After reading Antigone, I was intrigued by the chorus. This seemingly wise body appears at pivotal moments throughout the play and continuously relays important information to the audience. However, the chorus represents more than just a narrating group. It also symbolizes the common ideals of Thebes, the general population, and a trusted source throughout the complex rivalries between Antigone and Ismene; Creon and Haimon; etc. Interestingly enough, I came to rely on and trust the chorus despite not knowing much about this body of people. While I can picture Antigone, Creon, Haimon, etc in terms of who they are, what they look like, and what they represent, the chorus is mysterious and unknown. However, its advice given and words spoken allowed me to think of this body as wise and important. As a result, the chorus’s role in Antigone is crucial to both understanding the play and pondering the deeper meanings and themes that are presented.
The chorus’s first and most important role relates to its narrating force. We first are introduced to the chorus recalling the brawl between the brothers and then questioning the fate of King Creon. It questions Creon and foreshadows some type of unfortunate event by saying, “In this auspicious dawn of his rein, what are the new complexities that shifting Fate has woven for him?” (1328). From this start, we see the chorus as aware, unbiased, and intuitive. The chorus’s maintaining an unbiased, yet informative, role throughout the play is crucial because it allows the audience to draw its own conclusions and to not be too turned off by a potentially overly opinionated source. It is these mysterious, confident, and wise attributes that overtime allow us to realize the importance of the chorus.
The chorus’s intuitive and wise nature is seen again when Choragos asks the king, “I have been wondering, King: can it be that the gods have done this?” (1330). This question, which came after Creon’s rage over the burial of Polyneices, once again demonstrates the ability of the chorus to both narrate, question, and foreshadow all within one line. The questions and narration continues throughout the play, appearing at important moments such as Creon and Haimon’s argument. Choragos, after Creon and Haimon argued over Antigone’s punishment, wisely suggested to Creon that, “You will do well to listen to him, King, If what he says is sensible” (1339). The narration by the Chorus is crucial to the play because this outside force is able to fill the audience in on what is happening and suggest what is “right” amidst the arguments, battles, and rivalries.
In addition, the chorus symbolizes the people of Thebes and the common ideals of the time. Through the story of Danae, the chorus demonstrates that gods hold the highest power in terms of fate. This ideal is continuously seen and is reiterated in the last stanza of the play. After Creon faces his punishments, the chorus ends the play with, “there is no happiness where there is no wisdom; no wisdom but in submission to the gods. Big words are always punishment and proud men in old age learn to be wise” (1352). The chorus cleverly ends the play by somewhat scolding Creon because the gods will always punish those who possess too much pride and power. Likewise, despite Creon’s unfortunate encounters, the gods taught him a lesson and made him wiser (although it was ultimately too late). It is this ending that demonstrates the accepted notions of the time: that the gods’ beliefs etc need to be followed and that power corrupts.
Overall, the chorus allows the audience to follow the play, explore deeper meanings, and understand the common ideals of the time. Through this trusted, mysterious, and wise source, the audience can tie together the meanings behind fate, relationships, defiance, family, and hubris that are ever present throughout the play.
(640).
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
We Feel Sorry For Him
Blog Starter # 3
After reading the Death of Ivan Ilych,” I began to wonder why I “sided” with Ivan throughout the novel. Here was a man who was motivated by power, money, and work and only cared about promotions and advances within the work place. We see the pettiness and corruption that Ivan has in his life. However, Tolstoy’s use of characterization and his organization of the story allows the reader to quickly understand the society that Ivan grows up in and much about Ivan himself. Thus, the reader seemingly begins to feel compassionate and sympathetic for a man who was plagued by the world he grew up in: a world where death is never faced, where materialism dominates his social stratum, and where true friends and companions are virtually non-existent.
Within the first few pages of the text, the reader already begins to see the non-emotional, money-oriented world in which Ivan grew up. Ivan’s funeral was seen as a place where business deals could be set, not a place of mourning for the death of a loved one. His wife was introduced to the reader by her being overly concerned with the money she would make off of Ivan, and his “friends” were introduced as colleagues and aquantainces. Likewise, death is not embraced in this society. Death was seen as something that “happens to him and not me” (282). Interestingly, because Tolstoy sets up his novel by explaining Ivan’s harsh and impersonal world, the reader subconsciously begins to side with him. As readers, we want to support a sad man who lacks support networks and love. This is why Tolstoy’s organization of the novel was crucial to its effectiveness. If Tolstoy had started off explaining how Ivan always worked, believed everyone was in his power, and became disengaged with his family life, the reader would Ivan as a corrupt, dirty businessman. However, Tolstoy was able to have the reader understand Ivan’s situation and society by first explaining the world around him. Thus, we understand why the focus of Ivan’s life was centered around the “official world”: the other areas of his life were suffering; likewise, he overcompensated by working more often and finding something he was good at to focus on.
Because the reader already feels sorry for Ivan within the first few sections of the novel, the next parts of the book make us more compassionate and sorrowful for this silenced man who is slowly dying. Ivan’s wife views his illness as an “annoyance” (298) and the doctor treats him as if he is defined by his symptoms. Again, Tolstoy is characterizing the situation around Ivan so the reader is able to understand why he has “bursts of temper” and is angered by the situation. If Tolstoy had merely said that Ivan was frustrated and angry that he was not getting better, the reader might have viewed Ivan as being unfair to those around him because it was not their fault that he was ill. However, Tolstoy is able to show why Ivan feels the way he does: he lacks care, support, and love in a time when he needs it most. His lack of a balanced, loveable support system is seen when Tolstoy stated, “what most tormented Ivan Ilych was that no one pitied him as he wished to be pitied” (306). How can we criticize a man who every day has “a spark of hope, a sea of despair, and pain [that always returns]? (307)
Likewise, Tolstoy is not criticizing Ivan but rather criticizing Ivan's society. Tolstoy uses Ivan as a figure to mock and condemn the artificiality and “fake” world that these people grow up in. He shows that this unbalanced world where friendships are non-existent is doomed for trouble. How can a society with no moral backbone, no balance, and no true care exist? I believe that Tolstoy’s answer is that it cannot. There can be people who care—such as Geraism—but if a society as a whole is not supportive and has artificial values, it cannot truly survive. We almost see Ivan’s breakdown as a symbol for the breakdown of the society. As Ivan gets extremely ill and silently enraged, we see the society continue to have no real relationships and no real care. Tolstoy’s ability to address the negativity in materialistic world is successful through the organization of the novel and characterization of Ivan and those around him.
(750 words)
After reading the Death of Ivan Ilych,” I began to wonder why I “sided” with Ivan throughout the novel. Here was a man who was motivated by power, money, and work and only cared about promotions and advances within the work place. We see the pettiness and corruption that Ivan has in his life. However, Tolstoy’s use of characterization and his organization of the story allows the reader to quickly understand the society that Ivan grows up in and much about Ivan himself. Thus, the reader seemingly begins to feel compassionate and sympathetic for a man who was plagued by the world he grew up in: a world where death is never faced, where materialism dominates his social stratum, and where true friends and companions are virtually non-existent.
Within the first few pages of the text, the reader already begins to see the non-emotional, money-oriented world in which Ivan grew up. Ivan’s funeral was seen as a place where business deals could be set, not a place of mourning for the death of a loved one. His wife was introduced to the reader by her being overly concerned with the money she would make off of Ivan, and his “friends” were introduced as colleagues and aquantainces. Likewise, death is not embraced in this society. Death was seen as something that “happens to him and not me” (282). Interestingly, because Tolstoy sets up his novel by explaining Ivan’s harsh and impersonal world, the reader subconsciously begins to side with him. As readers, we want to support a sad man who lacks support networks and love. This is why Tolstoy’s organization of the novel was crucial to its effectiveness. If Tolstoy had started off explaining how Ivan always worked, believed everyone was in his power, and became disengaged with his family life, the reader would Ivan as a corrupt, dirty businessman. However, Tolstoy was able to have the reader understand Ivan’s situation and society by first explaining the world around him. Thus, we understand why the focus of Ivan’s life was centered around the “official world”: the other areas of his life were suffering; likewise, he overcompensated by working more often and finding something he was good at to focus on.
Because the reader already feels sorry for Ivan within the first few sections of the novel, the next parts of the book make us more compassionate and sorrowful for this silenced man who is slowly dying. Ivan’s wife views his illness as an “annoyance” (298) and the doctor treats him as if he is defined by his symptoms. Again, Tolstoy is characterizing the situation around Ivan so the reader is able to understand why he has “bursts of temper” and is angered by the situation. If Tolstoy had merely said that Ivan was frustrated and angry that he was not getting better, the reader might have viewed Ivan as being unfair to those around him because it was not their fault that he was ill. However, Tolstoy is able to show why Ivan feels the way he does: he lacks care, support, and love in a time when he needs it most. His lack of a balanced, loveable support system is seen when Tolstoy stated, “what most tormented Ivan Ilych was that no one pitied him as he wished to be pitied” (306). How can we criticize a man who every day has “a spark of hope, a sea of despair, and pain [that always returns]? (307)
Likewise, Tolstoy is not criticizing Ivan but rather criticizing Ivan's society. Tolstoy uses Ivan as a figure to mock and condemn the artificiality and “fake” world that these people grow up in. He shows that this unbalanced world where friendships are non-existent is doomed for trouble. How can a society with no moral backbone, no balance, and no true care exist? I believe that Tolstoy’s answer is that it cannot. There can be people who care—such as Geraism—but if a society as a whole is not supportive and has artificial values, it cannot truly survive. We almost see Ivan’s breakdown as a symbol for the breakdown of the society. As Ivan gets extremely ill and silently enraged, we see the society continue to have no real relationships and no real care. Tolstoy’s ability to address the negativity in materialistic world is successful through the organization of the novel and characterization of Ivan and those around him.
(750 words)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)