Oedipus

Oedipus is a tragic figure. He is a great model of a tragic hero and fits most of the characteristics. His downfall like that of other tragic heroes is due to his own actions and an error on his part. His downfall draws pity from the audience and he is wounded by his experience both physically and mentally. Oedipus also is a leader and his tragic flaw affects his family and kingdom. Like other tragic heroes Oedipus does learn something from his mistake exclaiming "Listen to me, and do not be afraid/for this disease infects no one but me"(1671-1672) and the whole experience seems almost as though by divine intervention. To look at characteristics of a tragic hero you can check out the link.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragic_hero#Common_traits

Fallacy #1

A very common fallacy I have seen recently is the 'Appeal to Fear' fallacy. Recently while I was watching the election I noticed that interestingly enough out of the blue Barak Obama was being linked to terrorist and called a terrorist himself. I was dumbfounded. This ad was what first attracted my attention.

In this ad Obama's former friendship with William Ayers is questioned. Ayers is viewed a terrorist to many in the United States. Since Barak Obama has been linked to him and has associated with him in the past the ad assumes that Barak Obama must also be too 'risky' for the United States. Sadly this is an 'Appeal to Fear' fallacy. Because Ayers is a terrorist then Obama but also be one by association.

A Doll"s House Prolouge

Earlier we were asked if we thought that Torvald ever figured out what Nora wanted and if so would they get back together? From what I read in A Doll's House it seemed highly unlikely that Torvald would ever change. When Nora admitted to him about the loan he was very worried about his own reputation being tarnished and felt as though she was nothing to him but a disgrace. In the end I kept wondering if he actually was sincere about wanting Nora to stay or was he only begging her to do so because he was once again worried about how he would be viewed by those around him. I think it is unlikely that he would change for anyone but himself and that Nora mattered only to him as a trophy. Even if he did change for her I highly doubt that they would get back together their relationship would have any real substance. In the end they would likely have to revisit the same arguments and the "happily ever after" that they both believed in would never manifest.

Doll's House Themes

A patriarchal social structure has been a theme in another of our readings "The Yellow Wallpaper". Both John and Torvald feel as though they are their wives keeper mostly due to the fact that both of them believe that their wives are incapable of taking care of themselves. In both instances the men assume the roles set for them socially acceptable of their time. I believe that in "Yellow Wallpaper" John only assumes the role of a controlling husband because he genuinely believes that by taking charge and acting as the "parent" he believes he can cure his wife. There is no reason for the reader to believe that John acts this way as a symbol of his vanity or because he believes in his superiority. Ultimately his well meaning actions lead to his wife's breakdown. On the other hand Torvald really does believe that he and only he is intelligent enough to run the household and assumes that his wife only possesses the mind of a child. He never converses with her or tries to address her as an equal. He insists of calling her pet names and setting rules for her and when there is a treat to his good name he abandons her . Nora truly becomes his wife. He thinks and speaks for her and discards her when he no longer wants her(upon discovering about the loan). Truthfully Nora does very little to break from her role and enjoys it. This sort of reminds me of Chicago when they illustrate how the lawyer manipulates what his clients says as a way to change how she will be portrayed. Below you can see for yourself. Tell me what you think.

Plays

I found that making our own Goodstudent plays was more difficult than it first looked. One needs to have a solid plot that will grab the viewer's attention and keep it throughout the play. Since neither I nor my group members were playwrights it was difficult to get into that mindset. It also was a challenge acting it out. I feel that no one in our class was particularly thrilled to act in front of their peers. By being up there I really appreciated good acting ability. It seems almost like an actor is a finely tuned puppet that has very precise actions. It is also very hard to change how we think and make all of our ideas into pure narrative . Plays contain many benefits including instant feedback. When one performs they can look to the audience to see is the story is favored and they can mold their actions immediately or for the next play to excite the audience. Meanwhile, when writing a novel the writer can never change the original story for a new one to please the reader and feedback is difficult since sales rarely indicate what is to come. Many great novels only gain fame after the author's death and once the reader's can truly scrutinize the political satire or moral that is present.