The model for modern Western drama, in almost all its various forms, is Shakespearian. It is Hamlet, pondering whether "to be or not to be," two vitally important and distinct choices which he, alone, has the power to make for himself. In most of our drama, and indeed much of our lives, we are focused upon the individual's rights, the individual's concerns, and the individual's power to control their destiny. It's an essential part of American identity, myth-busters aside.
My last post, with Iago's words "I am not what I am," highlights this distinction. Iago puts on a front, deceives everyone around him, consciously strives to undermine and harm almost all of those he comes into contact with. He makes the decision to not be what he is: an angry, jealous, hateful person. I took a "Which Shakespeare Character are You" quiz and got Viola from Twelfth Night, the woman who cross-dresses to be closer to her love. To add to that delicious irony, she too says "I am not what I am" with an obviously different meaning than Iago. Yet she still makes the choice, she still takes hold of her destiny and tries to follow her heart.
But Western drama started long before Shakespeare's time in Ancient Greece. Grecian theater was distinct in many ways, but one hallmark was the very powerful role and presence of the Gods. Unlike in Shakespeare's tragedies, where characters agonized over decisions and fell prey to tragic flaws, the characters in Greek tragedy were often doomed before they were born.
I speak specifically of Oedipus the King (aka "Rex"), which I saw tonight at Clarence Brown. I'd heard before about this difference between Shakespearian and Grecian drama, in reference to The Wire which tends to follow the latter (a notably odd development). But as I've been reading Shakespeare for my English classes, Oedipus Rex made that criticism really click.
I thought about it, as I was walking back from the play, and I began to object. I remembered that Macbeth, like Oedipus, received a prophecy that, despite his best efforts, turned out to be true. How were the two different?
In Macbeth, Macbeth's knowledge of the prophecy spurs his actions. Macbeth chooses to kill King Duncan, chooses to have Banquo killed, chooses to try to ruin Macduff and his family. In Oedipus, Oedipus doesn't know he's killing his father or marrying his mother. He's arrogant and confident, but those aren't portrayed as "Great Sins" like Macbeth's paranoia and ambition are. If anything, his confidence and wit are lauded as what enabled him to free Thebes from the sphinx's riddle. Oedipus acts in ignorance; Macbeth acts in knowledge.
I have my students debate who's ultimately responsible for the death of Duncan, and the line (at least from the class last semester) was split between the witches and Macbeth. A few target Lady Macbeth, but I'm more sympathetic to her in my own interpretation and that bleeds through, so they're not as likely to call her out as other classes might be. But just like Othello v. Iago, there is a line drawn between those who urge action and plant ideas and those who actually do the act. Most decide that Macbeth wasn't "fated" to act: he could have stopped at any time. And that's Shakespearian drama. You, the individual, call the stops.
Oedipus couldn't have stopped. I mean, he technically could have, but he didn't even know what he was supposed to avoid doing. He tried to live virtuously, he saved Thebes, he tried to avoid fulfilling the prophecy once he learned of it. He didn't succumb to temptation or vice. He tried to do what was right, but the gods, for their own reasons, saw fit to doom him anyway.
The personal connection, and, since this is me writing there has to be one of those, is that I have always felt like a Hamlet or Iago. I have always felt that pressing question of "to be or not to be" (in so many senses). I have always felt that "I am not what I am." And it has always been the source of so much anguish, so much tortuous angst because I have struggled for more than a decade with choices of how to "be." It has never occurred to me to simply accept what I am, be it by biology or deeply scribed and inscrutable psychology. I have never "been" without making a choice of how to "be."
But as I walked away from Oedipus's grim ruin, I felt a kind of peace. I am who I am. The gods, or the secular equivalents, have seen fit to bless me and curse me in various ways, and it is my role to accept some things and adjust appropriately. That is not to say that I abdicate my responsibilities. Yes, the prophecy of my genetics is there. I am what I am. That doesn't mean I need to gouge my eyes out, punishing myself for my inherent baseness (and goodness knows I would love to do so). I, like Macbeth, still have the power to shape my destiny and do it ethically. But I do not have complete power over myself and my world. We have our gods, no matter how we wish otherwise. And there is something to be said for accepting those limitations.
My last post, with Iago's words "I am not what I am," highlights this distinction. Iago puts on a front, deceives everyone around him, consciously strives to undermine and harm almost all of those he comes into contact with. He makes the decision to not be what he is: an angry, jealous, hateful person. I took a "Which Shakespeare Character are You" quiz and got Viola from Twelfth Night, the woman who cross-dresses to be closer to her love. To add to that delicious irony, she too says "I am not what I am" with an obviously different meaning than Iago. Yet she still makes the choice, she still takes hold of her destiny and tries to follow her heart.
But Western drama started long before Shakespeare's time in Ancient Greece. Grecian theater was distinct in many ways, but one hallmark was the very powerful role and presence of the Gods. Unlike in Shakespeare's tragedies, where characters agonized over decisions and fell prey to tragic flaws, the characters in Greek tragedy were often doomed before they were born.
I speak specifically of Oedipus the King (aka "Rex"), which I saw tonight at Clarence Brown. I'd heard before about this difference between Shakespearian and Grecian drama, in reference to The Wire which tends to follow the latter (a notably odd development). But as I've been reading Shakespeare for my English classes, Oedipus Rex made that criticism really click.
I thought about it, as I was walking back from the play, and I began to object. I remembered that Macbeth, like Oedipus, received a prophecy that, despite his best efforts, turned out to be true. How were the two different?
In Macbeth, Macbeth's knowledge of the prophecy spurs his actions. Macbeth chooses to kill King Duncan, chooses to have Banquo killed, chooses to try to ruin Macduff and his family. In Oedipus, Oedipus doesn't know he's killing his father or marrying his mother. He's arrogant and confident, but those aren't portrayed as "Great Sins" like Macbeth's paranoia and ambition are. If anything, his confidence and wit are lauded as what enabled him to free Thebes from the sphinx's riddle. Oedipus acts in ignorance; Macbeth acts in knowledge.
I have my students debate who's ultimately responsible for the death of Duncan, and the line (at least from the class last semester) was split between the witches and Macbeth. A few target Lady Macbeth, but I'm more sympathetic to her in my own interpretation and that bleeds through, so they're not as likely to call her out as other classes might be. But just like Othello v. Iago, there is a line drawn between those who urge action and plant ideas and those who actually do the act. Most decide that Macbeth wasn't "fated" to act: he could have stopped at any time. And that's Shakespearian drama. You, the individual, call the stops.
Oedipus couldn't have stopped. I mean, he technically could have, but he didn't even know what he was supposed to avoid doing. He tried to live virtuously, he saved Thebes, he tried to avoid fulfilling the prophecy once he learned of it. He didn't succumb to temptation or vice. He tried to do what was right, but the gods, for their own reasons, saw fit to doom him anyway.
The personal connection, and, since this is me writing there has to be one of those, is that I have always felt like a Hamlet or Iago. I have always felt that pressing question of "to be or not to be" (in so many senses). I have always felt that "I am not what I am." And it has always been the source of so much anguish, so much tortuous angst because I have struggled for more than a decade with choices of how to "be." It has never occurred to me to simply accept what I am, be it by biology or deeply scribed and inscrutable psychology. I have never "been" without making a choice of how to "be."
But as I walked away from Oedipus's grim ruin, I felt a kind of peace. I am who I am. The gods, or the secular equivalents, have seen fit to bless me and curse me in various ways, and it is my role to accept some things and adjust appropriately. That is not to say that I abdicate my responsibilities. Yes, the prophecy of my genetics is there. I am what I am. That doesn't mean I need to gouge my eyes out, punishing myself for my inherent baseness (and goodness knows I would love to do so). I, like Macbeth, still have the power to shape my destiny and do it ethically. But I do not have complete power over myself and my world. We have our gods, no matter how we wish otherwise. And there is something to be said for accepting those limitations.
Comments (0)
Post a Comment