytemnestra found out what had happened to her beloved child, she was filled with rage and hatred for her daughter's killer, which is to be expected. She waited in anticipation for Agamemnon to return, so she could make him pay for what he had done to Iphigenia. Then when the opportunity arose, she killed him like a skilled huntress. I don't know if this presumption is correct, but I would presume that Artemis had a hand in this killing. Even if she didn't 'pull the trigger',  I'm sure she was stoking the embers of anger in Clytemnestra's heart while Agamemnon was away. I can almost guarantee you that Artemis was watching as Agamemnon died, witnessing the 'mighty king' be brought down by his own wife.

So what did we learn this week? Don't mess with Artemis? Watch out for angry Mothers? Attempting to please someone by doing the same thing you did to offend them is never a good practice? All good answers. Tune in next week when we'll be talking about... Actually I have no idea. I should really read the syllabus.

Until next week,
Benjamin
P.S. I commented on Mallory's

Agamemnon was asking for it...

The title says it all... he was asking for it. I only wonder what he was thinking even coming home. He killed baby girl AND comes home with a war "bride". Come on Aggy. Maybe, MAYBE he could of comforted Clyd by telling her "it was the only way," or "it was for the greater good," but coming home with "another woman on his arm" AND having aboslutely no remorse for what he did to their only daughter... What did he expect to happen? I would be scared out of my mind to come home... after all, "hell hath no fury than a woman's scorn." Sense he is the family killing pig that he is, he would have been much better off killing mama too so he could come home to his happy kingdom with his happy new wife.

But...she's a mother

In class Tuesday we discussed Clytemnestra and her murder of Agamemnon. Why did she do it? Should she be considered crazy? Did she go overboard? Maybe so but...she's a mother.
This won't be a long tangent, I promise. It's more of an illustration. In middle school my dad was my prinicpal, well a teacher who was about to get fired (and knew it) started a rumor about me that made it all the way to the superintendent. She did it to take the heat off of her and put it on my dad. It had no basis of truth at all. My dad said not to worry about it, the superintendent knew it wasn't true and no one was in trouble (except her). My mother on the other hand contacted her and told her that if she ever messed with one of her children again to get to their daddy, it would not be him she would have to deal with. Furthermore, my mother would have had her job if she was not already about to lose it.
All that to say, C did what any mother would do. He sacrificed their daughter and a mother's love and intuition won't allow her to sit by and let that happen. The text says, "Lusting for war, the bloody arbiters closed heart and ears...the girl-voice plead, pity my father! nor her prayers nor tender, virgin years...her father bade the youtheful priestly train. Raise her like some poor kid."

The allusion to animal sacrifice there is heartwrenching. When C kills them both she says, "by the great vengeance for my murdered child"

You can say that she lusted for power, that her greed and comfort in her rank outweighed her reason but the simple fact remains that a mother will kill for her child. Had she grown to love her position? Yes. Was she thirsty for more power? I would say so. But the ultimate reason for killing her husband/king was, in my opinion, revenge for her child. You can say she should have known her place and that revenge doesn't solve anything but...she's a mother.

P.S. I am not saying that every mother who has a child killed should go kill the murderer. I am saying however, that there is a reason for the term "crime of passion."

Artemis and Baby Rabbitts

Artemis is the goddess of the hunt, and of child birth, quite an odd combination. bBeing the goddess of something so wild and brutal as the hunt and yet at the same time being the goddess of something thats so tender and innocent. That's quite a combination indeed. She was enraged when the Achaians attacked Troy.

"The kings of birds to kings of the beaking prows, one black,
one with a blaze of silver skimmed the palace spearhand right
and swooping lower, all could see,
plunged their claws in a hare, a mother
bursting with unborn young - the babies spilling,
quick spurts of blood - cut off the race just dashing into life!
Cry, cry for death, but good win out in glory in the end." 118-125

So, what does this passage convey to the reader. Lets see what Dr. Mashburn said, "Eagles devouring baby fetus rabbitts!" Hmmm...well thats the gist of it. Basically it's a simile to Agamemnon attacking Troy and slaughtering them completely. Now this didn't settle well with Artemis at all.

" 'Years pass and the long hunt nets the city of Priam,
the flocks beyond the walls,
a kingdom's life and soul - Fate stamps them out.
Just let no curse of the gids lour on our first,
shatter our giant armour
forged to strangle Troy. I see
pure Artemis bristle in pity -
yes the flying hounds of the Father
slaughter of armies . . . their own victim . . . a woman
trembling young, all born to die - She loathes the eagles' feast!'
Cry, cry for death, but good win out glory in the end."

So this attack on Troy really ticks Artemis off, and she wants to take her vengence on the Achaians, but Zeus prevents her since Troy must fall. The point of this whole blog is that things aren't always as they appear to be, a vicious huntress goddess is also a defender of the helpless. So we must look deeply into things in our lives to make sure that we glean all we can out of each situation.


I commented on Lucy's Assassins post.

Willing sacrificing vs. Glory and honor for self

I do have to say, the more i read about agamemnon, the more my thoughts about him just constantly change. Part of me wants to think he really is a great person and wants honor, but then again, the way in which he tries to reach his goal of wanting honor isn't always the best way, when we speak morally. When Agamemnon is willing to sacrifice his own for the glory of honor , i think he takes it to far. But then i do agree to a point that he does this because he will lose his own child in order to gain more lives. In war, a man can kill one to save many. Sacrifice one in order to gain honor for his own country. It's the same with agamemnon. I believe he is put in a very hard place where he has to make very hard decisions. Your family versus your own men, country. That is very difficult. Who in his right mind would sacrifice his family? It really goes both ways though because being willing to sacrifice is something that honor sometimes may ask of us, but i believe there is a fine line between willing to sacrifice and just wanting self-glory and honor and a right way to discern the two.

p.s. I commented on alanamills post

Agamemnon's Appeal

Wasting away, I see you, when the top of the world falls on you.

Fighting your day, don't wanna be you, when the top of the world

falls on you!

"Top of the World" -All-American Rejects

As I have stated in my previous post, we love to see corrupt politicians face their just reward, destruction for their sins. As the song above says, we want to see the corrupt and wicked fall from their high tower and hit their face. This is the part where I relate this statement to Agamemnon, as the title character returns home from a terrible and bloody war and is killed in a coup de etat. Was Agamemnon a wicked leader who deserved his fate, or his death truly a tragedy? Let the court examine the evidence.

Let's first look at the Iliad, the first time readers see his character. In the Iliad, King Agamemnon has put the men under his command through 9 years of hell and glory to seize Troy. The original reason was to retrieve a woman guilty of infedelity, but it also provided an excellent to seize Troy and its reasons. In this ninth year, Agamemnon is infinitely selfish and depraved, an example of which is when he denies a priest of his daughter-turned-concubine, inadvertently bringing a plague upon the men he commands. After giving up said slavegirl, he takes the concubine of Achilleus, the greatest warrior in his power, for his own use. As a result, Achilleus temporarily leaves the fight and strikes a deal with Zeus through his mother to curse his formers brothers-in-arms to be defeated until Agamemnon accepts him back, a grand tragedy that Agamemnon could have avoided.

At the same time, Agamemnon is, at one point, willing give up the war and take the soldiers home, much to their pleasure. Indeed, it is one of their own that prevent them from doing this, not the seemingly benevolent Agamemnon. Though he is not the strongest warrior, he also proves himself a force to be reckoned with on the battlefield, claiming many Trojan lives and thus sparing many others. In this case, he uses his pride to his advantage and becomes stronger because of it, because he simply will not allow himself to be defeated and he will be victorious in the war. His self-centeredness fuels his desire for victory, which I argue is a good thing.

The other piece of evidence we have is the book we are currnently focused on, Agamemnon. In it, we learn that, before he and the troops left Mycenae, a great storm blows that could destroy all of his men. To end the storm, he sacrifices his own daughter without showing any great remorse. Would this not be the characteristic of a heartless villain? His depravity once again shows its pretty face when he returns home to his patient and longsuffering wife with yet another slavegirl from Troy, evidently to replace Achilleus' slave he had to return. His wife has been waiting for 10 long years to see him, and he marches in with another woman as his personal sex toy? If you ask me, that is an arrogant slap in the face and another damning piece of evidence against the king.

In his defense, as far as the sacrifice of his daughter, I do not honestly believe he wanted to. If had shown more remorse for his deed then that might have been enough to keep his wife from going off the edge and giving him the edge, but the evidence shows that Agamemnon is ruthless, prideful, and stubborn, but not heartless. He was only trying to serve what he thought was the greater good. In a rare character twist, when his wife invites him to enter his palace on a magnificent purple carpet, fit for a king might I add, he initially refuses because it would show hubris, or pridefulness. This is evidence that perhaps, near the end of his life, he at least began to learn the values of humility, because he obviously thought that entering his kingdom as boastful would be wrong. Strange, isn't it?

So, did Agamemnon get what he deserved? Was he a wicked and ignoble king worthy of a terrible downfall? Consider the end of Agamemnon where, after his murder and the revelation of the killers, the citizens mourn his loss and declare that he would be avenged. Why would they be so passionate about their king if he sucked? He must have been a worthy king to recieve such a posthumous accolade from his subjects. Perhaps, despite his arrogance and self-centeredness, he truly was a king interested in the greater good of his people and did not deserve his tragic fate.

What do you think? Considering the evidence, is he guilty or not? Please feel free to comment. BTW, I also posted on Alana's post, Willing Sacrifice vs. Glory and Honor For Self.

Witty Title

I loved the story about the man who raised the new born lion and then, when it came of age, ate everyone. I've always thought it was "cray cray" (to quote a fellow student) the way people catch wild animals when they're babies and keep them as pets. I mean, don't they know they're just going to get hurt? Those monkeys are vicious. I have a friend who has a pet raccoon...I'm like, "You're not Pocahontas."

But what was the point of that parable? What I concluded was that the lion attacked because that's who it was, that's just what lions do...attack people, no changing it. But then how did this random story fit in with the rest of Agamemnon? Was Agamemnon suppose to be the lion? Was the point that even if you try to love Agamemnon, he will turn around and kill you for his own gain, just because that's what Agamemnon does? Or was Agamemnon suppose to be the one who was killed by the lion - Clytaemnestra - because he made her mad, and so she could reign with her lover...?

I commented on Sara Dye's.

Revenge, revenge, revenge. When does it ever end?

At the end of the play, Agamemnon, we discover that Agamemnon's death had been plotted out by Aegisthus before the king had even returned home from war. Aegisthus believed that murdering Agamemnon was the best way to get back at Atreus, Agamemnon's father. (For Atreus had fed Aegisthus' father, Thyestes, soup with children flesh in it.) Moreover, Clytaemnestra murdered Agamemnon as revenge for him killing their daughter, Iphigeneia. Clytaemnestra put it this way, "act for act, wound for wound...by the sword you did your work and by the sword you will die."

So.. I understand that Clytemnestra is avenging her daughter and Aegisthus is avenging his father, but my question is, who is going to avenge Agamemnon? Where does this cycle of revenge end? Does it ever? In ancient greek literature, so much emphasis is placed on avenging the death of fathers and other loved ones, but if this keeps going on, won't there be a never ending cycle of murders that must be avenged? Where does one draw the line and stop the cycle? Can the greeks put kleos aside to stop murder once and for all?... or is that too far fetched of a suggestion?

I commented on Alexandra's

Agamemnon the Leader

Reading Agamemnon I had a hard time recognizing the character King Agamemnon. The Agamemnon who returns from conquering the city of Troy is not the same man we found in reading The Iliad. In place of the self-absorbed, greedy king of The Iliad we find one who is ashamed even to tread on the garments laid out for him upon returning to his city. "Great the extravagance, and great the shame I feel to spoil such treasure and such silver's worth of webs" he exclaims. The man who once stopped at nothing to get what he wanted is now humbly requesting to return the his city quietly, without fuss. Surely this man is different than the one we had previously read about. Most would probably argue that of course he is different, the two tales were written by different authors, each with his individual concept of the character. While this may be true, I also believe that the difference between the "two Agamemnons" is significant to the story. Perhaps this is supposed to illustrate what war does to a person. Perhaps this is what suffering does. Changes the very core of who you are. When you have fought and died beside thousands of your comrades perhaps the material things of life appear as they really are: temporal things of no real, eternal value. Perhaps Agamemnon realized this at some point during his fight against the sons of Priam.

The Agamemnon that appears in this book is one that seeks to lead his people well. One sign that he has perhaps grown to become a wiser leader is that he realizes the power of the people he rules over. Clytaemestra is trying to talk her husband into a somewhat grand entrance into the city, Agamemnon however is opposed to this idea. Agamemnon did not hold a tender place in the hearts of his subjects when he left. The people were largely bitter towards him. That he was willing to go into war and sacrifice the lives of their sons, husbands, brothers, and fathers for the sake of one woman disgusted them. Conscious of this fact Agamemnon declares his intention to merely quietly re-enter the city and begin to try to win back the respect of his people. Clytaemestra insists otherwise saying "Be not ashamed before the bitterness of men." To which Agamemnon replies "The people murmur, and their voice is great in strength." Agamemnon is wise to recognize that the voice of the people does matter, very much. However, Clytaemestra further argues stating "Yet he who goes unenvied shall not be admired." This is an interesting argument. Clytaemestra somehow acquaints pomp and circumstance with being respected as a leader. However, Agamemnon has latched onto a true grasp of leadership though, leading your people in accordance with their concerns, to their benefit. True leaders gain respect not through show, but through seeking the best for those in their charge. War and suffering helped this king emerge a leader...



I commented on Rachel's post.

The Gods Again!

Oedipus was a tale that I was familiar with, though when reading it after the Iliad I noticed some interesting things.

In my mind, I started drawing a comparision between Patroclus and Oedipus. Both were fated by the gods to have tragic ends, and both overstepped their bounds, resulting in the end that befell them. Patroclus by attacking where he shouldn't have, and Oedipus by declaring vengance and promising to make the person who killed the former king an outcast.

Oedipus was once again a character fated by the gods to have a tragic end. And while he doesn't die like Patroclus, what happens to him is worse in a way. We know that Oedipus is told by Apollo that he will kill his father and marry his mother, but that he chose to marry anyway and indeed this fate came to pass.

But does this truly mean that it was fated to happen? Couldn't Oedipus have chosen never to marry, thus breaking the hold that fate had upon him? COULD he have made that choice and still saved the city?

And if it was fated, can Oedipus be held accountable for the outcome? Did he really have a chance to do differently, and should he have felt such sorrow over the fact that he was the one that killed the king if it was fated to happen by the gods? The point that I am making is this:
With characters like Patroclus and Oedipus as examples, can any character in these epics really be held accountable for their actions if they are fated to happen? And if they can, how do you differentiate between acountability and what is the will of the gods? I don't have an answer to this question, and I wonder if those that wrote the works that we now read did either.

P.S. I commented on Lucy Beth's post.

Not a Hero......?

I found it very interesting in class, when we discussed Oedipus’ reaction to the high point of his personal tragedy. He made himself blind and accepted his punishment without a fight. Why did he act the way he did. Looking at his pride from the past, I thought he would react to his tragedy differently. It’s almost as if Oedipus was transformed. This, unlike my last statement, does not surprise me. I know that when I am humbled, I become a different person, after I realize my position. Perhaps Oedipus realized he didn’t have much control. He realized how little power he had all along.

At the end of class we talked about Oedipus’ position at the end of the book. In a sense, he became a hero, despite his personal tragedy. This was a very interesting parallel to me. Even though he committed crimes against his own family, which was normally the cause of disrespect, you could almost say he was respected for the way he handled his destiny. Earlier in his life he ran from it, or so he thought. Really he was running directly towards his destiny. He realized his fate and finally decided to accept it head on.

“Oh but this I know: no sickness can destroy me, nothing can. I have been saved for something great and terrible, something strange. Well let my destiny come and take me on it’s way!”

Another reason why I think he accepted his Fate the way he did was his love for Thebes. Earlier he had tried to save Thebes in an indirect way. In the end he asked to leave Thebes, I think both beacause of shame and because he wanted to save Thebes. His fate was now open to him. He no longer was “blind.” He might as well not fight his fate. He had tried before.
I do not think Oedipus was perfect. He definitely had his flaws. Some of his decisions I don’t credit. But for the way he handled the height of his tragedy, to me, in a strange sense, he was a hero. He was not a Hero… yet…… a Hero.

P.S. I commented on tindall2009's post

Cursed

Why does it seem the way of the Greek gods and our God is to punish many for the mistakes of a few? I noticed this happening in the ancient Greek literature and also in the Bible. The ultimate example of this is Adam and Eve, whom all humanity is cursed through. We also see this in the Iliad, when Paris and Helen’s decision burned all of Troy to the ground and in Oedipus, when offenses cause the whole city to be cursed and his children to be abominations, but does are God also do this?

The bible mentions many times about generational curses. I have always wondered why are loving God would punish through the generations for sin. It seems that is one similarity that he has to the Greed gods; however our God presents a choice. The children of Oedipus and Helene of Troy had no way of reaching redemption for their horrible births, because their gods offered no alternate fate. Our God does however in the form of Jesus. He offers us forgiveness of sin and freedom from bondage and generational curses. I found the verse Jeremiah 31:30 which says “Instead, everyone will die for his own sin; whoever eats sour grapes- his own teeth will be set on edge.” This shows us that children have a choice to follow in the sins of their parents or to make their own path. I wonder now if Oedipus’s children had this same choice and chose wrong or if they were destined to be bad?

Ps. I commented on Tindall 2009's post

Oedipus, Jocasta and Fate

For me, Oedipus Rex has been the most enjoyable reading that we've done in honors so far. I feel sorry for Oedipus because he seemed to be a good king who cared about his people. He was completely ignorant of his sin. Jocasta, on the other hand, had to have noticed some eerie similarities between Oedipus and her deceased husband, Laius. She should have realized that he was the exact age that the son she thought was dead would have been. She should have noticed the marks on his ankles. Jocasta had to have been living in denial, blocking out any thought that Oedipus could possibly be her "dead" son.

I believe the story of Oedipus is proof that it is impossible (at least in ancient Greek culture) to escape your fate. Oedipus tried running from the prophecy, only to discover that he had ran straight into it. No matter how hard he tried, Oedipus couldn't avoid his destiny.

I commented on Benjammin's post.

Again with the titles!

Though it somewhat contradicts with my previous blog, class discussions beg to me to reconsider how much Jocasta actually knew ahead of time.

My reconsideration is essentially founded in the situation with the Shepherd who was the only survivor of the attack on Laius and his men. When he came back, Jocasta says he asked to leave, but I wonder if she might have encouraged him to leave because Oedipus was on the throne: "Soon as he returned from the scene and saw you on the throne with Laius dead and gone..." I can almost see the shepherd whispering to Jocasta, telling her that he did not kill the ankle-bound baby years and years ago, that the man on the throne is, in fact, her son. I can see Jocasta scolding him for insubordination, pausing to think of her options left with Oedipus as king, and choosing to keep things hush-hush. Perhaps she was simply fulfilling her duties as a queen...perhaps she asked the shepherd to leave so his mouth would stay shut...perhaps she only reacted with suicide because her shame had been discovered...perhaps, perhaps, perhaps! I mean, she did send the shepherd "far as possible, out of sight of Thebes." Heh, out of sight. If what I just concluded is the case with Jocasta's knowledge, then I take back my adoration. How could she knowingly put Oedipus, her son, in that situation? Angry that he killed Laius? Angry that she had not defeated the prophecy after all? Silly mortal, your life decisions were subject to fate (whatever that is)! Na-na-na-boo-boo...

Commented on Lane's.

Ignorance a Sin

    If you don't know you are sinning, and thus don't repent for it, should you be punished for it? Should King Oedipus be punished for his sins he did not know he was committing? I know that ignorance from the law is not a defense in court, due to the simple fact that anyone could simply say "I didn't know it was wrong." However, the judge in a court case is not God, he does not know if you are lying or telling the truth. So, if you honestly did not know that you were committing a sin, should you be punished? And, do you think a fair and just God would punish you?

    As for my answer, I am on the fence. When I think of this, the lines "Forgive them father, for they know not what they have done" comes to mind. I am not well read in verse, but to me that sounds like if we commit a sin that we did not know was a sin, than we are forgiven. However, I don't know if I fully believe that. I believe that with punishment comes questions (why is this happening, what did I do) and with those questions comes the possibility of learning that a specific action is a sin. I don't know if that just made any sense, so I have a wonderful example.

    My friend, who is deeply religious, was pulled over by an officer and ended up going to jail due to a suspended license. (She knew it was suspended, but living on her own she needed to get from place to place) When telling me of this event, she believed that she was being punished but did not know what for. This lead to a conversation with her spiritual mother, in which she confessed that during a sleepover at a friend's house she was deeply upset, cried on her friends shoulder and fell asleep with her friend holding her (I should add that this was a female friend). It was in that moment that she learned that cuddling with a girl was considered a sin in their belief (they believe that it lets an avenue in for the enemy). Thus, a sin she was once ignorant of has now had some light shed on it, because she believed she was being punished.

    With that being said, I do believe that we should be punished for sins, even when we are ignorant of them. This will hopefully help teach us what actions to stay away from, however perhaps not all sins should be punished. In the case of King Oedipus, I feel like if he knew who is parents were, the change of events would not have taken place, thus he would not have sinned. Should he be punished than? He knows incest is a sin, and to his knowledge he thought he was avoiding it. I suppose only God can determine whether to punish or forgive Oedipus.

        

Masks

     In class we discussed many possible uses and reasons for the masks in theater. We only really discussed the good uses for the masks. Masks may make the audience feel more connected to the actor. It's easier to picture themselves in the place of the character. It also keeps the actor from getting in the way of the portrayal of the character. Actors are able to take on the roll of the mask and be something they might not normally.

     Actors taking on the roll of the mask can also be a con to the mask. There is a very big possibility of the actor loosing himself. He can become so wrapped up in the character that he looses part of who he is. There's a line in a song that I absolutely love that I think fits here:

“You're suffocating me, so very hard to breathe.

My mask is growing heavy, but I've forgotten who's beneath.”

     This seems to me exactly what we do in today's society. We put on our mask. For one reason or another, we want to appear to be something that we're not. It's usually to please an audience. Then we begin to become the character that we have been portraying. We loose ourselves. I think sometime we (actors and regular people) need to take off the mask and create our own interpretation of our character.

Selective Memories!

"A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory”

    I promised last week that we would talk about incest, and I always keep to my word, so I'll make this quick. First of all I would just like to say that  Jocasta was a terrible mother. Pinning your son's feet together and instructing a servant to throw him on a mountain doesn't exactly qualify you for the 'mother of the year' award. Then, to top it off, she marries said son and has children with him! There's no way in heaven or in hell that Jocasta was unaware of Oedipus' identity, but I digress. The real purpose of this blog is not to bash Jocasta's parenting skills, or lack thereof. I want to discuss a concept that can partially explain Oedipus' bizarre memory problems.

I'm sure that we have all done something in our lives that we regret.  Running over a puppy, stealing from a sibling, saying a dirty word or even marrying your mother would be a perfect example of a huge regret. Some things we regret so much that we try to push them out of our mind completely. This is known as 'selective memory'. If an event or memory in your past contradicts the way you portray yourself, you subconsciously remove that event or memory from your mind, especially if it was of your own doing. Selective memory can put us in the mindset of, "If I don't remember it, it didn't happen," which is completely false. We all know that our past comes back to haunt us, and this is incredibly apparent in Oedipus' life. Even if you don't remember doing something wrong there will be someone, somewhere, who will remember.  In this case, the Messenger, the Shepherd and Tiresias all remembered the wrong committed by Jocasta, and the latter two remembered the wrong committed by Oedipus. There is no running from the past, no matter what our brains think.

So, what did we learn today? Jocasta fails at motherhood? Never marry your mother? The past still happened whether you remember it or not? All great answers. I hope this blog isn't a tragic event that you use your selective memory to get rid of. That would just be mean.

Until next week,
Benjamin

P.S. I commented on Lucy's Blog "Mamma Mia!!".

Mamma Mia!!!

Poor Oedipus! I think that if he were a jerk who didn’t care about his people then I wouldn’t feel as bad. However, that is not the case. He is a genuinely good guy. Look at all the ways that he has protected the city. He saved them from the Sphynx. He is insistent on getting down to the bottom of the curse. He checks out every story and calls in all his resources. He is so pure-hearted in his endeavors. It seems to me that he would do anything for his people. And then his world comes crashing down in one foul swoop and turns into another story of “who’s your daddy?”. Then comes the worst news of all. He married his mom!!! What an awful day!!! So in the end he blinds himself. Blindness seems to be a pattern here. He could not see the truth before, and now that he sees it he no longer wants to. Adam and Eve maybe? Just some thoughts

P.S. I commented on Jeremy's

Why So Much Focus On The Tragedies...?

Okay, maybe it's just the way things were taught in my schools growing up, but I've noticed that when we were discussing Shakespeare and the like, we always focused on some of their more tragic works. Now, do not misunderstand me, I like tragedies as much as the next guy, but I've always wondered why we put so much emphasis on them while we leave some of their other works in "the dust", for lack of a better term? For instance, my favorite of Shakespeare's is Midsummer's Night Dream. Which I believe is a considered a comedy. As for Greek Literature I much preferred to read the adventure stories, like Jason and the Argonauts, and the Odyssey. I'm the sort of guy who enjoys reading about epic heroes slay monster after monster as they traverse the land. Now, again, I am NOT dissing Shakespeare's tragedies or the Illiad, I'm simply wondering why we(by "we", I mean in our education system and I guess the literary world)focus on the tragedies so much rather than say, the comedies or adventures?

P.S. Also, when did Comedy evolve from "happy ending" to, well, what many people think when they hear comedy today?

P.S.S. If I hear one more person say Romeo and Juliet is the epitomy of love stories, I'm going to hurt someone. Seriously, it's NOT romantic, it's about two stupid teenagers who had the hots for one another and just wanted to, well, I can't say it here. I know, it has nothing to do with the topic, but it irritates me to no end...

---I commented on Willjustice's Jealousy post.

Penance

I'm not exactly sure why, but one of the things that stuck out to me the most was when Oedipus blinded himself.

As I pointed out in class, it reminded me of Flannery O'Connor's story Wise Blood, which ends with a similar occurance.

I've also been studying other religions in one of my classes. It's surprising how many people in the world believe that they must injure themselves in order to have right standing.

What is it about self inflicted pain that supposedly justifies your situation? I understand guilt, but really....gouging your eyes out?

Oedipus is more the victim in this story, in my opinion, yet he is driven to go this far because of his internal pain. This is a very common problem in today's society. If not physically abusing themselves, people often mentally abuse themselves because of things that they have done. It just shows how the world is more about destruction. If only we had forgiveness. If only we had healing....Oh, wait.

Commented on Lucas's blog.

Let's Just Say...

Ok, so to be totally honest, i'm not quite sure i am getting the picture with this story. I can't help but to laugh when i started reading Oedipus the King... I know that sounds kind of wierd, but I just think its rather weird how the story goes. So apparently Oedipus killed his father and didn't know that he did? Or am i just getting this all wrong? He knew he did it but didn't know it was his father? Was it like he was brainwashed when he killed his father? For one minute it seems like he knew that he did kill his father, but then the next he sincerely didn't know.
Also, about Jocasta, she must have really been in denial because, how would a mother NOT recognize her own son? Why would she pretend she didn't know about all this? Unless she was hiding something or she honestly didn't know that Oedipus was her son, then i would have to agree and say she is in major denial and living in sin.

p.s I commented on Alexandra's post!

Tiresias: Blind Leader

Dearest Tiresias,

I write to inform you that your sardonic and indirect approach to reveal the horrible truths of Oedipus hath entertained me. Your resentment toward the guilty party gave way for an approach to the issue quite to my liking.

With love,

Lucas.

.....

Okay. I'm trying to put myself in Tiresias' position to see if he truly had no intentions of informing Oedipus of what he knew, or if he lead him on with reason. Reading back through the passage where Tiresias is first introduced, it seems as if he is putting himself in a spot that, regardless of original intention, would make it tempting to reveal what he knew...

Tiresias and Oedipus go back and forth between aggressive responses, which in turn leads to Tiresias indirectly opening up to some of the info. He may have been invulnerable against fear toward threats, but I wonder if he was still obligated to meet with Oedipus -- i.e. Since he was called upon behalf of Oedipus, that he would have to meet with him regardless of whether he would want to or not since he is the king, else face the reality of any threats made. That doesn't really matter though, since as Tiresias put it himself to Oedipus in lines 464 through 465, "You are the king no doubt, but in one respect, at least, I am your equal: the right to reply." Death or no death, he could have chose to withhold any and all information. But he still chose to reveal enough to pique Oedipus' curiosity, thus setting in motion the series of events that lead to his 'eye-popping' revelation. (Yeah, that pun was so lame... )

Tiresias lead Oedipus part of the way to his own self-destruction. Without him, as was noted early on in the play, everything would have remained rumour, and Oedipus would have continued blindly.

Yay for the blind leading the blind!... *sighs*... I'm really low on ingenuity right now. :P

P.S. I commented on Rebekah's blog, 'Tragedies and Denial.'

Jocasta's Denial

I feel that Jocasta must have been in a great deal of denial , since she never recognized Oedipus as her son. When I think about how many years she has known him, I can't help but say, "really? you never noticed a resemblance?" A good example would be my brother. He joined the Marines after he graduated from high school and went to Paris Island in South Carolina for boot camp. Now, once we went to pick him up, we noticed immediately how serious the Marines are about uniformity. Everyone looked exactly alike, and nobody could tell who my brother was- except for Mom. Therefore, I'm inclined to believe that it is not so much just knowing the person, but the recognition lies in Mom. Mothers are equipped with a sixth sense when it comes to their children. After being around Oedipus for years, I honestly do not see how she could have not noticed something array, except for the fact that she must have been in complete and utter denial, which must have taken quite a bit of effort.


P.S. I commented on Fimbulvetr's post "God is Flawed" again

Oedipus Rex

My World Civilization class requires me to write a review/response to an article about the history we learned about during the previous chapters. I picked to write about some of the literature from Ancient Greece and Rome. I found an article about Sophicles' Oedipus Rex, before I knew we were going to read it for English! The article was really interesting and insightful. It linked the use of fates within Oedipus Rex and Macbeth together. The article seemed to ask the same questions we asked in class about whether or not one could avoid their fate. The article also included references to books such as Crime and Punishment and the Road to Delphi. Similar references are made to fates in Plato's The Republic. It demonstrated how these characters also found their fate inevitable and the tragedies within their lives. It is so interesting to me how Sophocles of ancient Greece influences the writers of the future with his tragic work. This causes me personally to wonder, why such a reoccurring theme of fates? I think possibly the reason the writers seem so enamored with the idea of someone else really controlling their lives is because people don't want to have to make decisions. I watched Anastasia today, and when faced with the decision of where to go next she lets a little dog and magic sparkles lead her. Don't you wish our decisions were like that? What college should I go to? Well, the sparkles are leading me to the University of Mobile. While, we have the awesome opportunity to come before God and submit to His will and ask His guidance, many other people including these authors grapple with decisions and morality. Which decision is best and most beneficial? How would you decide that if you did not have Jesus guiding you?

:) For some reason I just really enjoy when my classes cross with similar information.

I wrote on Rebekah's Blog.

Tragedies and Denial

Tragedies are some of my favorite works of literature to read because of the depth that can be found in them. This past week, I’ve been thinking about things that I have found to exist in the tragedies that I have read. One thing that many of them have in common is a sense of denial. The characters do not want to see their sin, or the severity of their situation. For example, in the Shakespeare play, King Lear, the King is in denial that his daughters, Regan and Goneril are showing great betrayal and cruelty. This ultimately drives him insane. In Hamlet, his mother, Gertrude, is living in incest. She denies this, although she knows it is true. And, in my opinion, there is a sense of denial in my favorite Shakespeare play, Romeo and Juliet. I believe that the two main characters knew that their situation would not work out in the end, but this did not stop them from trying. I said all of this to say that in Oedipus, Jocasta is living in denial. I absolutely believe that she knows that she is married to her son. And this denial leads to her death, and much suffering for Oedipus.

I commented on Regis’s blog.

I am Innocence

When we were discussing Genesis, the topic came up - "What is Sin?" Nakedness was not a sin for Adam and Eve until they had the "Knowledge of good and evil," or in other words, until they became ashamed of what they were doing and felt that it was wrong. So... if we use this instance to define sin, we could say that to sin is to choose to do "evil," despite one's knowledge. Or, we could even say, to do something with "bad" or not nessecarily "good" intentions.

This outlook on sin leads me to believe that Oedipus was not guilty of sinning at all. He was always trying to do the best for his country (relieving it of a terrible plague), his family (taking action to ensure the safety of his father and dignity of his mother), and himself (moving away from home to prevent corruption). Furthermore, along with Oedipus's good intentions, he did not know that his choices were bad. He did not know that he had married his mother, or that the man he had killed was his father until way after the fact. Oedipus made his choices in complete innocence. He did not have the knowledge that his actions were evil, therefore it is not sin. How can we be held accountable for sinning when we do not know that the action we are commiting is wrong? Better yet, if we believe that our actions are in everyone's best interest?

The Ironic Conspiracy

"The complete lack of evidence is the surest sign that the conspiracy is working."

-Unknown

Let's face it: everybody loves a good conspiracy story. Countless books, songs, and shows revolve around the idea of a grand conspiracy where there is a puppet master or group of them controlling us or the ones we put in charge because we trust them. A conspiracy gives us a chance to stand against authority and use our God-given right to defy injustice to wrestle back power from the "man behind the curtain" and set things right, i.e. the way we want them to be.

Therefore, when King Oedipus learns from a trusted prophet that the unknown man he has sworn to exile as a way of saving his beloved kingdom from a terrible plague has been him all along, he naturally assumes that something's not right. How could be it be that King Oedipus is the cause of the problem, not the solution? There is only one logical explanation for this outrage...FAIRY GODPARENTS!!!! Err...sorry, wrong show. What I meant to say was, this outrage is certainly a conspiracy against his rule. Instantly, Oedipus declares the prophet a scumbag fraud and accuses his brother Creon of conspiring to usurp him to his face. Oedipus is positive, without any empirical evidence mind you, that there is a grand conspiracy to remove him from the throne and replace him with Creon that he will go to any lengths to discover the truth. We now know that he really shouldn't have, but that's how a conspiracy digs into your skin and begins driving your rationale and your motives, all in the name of truth.

Of course, the only thing more terrifying than the realization that there is a conspiracy is the realization that there is no man behind the curtain and that perception is reality. When we see politicians do ridiculous things and think to ourselves, Something screwy is going on, it gives us a ray of hope that there is still a line between good and evil, evidenced by the fact that there is a villain behind the scenes. When do look behind the curtain and find that there was no one there to begin with and that our leaders really are just imcompetent, well that sucks, right? We discover that the ones we trust to lead us were not the good people we elected being controlled, but the bad people that we trusted that are controlling us. I think that this revelation that the truth had been staring him in the face all along is one of the reasons that Oedipus blinded himself, so he would never have to see that terrible truth again.

What I find ironic is that while there never was a conspiracy to overthrow King Oedipus, he was, in fact, the target of a conspiracy he never could have imagined, a conspiracy by Sophocles himself. Now follow along with me here, and try to get what I'm saying. Sophocles needed a tragic character to show his audience, who were living in a relatively proseperous time, how bad life can be and how destructive truth is when it's something we don't want to hear. So he placed a righteous, benevolent, yet prideful man in a truly nightmarish predicament, orchastrating the events of the novel and the events of his life (at least in this play) to make his points. Because of Sophocles, poor Oedipus is now doomed to wander blindly in exile, be laughed at by immature high schoolers forced to read the play for their english class, and be examined endlessly by Freudian psychologists. Indeed, "no man (is) happy till he dies, free of pain at last." (Oedipus Rex 185)

Yes, I realize that I have typed a ton of words, and for those of you who actually read all of this you have my thanks. Please feel free to comment, and good luck to all assassins (unless I'm hunting you or you're hunting me)!

BTW, I commented on Sara Dye's post, Justice.

Tragedy and Choices....Choices

So, life is tragic, not all of the time, but still, we all know that we experience tragedy at some point in our lives. And some people experience it a lot more than other people. There are levels of tragedy, and some experience it worse than others. A spilled glass of milk on your pants is far less tragic than someone breaking into your car and stealing your cell phone before class in the morning. (I experienced that little lovely last October). Sometimes tragedy makes us stronger, and other times it just breaks us down and makes us cry our eyes out. We certainly hope to learn some kind of events from these events, but, regrettably sometimes we just learn nothing except how to endure pain. It is said what doesn't kill us makes us stronger, and I agree with that from a personal stand point. "You must embrace the suck!!!" That is one of my favorite phrases of all time, and its more than funny, it is actually deep, you just have to search for it. We are humans, and we must go through pain, whether we like it or not, that's just life. God uses pain in our lives to make us grow closer to Him, and so that when we overcome obstacle in our life we will give Him the glory that is due. Luckily we don't experience tragedy all of the time, however we sometimes become the physical embodiment of tragedy itself. Like in the great words of Oedipus, "I am agony." He wasn't just feeling agony, he had become the physical manifestation of the essence of agony itself. I don't think that it gets much worse than that. I myself, have come close to the point of becoming agony/despair, and it was truly a miserable experience. But it helped me to grow as a person, grow closer to my friends, and even more importantly, grow closer to God. It was a horrible experience, but I learned a lot from it. If God wills me to go through something similar, then I will, and I'll come out even stronger on the other side, like I did last time, by His grace.

Another thing that we talked about in class were crossroads. Now I found that topic to be particularly interesting. This has applied directly to life as well. There has been a time where I thought I was walking with a person, but then we came to a crossroad in our relationship, and they were going the other direction than I, and I could feel God clearly pulling me away from them. So I obeyed God, and we parted ways,....forever, and now they no longer exist in my life. But that was another experience that God used to pull me closer to Him. There are many crossroads in our life. College is the biggest one that I have ever experienced in my existence. I know people at UM that I may never see again once I, or they, graduate. I certainly will try my best to stay in contact with them, since my closest friends go here, but there is always a chance that God may push them out of my life forever. The Honor's program has been the single greatest college experience, and it has been one of the best examples of a crossroad at this school. Sophomores help run the class and then they leave to let the Freshmen step up on to the pedestal to take the previous Sophomores place. And I have truly learned more than I ever thought I would at this giant crossroad, filled with the greatest people, and the most brilliant professors of our school.



I commented on Lane's post.

Jealousy

Ah, how cruel this story is. Oedipus is such a great king. He cares for his people. The people which he saved. Of course the gods have to be cruel to him. Although it's not announced clearly, I feel that the gods continue in their twisted ways again. They have given Oedipus a wretched fate, and I believe it may have been from jealousy. They have dethroned a king who has become, to the people, a god of sorts. They are afraid of their thrones, yes? Their positions atop mount Olympus, as far as they see it, are in jeopardy because the people are now focusing on great King Oedipus. Oh how disgusting.

-Will

Commented on Fimbulvetr's "Miracle or Magic...?" post from 9/15/10.

Justice

While reading Oedipus Rex (or "Oedipus the King," depending on what version you are reading), I was haunted by one theme: justice.

Justice is something I have been thinking about often this semester. I am taking a philosophy class with Dr. Mashburn on God, Evil, and Suffering and one of our most frequent topics in that class is justice. The justice of man, of society, and of God.

Oedipus' situation at the end of this book catches me in a strange place. On the one hand, I am disgusted by the murder and incest committed. On the other hand, my heart is torn with pity. I think the pity stems from the fact that so much of this book seems unjust. All of the trouble in this book stems from a prophecy/curse that no one could control. Oedipus is not committing the sin of incest knowingly, and when he discovers the truth he is torn with remorse. Part of me asks "how can he be held accountable for something he was not aware of?" On the other hand however, sin is sin... And he did knowingly commit murder. Granted, he did not know he was killing his father, but he was aware that he was taking human life, which is also a sin. And while he exhibits remorse and repentance over committing incest and the fact that he killed his father, we see no sign that he regretted taking the lives he took until he knew that it was his father. Does this mean he deserves what he got? Or worse? Or should he be granted mercy at his repentance?

Another example of this question of justice can be raised with regards to his children. His children have no control over who their parents are. Yet, their lineage plays a significant part in their lives. Is this just?

So, to echo the question of our dear friends Socrates and Plato- "what is justice?" Does it exist?

While I do have an opinion, this is not a question I want to give a concrete answer for. It is one that must be wrestled with by you and I, I would simply ask you to take it into consideration as well, and, if you so desire, leave a comment with your thoughts...




I commented on Kelsey's post.

"Of which you will do even greater things"

Moses, Paul, Noah, Matthew... These are some of the 'big dawgs" we look up to in Christianity. They are the people who have shown us how God can use humans. It's common for us as modern day Christians to think... wow... I can never be as awesome as them. They were great and wonderful men of God, but... they where human. I believe one of the main reasons God tells the background of many of the people he puts in his Word is because he wants to show us that where they are isn't unreachable. He may not use us to part the waters of the Red Sea (but with God all things are possible), but surely we can be "men after God's own heart!" In Exodus we see Moses... "The Moses"... telling God no. He basically says: "I'm not good with words, send someone else, I don't know who you are, and I don't want to go." God's response is: "Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the Lord? Now go; I will help you speak and teach you what to say." (Exodus 3:3)
Moses did do great and wonderful things... but he was still scared out of his mind and thought himself inadequate. HE WAS inadequate-the only thing that made him special was being chosen by GOD. He did great things THROUGH GOD. We have to remember that we are vessels. The thing that made "the saints" so great was because they let God have control and let him will be done in their lives. Alone we don't have the words to say. Jesus (the Messiah) told his disciples "I have come to do great things of which YOU will do even greater". The people of God are chosen to do great things in Christ. Holy Spirit will help us- stop making excuses Moses, and GO!

"I don't wanna go alone, I won't have the words to say... unless your here with me God, unless your here with me."

ps: I commented on Anna Rhode's