skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Themes and Ideas
It seems to me that through Blood Wedding, Lorca is trying to express his belief that true love does not last. Even if it exists for a little while, eventually one of the people in the relationship will find someone else and move on to them. In the book, we see this idea clearly through Bride, Bridegroom, Leonardo, and Wife. Bride and Bridegroom are getting married, and Leonardo and Wife are already married; however, at her own wedding, Bride runs away with Leonardo because she still has feelings for him (as he still loves her). We see Leonardo's feelings for Bride when he says: "To keep still while we're on fire is the worst punishment we can inflict on ourselves. What good did it do me to have pride? - and not see you? - and leave you lying awake, night after night? No good at all!" (Lorca 47). In their action of running away, Bride and Leonardo break up two marriages, therefore causing Bridegroom and Wife to see that their ex lovers no longer love them. This theme is also confirmed through Lorca's own personal life that influenced the writing of this play. In 1928, Lorca became involved with Emilio Aladren, a young sculptor. A year later, Emilio left Lorca and became involved with a woman who he would eventually marry. This event caused Lorca to fall into a depression, and it makes sense that his personal life experiences would bleed into his writing, therefore portraying the same belief about temporary love that he went through himself.
"What is drama but life with the dull bits cut out?" To what extent do you find this statement applicable in at least two plays you have studied?This statement can only de determined true or false by looking at individual plays. In Ibsen's Wild Duck, the statement is not applicable. The play was written to involve more common aspects of life, rather than only high intenstiy scenes. Since Wild Duck is a work of drama, this statement does not hold true to it. Ibsen wrote this play during a period of time when plays were moving from romanticism to modernism, and in modernism, it was more common for the "tragic hero" to be low or middle class. Therefore, a lot of the moments in Ibsen's book just revolve around dull, ordinary parts of life. For example, in Act 2, Gina and Hedvig dicuss the dull, simple matter of finances and budgeting: "Gina: Do you remember how much we spent for the butter today?Hedvig: It was one sixty five.Gina: That's right. It's awful how much butter gets used in this house" (Ibsen 138). This scene is just one of many that showcase the ordinary aspects of life represented ni Wild Duck, proving that drama can also be life with the dull bits left in.However, in Lorca's Blood Wedding, the statement proves to be applicable for the most part. There are not a lot of very dull scenes portraying common parts of life. Instead, the play shows life without the dull parts. There always seems to be some action going on, or if not extreme action, then at least something that would not be classified as boring or ordinary. One scene in Act 2 that represents the truth of the statement (what is drama but life with the dull bits cut out) is when the families realize that Leonardo and Bride have run off together:"Mother: What is it? Where is your daughter?Wife: They ran away! They ran away! She and Leonardo! On the horse! They rode off in each other's arms, like a bolt of lightning!" (Lorca 76).This scene proves the statement true because it is definitely not dull or ordinary. It is not a common thing for a bride to run away from her wedding with her ex-boyfriend, especially without telling anyone. This moment of intensity does in fact show that Lorca's kind of drama revoloves around portraying life with the dull bits cut out.
"Visual action can be as important on the stage as speech." How far do you agree with this claim? Refer to two or three plays.
I agree with this claim. Visual action is not always as important as speech, but it can be as important sometimes. In Oedipus The King, visual action is not as important on the stage as speech. The dialogue is very detailed and expressive, and shows the reader exactly what the characters are feeling. In this case, visual action is not necessary to understand the exact meaning of the play - the audience easily picks up on it based off of dialogue alone. It is not extremely significant to know where the actors are on the stage, the props they use, or the gestures they make, because the dialogue alone tells the story. The only stage cues in the play are when someone enters or exits a scene. Here is an example of the expressive dialogue used by Sophocles in the play, when Oedipus is upset at Creon for "scheming against him".
"You - here? You have the gall
to show your face before the palace gates?
You, plotting to kill me, kill the king -
I see it all, the marauding thief himself
scheming to steal my crown and power!" (lines 594-598).
With this dialogue, Oedipus' anger is very obvious simply by the language he uses, and visual action is not essential to understand his feelings.
However, in Blood Wedding, visual action is as important as speech, if not more. This is because the dialogue Lorca writes in is very simple. He uses short, to-the-point words that create a huge sense of ambiguity in determining characters' true feelings and meanings of their conversations.
Here is an example of the dialogue in the play:
"Bridegroom: I'll come tomorrow.
Bride: At what time?
Bridegroom: At five.
Bride: I'll be waiting for you." (Lorca, 34-35).
In this case, it would be very helpful to have visual action to aid in understanding. It is extremely difficult to tell what the bride and her groom are thinking and feeling. It seems like there is no feeling involved in their brief exchange; however, if there was visual action to refer to, there might be a hint of something, such as a certain facial expression, a wink, a hug, etc. that would give the reader more of an idea about what is going on. When speech is so plain and emotionless, it is necessary to have visual action to pick up any sort of meaning.
"Although doubt is not a pleasant condition, certainty is an absurd one." In the light of this statement, explore the impressions of doubt and/or certainty conveyed in at least two works you have studied.
I understand this statement to mean that while people do not like to be in a position of doubt, a condition of certainty is an absurd idea because it is almost impossible to obtain exact certainty. In Oedipus the King, Oedipus gets upset with Tiresias when he will not tell him directly who the murderer of Laius is. He is uncomfortable not knowing the truth, and even when Tiresias tells him he does not want to hear it, Oedipus says: "What? You know and you won't tell?/ You're bent on betraying us, destroying Thebes?" (lines 376-377). After learning the truth, Oedipus is still not in a position of certainty, because he does not actually believe Tiresias when he says that Oedipus is the murderer of Laius and at fault for the plague. While he hated not knowing Tiresias' news, Oedipus is not content knowing the news either because he sees it to be untrue and is greatly offended by it. In this case, Sophocles shows us that it is better to be in the unpleasant condition of doubt than to try to obtain the impossible condition of certainty.
In Wild Duck, Hedvig finds herself in a position of doubt. She starts to pick up on tensions around the house and wants to know why her father does not want to see her anymore. Hedvig, like any typical person, does not like being in the dark about her situation, so she tries to replace her doubt with certainty. She asks Gregers about it, thinking that she can trust him to help her find the complete truth. However, like Oedipus, she soon realizes that certainty is indeed an unrealistic condition when Gregers avoids telling her the truth by saying: "That's something you mustn't ask until you're big and grown-up" (Ibsen, 196). Ibsen uses Hedvig to show that it is somewhat better to be stuck in a condition of unpleasant doubt than it is to be constantly disappointed by trying to reach certainty and realizing it is impossible.
Dear Diary,How could Hedvig not be my own daughter?? I can't believe that Gina kept this big secret from me for fourteen years. I'm so upset with her! Gregers and I just discussed the ideal marriage, and he made me believe that me and Gina still had a chance to achieve it. I wonder if Gregers knew the whole time! What the worst part of this whole predicament is that Hedvig's real father, Old Werle, is going blind....so now I know for sure that poor Hedvig will too! I feel so sorry for her, especially since she doesn't know. But I can't even stand to look at her anymore, now that I know she does not belong to me. This whole house is corrupted. I have to get away frmo it all! Away from the poor girl, away from my deceitful wife, away from that stupid wild duck that came from the same old man who had an affair with my own wife. If it wasn't for Hedvig, I would have strangled that duck by now. So I must leave this house, this twisted, agonizing mess, before I do something completely crazy. I don't know where I'm going to go, or what I'm going to do there, but I know that I jsut can't stay here any longer. Perhaps I will go somewhere to finish my invention. Although, I'm only making it for the benefit of my family, and to pay off that awful old man of my debts. So I guess it's not even important anymore. Without my family and a need to complete my invention, I'm completely lost. I don't know what to do. Hopefully there is a solution to all this craziness... - Hjalmar
A dramatist often creates a gap between what the audience knows and what the characters know. With reference to at least two plays, discuss how and to what effect dramatists have used this technique. In Wild Duck, it seems that the characters know more information than the reader does, regarding their past and backgrounds especially. Ibsen has created a sense of ambiquity by purposefully leaving details out. For example, in Act 1, Ibsen shares little information about the scandal that Ekdal and Werle were involoved in. Hjalmar says when speaking to Gregers: "They were such very different circumstances I found myself in. But then everything else was so different, too. That immense, shattering misfortune for Father - the shame and scandal" (Ibsen 123). Here, Ibsen does not tell give away much about the scandal, leaving the reader to wonder what happened. By doing so, Ibsen forces the reader to make connections of their own to the context of the play and try to discover for themselves what the two men might be referring to. By using the characters to withhold information, Ibsen helps to build them up as characters as well. From this passage, we see Hjalmar's unwillingness to go into detail, which makes the reader wonder if he feels ashamed or embarrassed. In Act 3 of Wild Duck, Ibsen once again uses Hjalmar to withhold information from the audience. This time the ambiguity appears when he is briefly telling Gregers about his invention, and Gregers asks: "And what does this invention consist of? What's its purpose?" (Ibsen 168). To this, Hjalmar answers: "Yes, Gregers, you musn't ask for details like that yet" (Ibsen 168). By not telling the reader (or Gregers) what his invention is, Hjalmar causes us to wonder what it is and why it is so important to his future. It seems that the other characters know what it is, like Hedvig and Gina, so that leaves the reader to wonder why the audience and Gregers cannot know. The one reason that I can think of for this is if it is an invention that Gregers will not like for some reason, or something that will hurt him or his father. but anyway, once again Ibsen has chosen to withhold certain information from the audience to inspire them to think of what it could possibly be. Opposite to Wild Duck, in Oedipus The King, Sophocles gives the audience more knowledge about what's going on than the characters themselves. From the beginning of the play when Oedipus' prophecy is mentioned ("Revealed at last, brother and father both/ to the children he embraces, to his mother/ son and husband both - he sowed the loins/ his father sowed, he spilled his father's blood!" [Sopohocles 520-526] ), the reader can clearly see that Oedipus is the murderer of Laius, his father, and is the son of Jocasta, his wife. Since the reader goes on throughout the rest of the story knowing what the characters will soon discover, there is less suspense. Also, because the audience has been set up to know more than the characters, the technique of dramatic irony has been created. This dramatic irony makes the tragedy more enjoyable to the reader, because although they already know what is going to happen, they have to wait and see how the characters will react.
Stylistic Techniques: The use of symbolismOne of the techniques that I found in Act 2 of Wild Duck is symbolism. I think that Hedvig's wild duck acts as a symbol for who Gregers will become in the future. Before the duck was caught by Werle, it was content with its life in the wild. However, now that it has been away from nature for so long, the Ekdals assume that it is content where it is because it doesn't remember its old life anyway. Hjalmer says: "I think she's been in there so long, too, that she's forgotten her old wild life, and thats what it all comes down to" (Act 2). Like the duck, Gregers has left his old town and life to move back to the city. He is unsure of his future because he doesn't quite fit in the same way that he used to in the city, and he isn't exactly sure what his new job will be. It seems that he is not looking to permanently stay in the city. Through the symbol of the duck, Ibsen suggests that Gregers, given time, will completely adjust back to life in the city. Perhaps things will go right back to the way they were (regarding his family troubles), which is not the favorable outcome. But since the duck has been able to adjust to life out of the wild and forget his old life, I believe the same will happen to Gregers. After deciding to rent the Ekdal's spare room, Gina tries to dissaude him by telling him that it is small and nothing fancy. Gregers replies by saying: "One gets used to that soon enough. I'm hoping things will go for me the same as with the wild duck" (Act 2). It seems Gregers is already aware of and willing to accept his inevitable fate of returning to a monotonous old life.
Point of view/characters: From whose point of view is the story told? Does this change? How reliable is the narrative voice? How well does the reader get to know the characters? How credible are they? How are they presented? How does the writer persuade us to like/sympathize with some characters and dislike others?
In Wild Duck, the main narrator so far is Gregers. I know he is the narrator because he shows up fairly quickly at the beginning of the play, and is the character Ibsen focuses the most on at this point, as he follows Gregers' conversations with various people. The narrator hasn't changed yet, but at this point in the play (Act 1), it is hard to know if it will. I feel like Gregers is reliable. From his conversations, I do not get the impression that he is trying to hide anything, and in contrast to his father, during their conversation he is the one interested the most in talking about the truth. Although it is early in the play, we have gotten to know the characters fairly well, especially Gregers, Werle, Hjalmar, and Ekdal. Since Gregers is the narrator and therefore seems to be the protagonist, Ibsen has set him up to be liked by the reader. He wants to know the truth from his father about the forestry scandal, wants to take time to catch up with his childhood friend Hjalmer, and pities the poor condition that Ekdal is in. All of these are admirable qualities and present Gregers as a fine man. On the other hand, Werle was not set up to be liked by the readers. Ibsen uses the conversation between Werle and his son, Gregers, to emphasize Werle's bad qualities: his lack of guilt for going unpunished while his friend Ekdal suffered ("But the fact remains that he was convicted and I was acquited," Act 1, 131), his lack of sympathy for the poor old man's condition ("Seriously, what would you have me do for these people? When Ekdal was let out, he was a broken man, beyond any help" (Act 1, 131), and his open admittance of simply using his son ("In a relatinoship as close as ours, one can always be of use to the other" Act 1, 134). By highlighting these negative qualities in Werle, Ibsen convinces the reader to relate more to his son. Ibsen also causes us to sympathize with Ekdal, the old man, simply by his physicality and short appearance in this act. When he walks through the party dressed in dirty clothing looking extremely out of place, causing all of the guests to look down on him, the reader cannot help but feel at least a little sorry for him.
"Not rounding off, but opening out." Comment upon the way the writers deal with the ending in relation to the whole.
In the end of Oedipus the King, Jocasta has committed suicide after finding out that Oedipus is her son, Oedipus has stuck brooches in his eyes to make himself blind as a punishment for never truly seeing what was in front of him, and Creon is apparently assuming the role of King of Thebes. The way Sophocles wrote this ending does not "round off" the play because it does not really tie up all the loose ends and satisfy the reader. Instead, it "opens out", meaning that it simple opens the door for many possibilities regarding what could happen next. For example, after reading the end of the play, the reader is left not knowing what will happen to Oedipus' children (will Oedipus' prophecy move down to them?), what kind of leader Creon will be, if anything will be done about the state's plague, and even what will happen to Oedipus if he lives the rest of his life in exile. By creating an ending such as this one in which questions remain unanswered, Sophocles has left the fate of the characters fairly open-ended, leaving the reader to interpret the possibilities for themselves. In a way, this kind of ending is unsatisfactory, because as a reader I would rather leave a book once all the loose ends have been tied up, not before things have been completed.
In The Crucible, Miller also creates an unsatisfying ending. Although Proctor has agreed to confess to witchcraft - a crime he did not commit - in order to save his life, he soon changes his mind and in turn gets hanged for his decision. While Proctor does this to save his honor, it is not what the reader wants to happen. It would have been preferable if Proctor had stayed alive, then the reader could have followed his actions and seen him possibly end the accusations and chaos around him. Instead, the reader leaves the story uncertain as to when the witchcraft trials will stop (or if they will stop at all), if Abigail and the other accusers will be revealed as frauds, and the state of the town and its people in the aftermath of the event. By creating an ending that does not "round off" but "opens out", Miller forces the reader to interpret for themselves what lies in the future for the characters of the story.
Setting: This includes cultural as well as geographical and historical setting. What effect does the setting have on story, character, theme?
This tragedy is set in Thebes, a state in ancient Greece. Based on the historical aspect of ancient Greece, I will be discussing importance of setting in the story. As we learned, gods and religion were a huge part of Greek life. Everyday citizens and kings alike both looked to the gods for answers to the questions they had about life, prophecies on things to come, and guidance in difficult situations. In Oedipus The King, this setting involving the importance of gods creates the whole conflict developed so far. For example, if our city today was faced with a plague like the one Thebes suffers under, we would likely tighten up health and safety procedures to see where it started and to stop it from spreading. However, in Thebes, the citizens look to the gods for answers - specifically to answer the question of what (or who) is responsible for bringing this plague upon the city. When Oedipus does get an answer from the gods, it is not something that he wants to accept. This creates a separate conflict in the story, in the form of the struggle between man and the gods. As for affecting characters, the setting of ancient Greece creates specific gender roles for men and women. As was common in Greek life, the men in the story speak of themselves with important and in general they are held in higher esteem than the women are. However, as was also common in early Greek plays, there were few women in plays, but the ones present played important roles. We learned that Greek women were sometimes known for their hidden wisdom, and we see this stereotype filled through the role of Jocasta. When she is introduced in the play, she quickly establishes herself as very knowledgeable - she is able to tell Oedipus all about Laius' murder and the prophecy regarding it. However, she seems to hold back some information, leading the reader to believe that she knows more than she lets on. This connects back to the secret knowledge held by female characters in Greek dramas.
