Blood Wedding

Personal convictions and shared beliefs, the private and the public life, sometimes seem at odds in the modern world. How did you find your chosen works touched on this conflict, and with what effect?

       All three of the plays we have studied deal with this conflict between public and private life by speaking to the idea/concept of a reputation and how others view the characters.  This seems to emphasize the problem in society with being oneself and being confident with that.  In the plays, reputations are upheld solely for appearances, so that one does not seem weak or insecure.  Reputation is a coverup.

       In "Oedipus the King", Oedipus really has a reputation to uphold with his people.  They have to trust him and be loyal to him.  Because of this, he has to put up a front of being in control and being capable.  In reality, though, he is struggling with his own life and he feels lonely.  His reputation is basically false.  This creates the effect that the audience or readers feels personally connected to Oedipus because of their own experiences with appearances and reputations. 

       "The Wild Duck" is also very concerned with appearances.  All the characters act like friends and have dinner parties, but in reality they are often gossiping about each other.  The gossip about appearances and reputation ultimately ruins these reputations, and there are no true trusting relationships.  There is also this conflict between personal beliefs and general consensus.  For example, most of the people believe Hedvig is Hjalmar's daughter, but what really counts in this situation is the one person who is most affected, Hjalmar.  Ibsen is saying that reputation really only matters if one is fooling oneself.  Everyone else may believe you and your facade, but it ultimately comes down to how you feel about yourself and your actions.  Reputations don't mean anything.

        Finally, Lorca's "Blood Wedding" focuses on the bride to reveal ideas about reputation.   This illustrates a theme about gender roles and strong women.  On page 23, Leonardo's wife says "I don't want you to think badly about a nice girl."  This shows the importance that is placed upon appearances and what people think of each other.  The outfits worn are also described in detail in the stage directions, showing how important it is that the characters look nice to fit their roles and uphold appearances.

Comments

Okay, I am having some problems getting my comments to actually show up on blogs.  For some reason, only the comment on Ivan's blog is actually registering for some reason.  But I am going to post my comments anyway.

On Ivan's:
I definitely agree with the knowledge is power statement you made. Is this also true in Wild Duck?

On Shannon's Wild Duck Journal 1: I agree!  Actions in a play should be valued just as highly as words.

On Isabel's Wild Duck Journal 6: I think you have good points, but I disagree with your argument.  How could style represent anything without a plot to anchor to?

The Wild Duck Journal 2

       To what extent have you found it possible, in your consideration of literary works, to separate the individual from his or her public role?
       In both the plays "Oedipus the King" and "The Wild Duck", there is a certain emphasis on reputation and public image that is predominantly superficial.  To answer the question, I think the authors Sophocles and Ibsen are both examining the idea of a public image and what must be sacrificed to uphold it.  It is possible to separate oneself from one's public role, but at the expense of some important relationships and perhaps one's own personal identity.
       In "Oedipus the King", the most important public role is Oedipus's.  His people look up to him to be a great leader and to save their city from the plague.  However, in his attempts to be a good leader, he has to kind of put his private life on the back burner, ie his fate/prophecy.  When he brings his private life out into the public and starts to discuss the prophecy with messengers and his family, that is when his downfall begins.  He is mixing his private and public lives, which results in a public discovery and Oedipus's heroic demise.
       In "The Wild Duck", reputation is an often-mentioned topic.  On page 173, at dinner, all the characters are talking about one man's hair and what color it is.  This represents their reputations and how everyone participates in the gossip yet tries to uphold their own precious images.  Relling says, "is it really gray hair he's got, or is it white?  HJALMAR: It's really a little of both.  But as a matter of fact, he's scarcely got a hair on his head."  This reflects the artificiality of the reputations all the distinguished men are trying to uphold for their friends.  They are sacrificing trust in their relationships for the sake of appearances.  Their public roles are essentially more important to them than their personal lives and their families.  This is also represented when Hjalmar comes home and has forgotten to bring Hedvig candy.  He dismisses his mistake and continues prattling on about his business endeavors while his wife and child are expected to listen politely.  He has a reputation to uphold as the man of the house, the family breadwinner.
      

Wild Duck Journal 1

                To what extent would you agree that plot should be valued more highly than style in the work?            

                I believe that plays are meant to be performed.  They are meant to be entertaining.  Because of this, I think that to a certain extent the plot should be valued more highly than style.  What the audience will be most interested in and engaged in is the actual plot and events of the play, not the alliteration of the actors’ lines.

                In the play “Oedipus the King”, the plot is one that many people, if not everyone, in ancient Greece would have known.  They would have come to see that play performed because it is a story they know and love!  The common citizens of ancient Greece would not have cared much about the rhythm of the actors’ lines and what its effect is, they just would have liked the sound and the literal words.  However, the playwright’s style is also important and unique to the play, and I think it should also be valued.  I assume people liked, and still like, Sophocles’ work, and that is another reason why they went to see his plays.  I just think most people who were audiences of his plays were more interested in the plot than the style, so this is what the emphasis was placed on.

                In “The Wild Duck”, the style of the author, Ibsen, is more prominent.  There are more stage directions and costume details that are mentioned that are important to the style.  I still think the plot is important both to the audience of a live performance and readers of the play, but the stylistic elements seem to have a larger emphasis in “The Wild Duck”.  I personally prefer this because I think the style should be recognized in the actual writing of the play, not just in the performance.  Even though the plot is still more important, the style should be acknowledged and valued too.

Oedipus Journal 4

“Visual action can be as important on the stage as speech.”
     After reading "Oedipus the King" and some of Ibsen's "Wild Duck", I definitely agree with this claim.  But first I have to say that I have not seen either of these plays actually performed.  However, through the stage directions and actor clued included in the works, I think that the visual aspect of a play is at least as important as the actual lines, if not more important.
     In "Oedipus the King", there are almost no stage directions.  There is a description of the stage and its props at the very beginning of the play, but almost no description at all throughout the rest of the book.  This left a lot to the imagination while I was reading.  I had almost no concept of where the scenes were taking place; if the characters were moving, if they were outside, etc.  There were few directions to the actors, which I guess is good for them because they can interpret the lines how they want.  Yet while I was reading, the dialogue was the only direction I got to how the characters were moving and feeling.  Again, I had to imagine a lot of it.  The lack of scene setting is most likely due to the fact that most stages in ancient Greece were not very elaborate and did not have many props.  However, it still led to a little bit of confusion for me.  The visual action would have been really helpful for me to understand the play more insightfully.
    After reading only one scene of "Wild Duck", I think I have a much better understanding of the characters' personalities and the setting.  This is because the setting and stage directions are very detailed in the book.  I can read about exactly how the stage is set up and exactly how the actors are moving.  This is the next best thing after actually watching the play being performed.  The description has led to a better understanding of this play than I had of "Oedipus the King".  The semi-visual action is really helpful to understanding and interpreting the words and themes.

Oedipus Journal 3

       The setting of the play "Oedipus the King" has quite a significant impact on the story and how it is set up.  When this play would have been performed a couple thousand years ago, the audience would have known the story, the ending, and the characters.  Thus, the setting is really important so that the audience in this particular setting has the right amount of background information on Oedipus and his story.  He would have been a legend almost, or a well-known hero.  For this purpose, the cultural, historical, and geographical settings are all crucial.
        The same idea goes for the characters.  The setting of this play is in Thebes, Greece.  Greece is also where the play would have been performed the most often.  The people of Greece would be able to relate to the characters.  In "Oedipus the King", women are seen as inferior, and family is one of the most important things in life.  Also, the gods are an essential part of the story.  If the play was not performed in Greece, it would not have the same influence on its audience.  The characters and their values are most consistent with the setting of both the play and the actual performances.  The setting in which the play was performed is crucial to how the audience reacts to and relates to the separate characters.
       Finally, the theme is important to the setting also.  This play has many overarching themes.  Some of them seem to be about family, power, and fate.  The gods in Greece were considered the most influential factors on one's life.  They had all the power, even over the king, like Oedipus was.  They also could control humans and their fates.  This relates directly to the theme that mere mortals cannot compete with fate and destiny.  Also, this play says something about family and what it means that is important to the setting.  Perhaps Greeks have different family values.  They keep their families closer and trace their heritage.  In this way, the overarching themes relate to the setting and the audience.

Oedipus Journal 2

To Journey
        In the play "Oedipus the King", the concept of journeying is both a literal term and a figurative term.  First of all, when Oedipus heard the prophecy about himself (that he would kill his father and marry his mother), he was afraid.  He was worried that he would accidentally make the prophecy come true.  As a result, he decided to flee Corinth and stay away from it for as long as he possibly could.  This is the literal journey that he took.  In this way, the phrase "to journey" is used to express the idea of running or journeying away from a place that is possibly harmful.  Oedipus has literally run from Corinth to Thebes in an effort to save himself and his family.  He has journeyed to benefit many people: his father, his mother, and himself.  However, by literally journeying away from Corinth, he began a figurative journey away from his destiny.  Basically, he was attempting to run away from fate.  It is like when you are at the dentist and have to "journey" to your happy place.  Oedipus did the same thing by running away from his problems and trying to forget the prophecy and his fate.  This is his figurative journey.  It is both mental and physical.  The concept of a journey is also explored in this play through the use of many different messengers.  The messengers in "Oedipus the King" come from faraway places, bringing news of family members, kings, and other cities.  They are the ones who do the most journeying.  I think this must represent or have something to do with the idea that the messengers are not afraid to roam; not afraid to take risks.  They are willing to journey to different situations, unlike Oedipus, who has been running from his destiny and prophecy both literally and figuratively.  In short, the concept of journeying is used in many different ways in this play: literally, figuratively, and mentally.  It is also used to portray different characters' personality traits.

Oedipus Journal 1

      This play is written from a third person point of view because it is a play!  This is consistent throughout the work.  Because of this third person point of view (not really a narrator), the play and the themes are really open to interpretation.  This is because the reader does not get specific motivations for the characters' actions.  The only thing the reader or viewer gets is dialogue, and so we do not get to understand the characters as well because we do not know their thoughts or feelings, unless they are explicitly expressed.  The narrative voice is reliable, I guess, because there really is not a singular "voice".  It is simply dialogue.  However, this dialogue may be interpreted in many ways.  As I said before, this limited point of view does not allow readers or listeners/watchers of the play to get to know the characters personally like they would in a novel.  Yet in this play the characters do express their specific feelings so the reader does not feel lost or out of the loop.  This would be especially helpful if one were watching this as a play.  The characters are presented with distinct personalities and senses of humor, but again, their qualities would be greatly enhanced onstage.  Because I am reading this play and not watching it, the author has to manipulate the dialogue for that type of situation.  In order to make readers sympathize with some characters, I think the author made them speak longer and with more emotion.  This allows readers to understand them better and therefore like them more.  However, with other, less likable characters, the author writes dialogue to make them more crass and blunt instead of eloquent and emotional.  The humor that the characters use is important to audience relatability.  If the characters have a good sense of humor and make many jokes, the audience or reader will like them more and be more willing to sympathize with them.  In this way, characters that are rivals of these funny, clever characters are less well-liked.