Response to essays

By now you should have read the three essays on Oedipus Tyrannos by Marjorie Barstow, S.M. Adams and Robert Cohen.

Marjorie Barstow’s essay identifies the crucial differences between Aristotle’s concept of an ideal man and his concept of a tragic hero. She wrote the essay during her sophomore year at Cornell University, 1909-1910. Later she revised and re-titled it (excitingly) “Oedipus Rex: A Typical Greek Tragedy.” In that form the essay was included in Lane Cooper’s The Greek Genius and Its Influence [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1917.

The other two essays were written much later. They do not align with each other in many respects: Cohen has a point to make about the relevancy of Sophocles’s work to the 20^th century concept of absurdism. His reference to Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot makes clear his familiarity with what came to be known as the Theatre of the Absurd, a post WWII phenomenon of plays written by (says Encyclopedia Britannica)…

“…certain European and American dramatists of the 1950s and early ‘60s who agreed with the Existentialist philosopher Albert Camus’s assessment, in his essay “The Myth of Sisyphus” (1942), that the human situation is essentially absurd, devoid of purpose.”

I hope this explanation clears up any confusion you might feel about Cohen’s use of the word “absurd.” His is a different view on the nature of Oedipus’s role as tragic hero than the one that Adams presents. How you react to them very much depends on your own perspective.

Which of the three writers expressed for you the most stimulating and revealing ideas and insights. Were any of your own ideas overturned? Did you learn anything about Oedipus, or about interpreting Oedipus, that might affect your own future writing?

That’s the blog post for Monday. Apologies for failing to get it up sooner.