|
(2016
midterm assignment) Sample Student Midterm Answers 2016 Essay 3. Special Topics on Tragedy |
LITR 4370 Tragedy
|
 |
(Authors & titles in alphabetical order; scroll down to see essays)
Angela Copper,
Tragedy: Human Beings under the Microscope
Nikki Jones, Adaptation: What Changes as Literature
Evolves?
Tedra Mendoza
Cassandra Parke,
From Feminist to Freudian: A Comparison of
Aeschylus’ Clytaemnestra and O’Neill’s Christine
Adrian Russell,
The Benefits and Dangers of
Religious Doctrines in Literature
Angela Copper
17
June 2016
Tragedy: Human Beings under the Microscope
Originating in Ancient Greece, tragedy has stood the test of time. The
academic value of tragic plays is indisputable; Shakespeare’s
Hamlet and
Macbeth, for example, are read much
more critically within classrooms than A
Midsummer Night’s Dream. What classifies a play as a tragedy, instead of a
comedy or a satire? What makes a tragedy according to Aristotle’s
Poetics is a drama’s excitement of
“pity and fear” within the viewer. Yet, tragedy is constantly evolving and
changing as a genre.
Shakespeare’s Othello, for
instance, deals not only with the complexities of jealousy and revenge similar
to that of its Grecian predecessors, it tackles issues such as racial identity
and stereotyping. Othello, a black man who has risen to the rank of General
within the Venetian army, is constantly judged and targeted based on his race,
forcing him to work tirelessly to “prove himself” to his peers.
Othello’s approach to racial
stereotyping was highly topical for its time in Elizabethan England, when
so-called “moors” were thought of as ignorant, untrustworthy, and lazy. The
issue of discrimination toward racial minorities and a black man’s struggle to
raise himself in society is still relevant today.
Othello also shares themes with
classic Greek tragedies such as the double standard of adultery between the
sexes.
The themes, and even overarching plots, from Ancient Greek tragedies
still find their relevance strongly present almost 1500 years later. Such is the
case with Agamemnon of Aeschylus’s
Oresteia trilogy. Queen Clytemnestra,
Agamemnon’s wife, finds herself and her thoughts constantly overlooked due to
her status as a woman, or condescendingly complimented for having the
“masculine” personality which was necessary for holding the country together in
Agamemnon’s long absence. In Eugene O’Neill’s
Mourning Becomes Electra, an American
civil war era interpretation of Clytemnestra appears in the character of
Christine. Christine also finds her thoughts and feelings to be overlooked by
her husband, which leads her to become cold and closed off – a trait that is
criticized by the voyeuristic townspeople of the play. Both women find
themselves under the microscope of society, whereas their husbands are simply
revered for being successful war heroes. The double standard of society’s
expectation of women to be constantly pleasant is highlighted by the lack of
commentary by the chorus or townspeople on the cold demeanor of Agamemnon or his
Mourning Becomes Electra
corresponding character, Ezra Mannon.
Mourning Becomes Electra
borrows more than the character of Christine/Clytemnestra from
Agamemnon. The plot of the
Oresteia is centered on a blood curse
which drives the members of Agamemnon’s family to kill each other. This is
updated for O’Neill’s Freudian psychology-influenced play. In
Mourning Becomes Electra, it is not a
“blood curse” in the Greek sense that drives the characters, but it is hinted
that there is some sort of genetic cowardice within the men of the Mannon
family. This integration of modern concepts extends to O’Neill’s use of the
Electra complex, which is defined on Dr. Craig White’s “Electra Complex” page
within the Tragedy course website as when a “young girl feels rivalry with her
mother over the affections of her father.” Theorized by Sigmund Freud’s
contemporary Carl Jung, the Electra Complex has largely fallen out of use in
modern psychology and psychoanalysis due to advances in women’s psychology which
do not support it, unlike Freud’s Oedipal Complex, which finds its root in the
attachment developed with a mother as a nurturing figure in youth.
This introduces the issue with the updates present in O’Neil’s
reimagining of the classic Oresteia
trilogy. While tragic characters are complex by definition,
Mourning Becomes Electra’s Vinnie cam
seem too complex or flawed at times, due to her characterization’s origin in a
psychological complex. This, perhaps, is the updated version of an old problem
of tragedy, wherein a tragic character is too deeply flawed to be relatable, and
therefore the tragedy does not inspire pity or fear.
Nikki
Jones
17 June
2016
Adaptation: What Changes as Literature
Evolves?
Since the beginning of written word, when men started taking accounts of
stories, there have been people who choose to vary each tale. We see this happen
often with biblical tales. Miracles that are supposed to be exclusive to one
religion show up in a different religious doctrine, only with slightly varied
circumstances. Another example is urban legends and fairy tales that have been
passed down for generations that become slightly modified over time, so that
instead of the event happening in a faraway place it now takes place in a town
near you and the teller of the story swears that it happened to their cousin’s
friend. This type of editing goes back for hundreds upon hundreds of years. In
this course we have plenty of examples that prove this to be true. Arguably the
most interesting duo to compare and contrast is Sophocles’
Oedipus the King and William
Shakespeare’s Hamlet. In
Hamlet it is obvious that Shakespeare
was very much aware and gives respect to Oedipus the King. That being said, Hamlet is also a work that stands
on its own. Shakespeare has payed homage to Sophocles with this work, but there
are changes that differentiate the plays and keep them two separate works
instead of a common remake.
One of the most immediate changes that is apparent is that the
predominantly Greek aspects of tragedy did not get translated into
Hamlet. There is no questioning that
Hamlet is one of Shakespeare’s longer plays. That being said, it is just one
play. The entirety of the play is set in those five acts, whereas it is typical
for Grecian tragedies to have three separate parts. The story of Oedipus is no
exception and to comprehend his family’s entire story
Antigone and
Oedipus at Colonus should be read in
conjunction with Oedipus the King.
Another classic element Shakespeare took creative liberties with is the chorus.
Danielle Maldonado mentions this change as well in “Tragedy and its Updates”.
She states that when it comes to modernized tragedy “The chorus … doesn’t
exist in the same capacity”. This is an aspect in which we see Shakespeare
paying homage to Sophocles and the classic tragedies. In
Oedipus the King the chorus acts as
narrators for the audience, but they also act as Oedipus’ advisor. In this same
regard, Hamlet has Horatio. Although Horatio’s character is not used as a
narrator, as we have stage directions for that, he is honestly trusted by Hamlet
and he is the only one Hamlet goes to with his troubles. Through Horatio,
Shakespeare creates a chorus. For Hamlet’s dying request he forbids Horatio to
commit suicide and instead tells him to share the story and relay the tragic
events that happened to his family.
In addition to these technical changes,
Hamlet has some superficial changes to
the plot as well. In making these changes Shakespeare modernizes the play. He
strays away from the mythological aspects found in Oedipus and instead
incorporates elements of the supernatural. With this major change comes the need
for a villain. The driving force of the play is no longer fate, but freewill.
The gods are no longer to blame as they are in
Oedipus the King, now we are aware that the characters in
Hamlet make their own conscious
choices and create their own consequences based off of them. In this aspect of
incorporating human nature, Hamlet
becomes more relatable. Along with the need for a villain, Oedipus and Hamlet
are at contrast in some aspects as well. Where Oedipus is an older king, Hamlet
is a younger prince. Oedipus is also established in his love life. He is happily
married, up until a certain point, and has four children, whereas Hamlet is a
playboy or a tease. He takes a romantic interest in Ophelia and expresses it in
seductive ways, yet he toys with her emotions and ultimately causes her tragic
demise.
Even with all these changes we still have some similarities that tie
these two plays together. The main characters have some extremely similar
qualities. Oedipus and Hamlet both share a strong sense of justice and to avenge
their fathers, who have been wronged in the most severe way, unbeknownst to
Oedipus obviously. Both characters are extremely impulsive in their behavior and
actions without thinking ahead to the consequences. The duo is also irrational
and violent in temperament at times, mainly when they feel they are being
condescended or betrayed, again leading to impulsive behavior.
The
aspect of spectacle is an element that is prevalent throughout both
Oedipus the King as well as
Hamlet. According to the term page on
the course website the Oxford English Dictionary defines a spectacle as “A
specially prepared or arranged display of a more or less public nature, forming
an impressive or interesting show or entertainment for those viewing it”. There
are many instances of spectacle when it comes to both of the plays. There are
two types of spectacle when referring to
Hamlet, one example is the public sword fight that takes place in the final
act, which incorporates elements of adventure and danger. The other type of
spectacle is more of a horrific nature. An example of this would be the scene
between Queen Gertrude and Hamlet in her bedroom. This scene is horrifying for
obvious reasons, as it reflects the Oedipus Complex, but it is also so
horrifying that it is hard to look away, which in turn makes it a spectacle.
Tedra Mendoza
Tragedy
in the Classroom
Before coming into this course, my only knowledge of tragedy was
Romeo and Juliet and then of course events that have happened in my
life. People often say that pain is the strongest teacher (White, 2016). I have
found this to be quite true in my own life, but as I have read the tragedy plays
in this course, I have found this saying to be even more accurate. Horace says
that literature’s purpose is
to instruct,
teach, inform, guide, or provide models of behavior, whether positive or negative; to offer a moral or lesson; also to model successful
style for other writers or artists to imitate (White, 2016). Tragedy also
narrates essential conflicts that define human identity, the consequences of
such conflicts, and potential resolutions. This is the perfect reason why
tragedy must be taught to students in the high school setting because they come
across this more often than others, allowing them to relate and learn from the
pain that is within tragedy.
Tragedy is not being taught the correct way in some high schools. Tragedy
is often only associated with Romeo and
Juliet
in the
high school literature classes, which is why I never really enjoyed tragedy
until coming into this course. The way the characters in the
Oresteia trilogy and
Mourning Becomes Electra go through
difficult decisions and make poor decisions is based upon their moral compass
and fate. They see it as though they are correct but later reap the consequences
of their actions which is something I never truly understood in high school.
“Tragedy expresses a combination of humanity’s
creative or formal impulses with its destructive or wild impulses” (Birth of
Tragedy). This demonstrates how tragedy really relates to humanity because other
genres sugar coat a lot of situations or try to make everything seem as if it is
all going to work out when in the real world this is not always the case.
Students can learn from the pain that is within tragedy. They see tragedy
all the time because “tragedy is not something that just occurs in plays, it
happens in real life… turn on the news and it is full of murder and
wrong-doings, we are surrounded by it” (Katherine Vellella). High school
students need a way to put their issues into perspective because they are more
willing to read something that pertains to them. In the
Oresteia trilogy, students would be
able to relate to Cassandra’s character where they say something they feel is
relevant but others tune them out. They would also be able to relate to the
deaths that happen within the play because more often than not, students have
experienced loss by having someone taken away from them due to someone else’s
rage. These are just a few examples of how students can benefit from more than
just Romeo and Juliet in high school
and how they can learn from the pain.
The readings we have read so far are definitely plays that I would want
my high school students to read because they are beneficial for the students. I
agree with Kaitlin when she writes teachers “must teach Tragedy as relevant,
relatable, and enjoyable. The
educational benefits of tragedy are endless when a teacher can help guide
students in connecting the literature to their lives. When a teacher succeeds in
this, the exploration for students within the genre has just begun.” This is
something that I hope to achieve one day.
Cassandra Parke
From Feminist to Freudian: A Comparison of
Aeschylus’ Clytaemnestra and O’Neill’s Christine
Eugene O’Neill’s
Mourning Becomes Electra beautifully captures the spirit of the
Oresteia, on which it was based, and
is evocative and compelling; however, from a feminist perspective, it fails to
carry over crucial material and themes, chiefly through the characterization of
Christine. From a feminist perspective, Aeschylus’s
Orestia is not about Orestes, or any of the men of the House of
Atreus, but rather about Clytaemnestra. Clytaemnestra’s character is somewhat of
a feminist champion. In Agamemnon’s absence, she steps into a role of power,
combating sexist stereotypes, and comes to earn the respect of the Chorus, who
describes her as “masculine”. When her husband returns, she forces him to
concede that their home has become a woman’s domain. Under the guise of
aggrandizement, she forces him to walk across a carpet of tapestries, tapestries
which were sewn by women, and laid down by her female servants on her command.
She says “Be strong, and yield to me”, and he does.
Clytaemnestra usurps masculine authority, and defies sexist norms by killing her
husband (who slaughtered their daughter for the sake of his army, so that they
could go on to Troy to commit further violence against women (and children) and
then taking his place in society. Clytaemnestra is a vengeful mother, a betrayed
wife, and a force to be reckoned with. However, her involvement with Aegisthus
seems incongruous to the rest of her characterization, almost as if it was added
on in hindsight, to satisfy social convention. He plays almost no role in the
plot, except to villainize her, to prove that there must be a man behind a
woman.
After
Clytaemnestra avenges her daughter, and manages to retain her power, Apollo, the
same God who ruined the innocent Cassandra, and who is renowned for exploiting
and belittling women, enlists Orestes, a man, to cut down this woman who has
taken up a man’s place. And Athena, the virgin goddess of wisdom, absolves
Orestes of guilt after his mother’s murder and states that she supports men in
all things, with the exception of marriage. The message here is clear: that wise
and virtuous women defer to men, and that women who challenge men must be wicked
and villainous. From this perspective, Clytaemnestra’s murder goes unavenged,
and a corrupt legal system that belittles women is instituted by Athena, who
exhibits supreme hegemony. In this view, the ending of the
Oresteia is truly tragic, rather than comedic (Course website’s “Tragedy”
and “Comedy” pages).
In this
interpretation, Clytaemnestra is a powerful heroine struggling for justice and
survival in a man’s world. In contrast, the character of Christine in Eugene
O’Neill’s Mourning Becomes Electra is
decidedly weak, and more “feminine” in the archaic, misogynist sense; she is a
psychoanalytical model first, an adulteress second, and a mother last. While
Clytaemnestra stabbed Agamemnon, and boldly took responsibility for his murder,
Christine employed deception to bring on Ezra’s chest pain, poisoned him, and
then denied doing so. She is a cruel and twisted mother, her involvement with
Brant is central to her character, and her motivations are purely selfish. The
primary function of her character is to exhibit, and embody the Electra and
Oedipal complexes (Course website’s “Oedipal Complex” and “Electra Complex”
pages). Although she is described as physically “handsome”, her actions are
“womanly” in the same sense that Aegisthus’s are in
Agamemnon. By contrast, Adam Brant is much more prominent and
“masculine” than Aegisthus. O’Neill has removed the “masculinity” from
Clytaemnestra, and the “femininity” from Aegisthus, returning these qualities to
their “proper” locations.
This is not to imply that O’Neill himself
is a proponent of sexism, only that his writing is heavily influenced by
Freudian psychoanalysis, which is notoriously sexist. O’Neill writes
heavy-handedly, forcing the characters to reveal their repressed emotions, just
as a therapist following in Freud’s tradition would. One could argue that at its
core, Mourning Becomes Electra is a
psychoanalysis of the Oresteia.
Although this adaptation of the Orestia
is striking and possesses many merits not present in the original, the reduction
of Clytaemnestra’s powerful character into the weak, swooning character of
Christine results in the loss of a great deal of the beauty, poignancy, and
richness of the original work, from a
feminist perspective.
Adrian Russell
The Benefits and
Dangers of Religious Doctrines in Literature
One of
the central concepts of this course is that literature is intended to entertain
and educate. As a humanist, I believe this is exactly what religious doctrines
can do for us in the classroom. With all of the religions inhabiting the world
and the population continually melding together, religion can bring much
conflict. The war between belief in fate and free will rages on. Therefore, it
is imperative that students be able to recognize and understand the many kinds
of religions and doctrines that can cause people to act in the way they do.
Ancient Greek tragedy is a great place to begin.
Nothing
is more dangerous than a man who is led by a force he does not understand.
Operating based on mysterious doctrine as opposed to morality and logic can
yield disturbing results for our behavior. For example, in Agamemnon, our title
character is instructed by his medium to sacrifice his child in order to garner
wind for his military fleet to travel by sea to Troy. Let us introduce logic.
If, for instance, my best and most trusted friend said, “God spoke to me and
said you should kill your son. If you do, you will get an A on your mid-term and
final, and go on to be the most important writer of your generation, changing
the lives of many for the better,” I would slap him. Granted, Agamemnon’s action
did garner wind and this is a work of fiction, but the wind could also have been
a strange coincidence. The danger of this text is that in ancient Greece, people
did believe the gods would give orders
to mediums and it would be their duty to carry out the “will of the gods”. That
being said, a medium was the most powerful person in all of Greece. These texts
were teaching blind obedience.
A
similar story in Judeo-Christianity is the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham
is instructed to sacrifice his son to God as a testament of his absolute
obedience. As the story goes, an angel stopped Abraham just before was going to
impale his son. However, humanity as a whole cannot look away from what could
have been the goal of such a text. If the population can be convinced to be
fearful and absolutely subservient to the word of a God, then the mediums who
speak to such a God exclusively would have the power to convince the followers
of this faith to do anything at all, including the unthinkable act of killing
their children. Going back to Isaac, this had the makings of one of the greatest
Oedipal complexes of all time. How does one go on in life knowing his father
would have killed him?
Discussions have been conducted in class on the topic of fate versus free will.
Greek tragedies, such as Agamemnon and
Oedipus the King are great examples
for this discussion. Some have argued in class that the characters in Agamemnon
and Oedipus the King do not have free will. If that is the case, then there is
no tragedy. It is the duality of human beings and the choices made that yield
tragedy. When Agamemnon made the choice to kill his daughter, it was tragic. If
we are saying that he would have done it anyway because it was the will of the
Gods, then this is just a story about how terrible gods are. Oedipus and his
parents were told of a prophecy. The fact that it was carried out is not tragic.
There is nothing to learn from the will of the gods. It is the fact that
Oedipus, being full aware of the prophecy, decided to kill an older man and have
sex with an older woman that makes the story tragic. He chose to be an idiot.
Free will is what makes tragedy possible and religion tragic.
The
world has since moved away from believing in the Greek gods and they are now
known as being mythological. Humanity is now in a place to look at ancient Greek
religion and mythology as a way of studying itself in that place and time
objectively. It is easy to see the ludicrous nature of these ancient texts now.
Moving forward, there is an obvious undercurrent of secular humanism that is
gaining strength in today’s society. Many can now see the texts in
The Holy Bible and
The Quran as moral allegories that have some value but should not be
used to dictate one’s morality and life as a whole. There is much to learn from
Oedipus the King, but that does not
mean I should follow it explicitly and go have sex with my mother. What is
important about teaching ancient Greek texts, as well as currently followed
doctrines of Christianity, Islam, and other religions, is the lesson of how
blind people can become when following a doctrine simply because they are
subservient to an ideal. Much like Agamemnon sacrificing his daughter or Abraham
sacrificing his son Isaac, the real world is full of examples of murder in the
name of God, such as The Crusades, the Holocaust, and the current state of
radical Islam. The merit of teaching religious doctrine to students is to
eventually lead them to autonomous morality. As author Kurt Vonnegut states, “Being
a Humanist means trying to behave decently without expectation of rewards or
punishment after you are dead.” The reward for being good is that you are good.
Be good because you should be.
