Speachless

I feel reluctant to write this blog, not because I did not enjoy Oedipus, but because it is hard to analyze a story which has no apparent “happy ending”. It seems as though fate chose Oedipus to do such horrible things, and for some reason he rightfully deserves such a life. His father maintained hubris, so perhaps he was rightfully killed, but the fact that Oedipus should suffer more by being exiled blows my mind.

By today’s standards, Oedipus would have been punished for killing anyone, not just a king, but this is ancient Greece we are referring to, where this is of no consequence. The fact that it was self-defense gives even more leniency from me, but he killed one of kin, and more so, the king, and this did not go over very well. I pity Oedipus even though he did such twisted things. I feel as though he were set up since the beginning of his life to be doomed and it is not a comforting thing to think that life should really go this way. No one likes their life planned out for them, and it never ends up well. It must also be especially difficult to have to play to such humanistic and short-tempered Gods that plan someone’s life out for them. The monarchy, another power figure, is flawed; no one can trust a human to be flawless, and this story explains that the royal Laos family has a curse, which emphasizes the humanistic qualities of a ruler that rules under the gods, which leads us back to hubris. It does not seem fair, although it seems weird that such ideas as “fate” and “karma” are expressed hundreds of years later in novels, future religions, and daily life. This idea of existentialism is expressed here, in Ivan Ilyich, and in Metamorphosis , and the realization that life is out of our control. Each story displays extreme examples to get the point across to their readers of what happens when power is not in our control, and as a result inflicts on us whether we are prepared for such things. Would any of us really roll over and allow someone to turn us into a bug, or allow fate to lead to our ruin, or even allow death to succumb us all? If we had our choices, I am sure no one would want to welcome any of those things to take us over, but maturity is realizing that we are limited in our power just as Oedipus and his father, Gregor, and Ivan were.

We all have free-will, and where our free-will is limited, none of us are ready to be controlled. Sure, when it comes to being governed, or managed in our jobs and societies we accept, but when it comes to our personal self, not just our commands or actions, we know there is no way to have the opportunity to object. Sometimes we all forget that we have the opportunity to object commands; however, when such things as fate or karma intercept, there are higher beings at play, and it seems to be unavoidable. It is not a comforting feeling to be out of control, and this is simply the feeling I get as I read each of these three stories. I believe it reminds us all of something that we do not have control over. This can be a psychological propaganda, or a political piece of literature. I believe that Sophocles might have accentuated this story of Oedipus in order to draw the reader into feeling helpless, or perhaps sorry for someone who had done wrong. It seems weird to me that I should feel pity for someone who slept with his mother, and killed his own father, but I feel it was not fair that life has had this planned out for him, and this may be a reflection on myself and how I would react.

All religions state that when you do something bad, that bad things happen to you; everyone gets their means in the end. This mantra has been pushed down our throats for eons. It is against our teachings as humane and civil beings to accept the feeling of pity for bad things or people, but there is perhaps more to look at each situation.

This story is simply interesting. It hurts my mind to explore further into the plot. I feel it is laid out for us what happens, and it is a great drama. This might have been intriguing for many audiences, and drama’s are meant to be overdone. This story might have been some sort of a happy ending, as Oedipus is exiled, or the bad man goes away, and what makes it a drama is its feeling of grief at the end. This might be ironic to have a happy ending where the "bad guy" is defeted, but we are still not content. Not only are we grieving for Oedipus’s father and mother, but also himself and his children. Hubris from being a king, or solving the riddle of the sphinx may have led to both Oedipus and his father’s downfall, but as humans, we see more sympathy, and I am not sure if that is a difference between now and then, but a lack of free-will may also make this a drama. If only we could all jump into the story, we could altar the ending of the story, but in life there is no altering fate, or is there? No one will EVER know. This question will continue to scare, and plague many, since it will never be answered, but let us continue to read on for more pessimistic or optimistic views on the meaning, rules, and outcome of life itself. All anyone ever does is put spins on it, and this one truly made me surprised at my reaction to such a disastrous act. (832)

Kafka Convert

It is hard to read a story without a happy ending. Well, Metamorphosis had one, but not the one that I was expecting. The “good guy” was turned into a cockroach. I read on and on trying to catch something that he did to deserve this punishment, but I got nothing to vindicate my original thoughts. Most children are taught at young ages the fundamentals of religion whichever one they practice, and learn that if you do something bad you are punished. Kafka throws us all for a loop when he brings up the point that this horrible thing might have happened for no reason, which may also prove there being no higher power to prevent something like this from happening. Religion exists for those to qualm their fears of the unknown, and to protect them from the unknown which is usually bad since what is not known cannot possible be prepared for. No one can prepare for being turned into a bug. This scares most readers since, unlike most stories, there is no vindication for the bad guy, and it leaves the reader thinking who the bad guy is, or even if possibly he wants to say that being a “good guy” is not a good thing. Nice guys finish last apparently.

Does his family have a point when they say that he is no longer himself when turned into a cockroach? Has he already died if he can no longer contribute anything material or vocal anymore? This story is very existentialist. What is love in this story? Is there love? Is there a higher power such as karma that takes care of rewarding the good, and punishing the bad? These questions are asked daily, and this is the first time that I have read any author say that there might not be anything that controls karma. It was an exaggerated situation that constitutes this story; however, it might have been the only way to get the issue across. This story starts out so strangely, that it makes you think about the underlying point being made without actually knowing that you actually are. He’s a bug, not a dog, he is cold and unapproachable, and he becomes unworthy of love. This mirrors Kafka’s depression, or any other’s experience with it. Is a person worthless when they no longer are contributing to society? Subliminal messages have been sent out to inflict on us all that this is a possibility. Are people just dead weights if they are homeless, old, or depressed? When people are depressed, they are lost, and the family in this story renders him motionless. He is left alone; he is tossed out, and becomes a burden. The family is glad to be rid of him. This may be an accurate depiction of how people react towards people who are depressed, or perhaps how a depressed person perceives others as acting.

At first, I found this story to be just odd, but after having read it, I moved on to possible explanations for why the nice guy got punished which lead me to think of larger issues that were hidden in the stories plot. This is a result of most things that I read. If I do not buzz through stories with pleasure, I usually read them then work on what they mean and then they too become favorites. An acquired taste rather than a common favorite such as with pizza verses falafel and hummus. I can say that I have learned to like Kafka and Tolstoy just through writing a blog. (594)

Everything will be iluminated in the end

I thought it was very successful putting the funeral at the beginning of the story of Ivan Ilych in order to convey to the reader that this is not a superficial story merely conveying a point in someone’s life, and a storyline that is told in chronological life order. Simply put, it expresses to the reader the notion that the most important thing in this story is not the physical outcome. This story goes deeper than creating suspense or a dramatic event, but it dives into the mind of Ivan as he succumbs to death, by not enforcing the event of death itself.

It takes the acceptance of Ivan dying to bring about true thoughts that he has avoided all of his life until now. Many people try and avoid going through deep thoughts in order to maintain a shallow life without worry, and easily accomplished goals. Who can say that this is a bad thing since many of us are victims? We all are involved with consumerism, and “ideal” commercial images that are thrust upon us all, and the goals that end up with obtaining things in order to become this ideal state are easier to obtain than our own intellectual, or emotional enlightenment. Different cultures dedicate their lives to finding this enlightenment, and meaning of life, whereas more industrialized nations have sought out other mechanical ways of enlightenment, which are not necessarily more advanced.

I think that Tolstoy wanted to convey that no matter how long we all avoid the inner questions that we all slip out of our psyche throughout the day, everyone must deal with them in death. He brings up important questions that make us think of whether or not it is better to deal with them as they come or let them pile up. We all want to go the safe route, and Ivan is a cultural representation of the social norm that we have all created to lead a “safe” lifestyle. In death, what can all those days of security bring you but the questions that you have continued to ask all of your life? Ivan ended up wanted to shed his figure of authority for a shoulder to cry on. Must we all put on these personas, and lead the lives we are bound to lead in order to confound to what others deem as normal? Even facing death, Ivan never cried. I wonder if anyone ever figured out why when people grow older that they always crave the past full of innocence. Ignorance is bliss, but maybe the true path of enlightenment is reached by being honest with oneself, and not waiting until death to do so. It was a sad novel because he wasted his life not dealing with the inner struggles, and regarding them as pointless since he was dealing with his entire life’s struggles in one sitting, only to have a funeral where no one grieved. It is part of human nature to want to slow down, and be alone in order to figure out who we all are. We have been hearing quotes over and over telling us that God has made us all different for a reason, but no one ever stops to try and figure out or accept how different they really are.

Tolstoy takes a dramatic existentialist storyline in order to express this point of inner coherence. Some people might get it, and others may have fallen so deep in the social manipulations to deem it as boring and a poor read, but to me it might be those things, but the underlying message is what carries out an important message of illumination. (609).