| 4 Comments

"The destiny Oedipus is typically "tragic" in the way we often find it in Greek plays, because the disaster that finishes the play is revealed to have been deteremined for the protagonist all along. It is simply required that, at the end, Oedipus should be found guilty in order for the tragedy to work."

Rix points out in the article that Oedipus may not have even committed the murder at all. I find it really interesting that this whole time we believed the killer to be Oedipus, there is a chance that it wasn't. Rix says that the readers infer that Oedipus himself committed the murder because Oedipus believes that he did it. Also, most if not all of the evidence points in Oedipus's direction. He says the only secret left is if there was one killer or many.

Karl Harshbargerhas pointed out in the article "the possiblilty that someone else than Oedipus might have killed the old king. From this asserstion, he develops, at some length, Oedipus's own accusations in the play against Creon and Teiresias of complicity in the murder."

This to me does seem to be stretching it a little far. However, it doesn't seem that many readers never really challenge the outcome of the play because we know that in Greek tragedies, the protagonist is supposed to fall. Does anyone else think that it could have been a setup? Or am I just an idiot?

4 Comments

I like when Rix says that we believe Oedipus did it because he believes that he did it too. That's a good point. I think that can happen with anything. Kind of like, "If you believe you, you can." I also wanted to comment on when you said that it doesn't seem that many readers challenge the outcome of the play because that is what's supposed to happen. I don't think that readers challenge for the simple fact that we are just READERS! We didn't write the play, we watch/read it because we want to, who are we to challenge what the writer says happens? Does anyone know what I mean? I'm having a hard time putting it into words. Haha...but essentially what I am saying, is that the play is the play. We can't change the outcome or what happens. It was the writer's idea, he/she wrote the play the way that he/she did for a reason. That is how they want it to be. Whats the point of challenging it?

No Andy, you are not an idiot...but I feel that Oedipus has to be guilty. The idea of fate is so strong, so much so that even the idea is just as inescapable as fate itself. And if Oedipus didn't really kill his father, then the prophecy was not actually fulfilled, yet at the end of the play, Oedipus certainly THINKS that it has. Why would the prophecy say "you will kill your father and marry your mother" and not "you will be framed for the murder of your father after marrying your mother"?

I don't think that Sophocles would have made the point that fortune "rests in the hands of higher forces" if he were trying to undermined that very idea, by making it inaccurate within his own work. If Oedipus really hadn't killed his father, then the prophecy was not totally fulfilled and the idea that Oedipus' could not keep the events from happening would be lost.

I can see where the idea comes from-the evidence doesn't completely point to Oedipus. But then what would be the point of the play? If Oedipus didn't kill his father, than the whole purpose of the work would be discredited.

Yeah, I don't think Creon and Teiresias offed the king either. The reason this play is so cool is because Oedipus is the one responsible.

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Andy published on September 29, 2005 8:58 AM.

Weblog Portfolio EL 250 was the previous entry in this blog.

Oral Presentation is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.