Meditation 5 – The Fate of Oedipus Rex

In reading Oedipus Rex, I realized that although there are action points throughout the play that drive the plot forward, there is no clearly established antagonist. In other tragedies like Shakespeare’s Othello there is a certain character that causes problems and initiates the conflict with the protagonist (Iago). However, in Oedipus Rex, there is no such character. One would suspect Oedipus were the antagonist due to all the crimes he commits; but I did not feel like he was the villain of the story. The audience is able to sympathize with Oedipus’ character despite the fact that he is a criminal. This made me believe that perhaps it is Oedipus’ fate alone that stirs up the action of the play.

Fate seems to play such an important role in the play because it is what sets the whole story into motion. Before the prophecy of Oedipus’ future had been told the family was fine. Therefore the first conflict in the story arises as a result of the foretelling of the prince’s fate. In addition to opening the drama of the play (pun intended) fate also keeps the plot moving and exciting. Almost the entire plot is based around Oedipus trying desperately to control or refute his own fate. However conflict arises because Oedipus’ own knowledge of his fate essentially makes him predisposed to fulfill it. One could say that his fate was consummated as a result of his own desire to defy it; therefore supporting the idea that it was a result of his fate itself that Oedipus succumbed to his heinous destiny. (In other words, if he had not left home to escape his destiny of killing (who he thought were) his parents, he never would have encountered and killed King Laius.) Also, the audience is interested in the story because they wish to witness how the opening divination plays out in the end – if it is fulfilled, defied or refuted.

In the end, the prophecy of Oedipus’ fate is proven to be self-fulfilled. The play ends with Oedipus being both the criminal and hero who struggled against his own destiny. Fundamentally it is the knowledge of his own fate that drove him to exile and serves as the theatrical device that creates conflict in the play. All in all, there was no need for Sophocles to use an individual as an antagonist in his play – destiny and the concept of fate that essentially drive the main character to failure

Meditation #5 Oedipus Rex -- Katie Marchant

Something that really stuck out to me was the character of Teiresias. I thought that is was really interesting for the clairvoyant who foresaw Oedipus’ fate was blind. To me this foreshadowed Oedipus gouging out his eyes and also showed that everyone was overlooking the situation. Even those who had their sight could not see what Teiresias could even though he was technically sightless. I also really liked all of Teiresias’ riddles and word play. They made that section of the play much easier to read and even to understand. It was also really interesting to read the play knowing what the ending was because I picked up on a lot more of the suggestions made by Teiresias, the Messenger and the Shepherd that Oedipus didn’t pick up on.

I am a little confused about the timeline for the story. How old was Oedipus when he was taken to the mountain to be left to die? How long has he been king before the point in time when this takes place? I also do not really understand why Iocaste married Oedipus. I know that he saved the city from the Sphinx by solving the riddle but was their some other condition that he got to marry the Queen? Is that story of the Sphinx taking control of Thebes told in another play? Or did the people attending the production of this play aware of that story?

You can't handle the truth...

I've noticed a major theme in Oedipus Rex--the ability to be completely blind to one's own knowledge. I believe Iocaste is blind to her knowledge, but the one who is blind to the most is Oedipus. Iocaste is blind to her knowledge about what she has done: getting married to her own son. But Oedipus is blind to all of his surroundings. He only wants to do what he believes he has to do. Let it be figuring out the Sphinx's riddle, or saving the city from the plague. I think that he does have the thought deep down that he is the son of Laios, and that he was the one who murdered him, but he doesn't want it to be him. He doesn't want the fate that the prophecy has bestowed on the murderer of the King, and he doesn't want that to be exposed that he is also the son of his very own wife. At the same time, I think Iocaste knew all this for a long time, but she, too, did not want to expose the truth, so she blinded herself from the truth until Oedipus will stop at nothing to figure it out. Only then does she try to save him from the shock of the truth, but Oedipus, being the proud and blind man he is, tells her that he must know the whole truth; he must know who he really is. Iocaste tries to tell him that he needs to stop "for [his] own good," but he insists, and that is where his fault lies. In his inability to swallow his own pride and listen for the time to stop questioning life.
I believe that the characters, along with blinding their knowledge, were also hiding their terror. For, if they spoke their terror to others, it may show a sign of weakness. Had Iocaste shown how frightened she was when she finally realized that she was incestuous, others would have seen her as weak. Had Oedipus shown terror at all the "heroic" acts he had achieved, he would have been seen as weak. Would there have been any pride left? I wonder, if he had known what was to come of him, had the Prophet told him straight up who he was and what was to come of him, would that have changed the outcome of the story? I don't think there would have been a tragedy.
The hidden knowledge and the hidden terror are, in my opinion, the basis of any great story. The fact that the characters don’t want to admit that it is them, they don’t want it to be them, creates a wonderful sense of irony when they finally admit, what I like to believe, their defeat in life. They have been defeated by their own fates, their own destinies. And they can't hide that.

A Blind Guy, a Messenger, and a Shepherd all Walk into a Bar…

Title/Subject: Meditation 5
The opening scene and the first choral ode set the eerie, foreboding mood of the entire play. Establishing this situation of a city in ruins is absolutely essential to get the play going. Oedipus is moved to action by the plight of his people. He is determined to “bring what is dark to light” (pg. 53, line 142-143). Though Sophocles’ chorus does not really interact with the principle characters, it does comment on and reemphasize what happened in the previous scene. The chorus is not necessary to the plot but rather helps clarify the finer points in some tricky scenes. It also seems to take the side of Oedipus throughout the play. It sympathizes more and more with him as the play progresses.

In Oedipus Rex, revelations follow after encounters with three characters: Teiresias, the Messenger from Corinth, and the Shepherd. Teiresias essentially tells Oedipus everything he needs to know. The king’s disbelief leads him to suspect Creon of trying to usurp his throne. This twist allows for tension to grow between Oedipus and Iocaste. This makes for an interesting dynamic between characters with close relationships. It puts Oedipus in a place where he can trust no one, not even himself. The outsiders appear as dispassionate voices of truth. Oedipus has no choice but to hear them out. The Messenger brings information that calls for confirmation by the Shepherd. The Shepherds reluctance makes for an interesting interrogation. As his layers are pulled away, the full horror of the truth is revealed to Oedipus. The Second Messenger serves as a witness to the destruction of the family. The rest of the loose ends are tied up in Creon’s promise to take care of his poor daughters.

Meditation Five: Oedipus Rex

Title/Subject: Oedipus Rex

There are many different ways to look at the plot of Oedipus Rex. You can look at it in terms of the timing – the fact that the audience comes in medias res – the action that the plot is based around has already taken place. The former king has already been murdered. The relationships between the characters are already set and the history behind them isn’t really explained at the beginning. I realize that this, of course, is because we are reading the second part of a trilogy. It is important to understand that, but this is a look at Oedipus Rex, not the trilogy, and in Oedipus Rex the audience is basically thrown into the middle of the mess and expected to either figure it out or wait for it to be revealed to them.


Another way to look at the plot is to look at how it handles the idea of Fate. Sophocles does a more than efficient job in making the audience sense of undeniable consequences for the man who committed the murder. Oedipus immediately sets up consequences for the man who he finds as the murder of the former king. The prophet Teirsias also sets up consequences for the murderer, although it is because he is challenged by Oedipus. Even Oedipus, when he realizes he may be the murderer, speaks about how he will never be able to see his people again – he will have to leave the city and never return.


I always find it so amusing to read Greek plays – just like I find it amusing to watch soap operas. If everyone wasn’t so duplicitous and double-crossing, none of this would have happened! The plot of Oedipus Rex is just like the other plays we’ve been reading – death, murder, etc. But plays like this are what people wanted to see, so I know that I can’t fault the playwrights. I also can’t fault them because what would theater be without this history, these infamous plays?

Oh the consequences...

I see this story as a case of stimulus, response. In my opinion, if Oedipus had simply left the matter of the murder of Laios alone and not questioned anyone about it's circumstances, he'd still have his eyes and his wife/mother would still be alive, and no one would be any wiser as to what was actually going on - but hey, ignorance is bliss. Instead, Oedipus had to go and ask the blind prophet questions. And you would think that when he didn't like what the guy was saying, he would let it go, but no - the prophet's wise words implanted that seed of doubt in Oedipus's mind, essentially becoming the catalyst for the later revelations that caused the tale to end as sadly as it did. As his doubt grew, Oedipus kept pushing, kept wanting to know more - even though it was hurting him, and the people around him. The rising tension was not easily ignored. As for his wife/mother, she seemed to be a bit wiser than he - when she left the scene, it was obvious she knew what was going on - and her following suicide was something that most people would see coming. And who would blame her for such actions? So as for Oedipus, who was left suffering greatly, it could be said that a little learning is in fact a dangerous thing. The thing is, some things are just better left unsaid, and unknown. It's better for everyone that way.

Oedipus Rex

I believe the structure of this play is fairly cohesive and coherent. Distinguishable plot changes allow us to discern between the rising action, climax, and denouement. How interesting it is that Oedipus unknowingly kills his father and marries his mother. This is a huge utilization of dramatic irony, like we talked about last time in class. The classic, cliché, and motif of a messenger did not go unrecognized in this play either. And of course, once again one must question the messenger's authenticity. Usually the audience has a slight clue as to whether or not the messenger is lying, but this time we have to go off of other prophets' claims as well as the messenger. One can see the rising action occur as Oedipus refuses to believe all the testaments given to him. The exact point of realization that he had killed his father and married his mother proves to be an effective climax for all of this chaos building in the scene and play. Although I must admit, the denouement is a little disturbing when Oedipus gouges his eyes out and lives the rest of his days as a wanderer/outcast. But nevertheless, it did provide a closing to the play, which will also bring me to a closing in my entry.

Oedipus Rex

In the play Oedipus Rex the play seems to me to be put together like a timeline. One event leads to another and another. In the play Oedipus’ reactions to events carry the story. For example, if he does not listen to the initial prophecy of him killing his father and sleeping with his mother, none of this tragedy ever occurs. He would just remain with his adopted parents and never even meet his real parents, much less kill and sleep with them. Once again, if he does not want to find out more information about his father’s killing and his (Oedipus) background, things could go on as normal. His mother would not hang herself and his eyes would not be gouged out by himself because they would not know he fulfilled the prophecy.
This play obviously has fate involved, but all this fate is a result of poor choices and over analyzing. The consequences seem so harsh because of the choices made, there almost seems to be no alternative other than these consequences.
A clear beginning, middle, and end in the reading of the play can be seen because there are three different scenes that are marked clearly. It also appears that the characters all leave the stage before a scene change. Whether they leave the area/play completely or go to the palace, the stage appears to be cleared which signifies a scene change.

Oedipus rex

Come on this happens all the time boy meets father, boy kills father, boy marries mother and has children with her...Ok well its not quite so everday, as you might think, but it's the basic plot of Oedipus Rex, except for the brutal ending. Now for how the plot actually goes, how this seemingly simple (albeit twisted) story comes off as a type of murder mystery. Thebes is being visited with harsh times, and Oedipus being the good Greek king that he is sends a messager to the oracle to find out how to save his city. The messager comes back and says they have to find the one who killed the king before Oedipus, King Laios. Now the play becomes a hunt for the killer with the unknowing killer doing most of the hunting. Oedipus does everything he can to find the killer he even gos to a seer Teieresias who knows but wont tell him because he believes it's too horrible, but he doe give him all the clues and basically tells him what will happen to him later in life. Oedipus even admits killing a man on the highway but because some other guy told a story where he was killed by a group of marauders they don't think it is him. And he meets the messenger and keeps finding clues that point to himself. Then the sheperd comes and he finally figures out what the audience already knew, he killed his father on the highway, he married his mother. Then he goes blind and becomes a wanderer. Oh happy ending!

The events leading to Oedipus' elucidation

Thebes is in turmoil; Creon has been sent to prophet of Delphi to find a clue as what must be done. Ther is an old defilement being sheltered- he finds that the god Apollo demands revenge for the murder of Laios, which happened many years ago. The mystery has been proclaime; Oedipus places a curse on those that would withhold information. Laios was said to have born no children, so Oedipus steps into Laios’ would be son’s position. Teiresias is sent for and brings only news of grief. He calls Oedipus the son and husband to his wife and the father and brother to his children. He accuses Oedipus of killing his own father; though Oedipus does not believe him, Teiresias claims he will soon see. Oedipus is certain that Creon set up this whole scheme to take the throne from Oedipus; however, Creon swears otherwise. Iocaste tells the story of Laios’ death, and it turns out that he was killed where three highways meet. This triggers something in Oedipus’ memory, for he had killed someone at the three highways. Iocaste describes how Laios was traveling, with a small troupe. She also tells of a prophecy, that Laios was to be killed by his son. That is why the only child was dispatched to be abandoned to death. Oedipus was once told, as a child, by a drunk man that he was not Polypos’ child- the man Oedipus grew up with. The only survivor of Laios’ death is sent for; meanwhile a messenger comes to tell of Polypos’ death. Oedipus is relieved that he did not kill him, therefore the prophecy could not be true. But the messenger refutes this, because he gave Oedipus as a baby to Polypos. Polypos could not bear children. The Shepard arrives, and tells Oedipus of his infancy; he had saved Oedipus, had given him to the messenger who had given him to Polypos. The Shepard was given Oedipus by Iocaste, and Iocaste was made pregnant by Laios. Oedipus was the prophecized son sent to kill his father!

Meditations on Oedipos Tyrannos

Subjects on this week's meditation:

Last week we discussed certain differences in the approaches of Euripides, Aeschylus, and Sophocles in their construction of character, their use of setting and dialogue, and their emphasis in dramatic action. We also considered how each playwright constructed his plays: where the climax was positioned, how tension was built, maintained, or intensified, and how each character's action became a part of the action of the play as a whole.

Consider the structure of Sophocles best-known tragedy, Oedipos Tyrannos, typically translated as "Oedipus Rex" or "Oedipus the King". How is this play put together? Concentrate specifically on what we have come to refer to as the plot: how does one character's actions drive the action of the play? In a play clearly concerned with the concept of Fate, how has the playwright provided a sense of implacable consequences? More importantly, how has incident been used and how are character entrances and exits deployed to provide a coherent, centralized action that provides a beginning, middle, and end?

Oedipus

As one of the greatest epic tales ever written, Oedipus plays the lead in his own life. He takes a journey in a poor, failed attempt alter his destiny. He assumes that by making his own decisions and choosing his own path, he has the power to change his fate. Not only does he prove himself wrong, but also proceeds to do exactly as what was originally intended for him. As compared to other Greek tragedies, Oedipus embodies all of the usual characteristics: greed, love, lust, betrayal and even incest as a bonus. While Oedipus jumps into his fate by trying to avoid it, we all learn that we do not choose our own destinies, they choose us, and running will not change them. In a way, the story reminded me of Shakespeare's MacBeth, while taking destiny in one's own hands might seem promising, the actual reality is, it only makes things worse.

Structure in Oedipus ReX and the value of a second look by JD'

When I first read Oedipus Rex I thought it was stupid.Mainly because I was taught, as the intro explains many often are wrongfully or at least not very supportably, that Oedipus's fatal flaw was pride. I was taught he should not have attempted to arrogantly overthrow fate. I saw this as the worst moral ever. As I used to say "so he should have gone out trying to kill his father and sleep with his mother?" If fate exists he's dammed either way. In fact he's meant to try and overthrow it and if fate doesn't exist he has everything to gain.

But I realize now that fighting fate is different from fighting the odds. Fate is not a 70% chance or even a 99.999999% probability fate is a 100% probability

As Iocaste says “why should any man be afraid since fate rules and nothing can be foreseen. A man should live only for the present day.” (Line 70 page 63)Oedipus is ruined by fear; of course one can argue he has no choice in anything, that everything was fate.But he only “knows” two things and he wastes his whole life trying to avoid them.

His family gives up a life with there son to avoid what cannot be avoided. There is a sad but humorous irony in the fact that Oedipus is joyed at hearing of his “father’s” death.If this death is not tragic how can the action of killing be tragic. Isn’t the result what’s fearable? Who worry about being killed if it didn’t mean ending up dead? Further irony exists in how Oedipus’s supposed father died “his many years.” Death is always unavoidable and thus in many ways a silly thing to fear.

Oedipus is structured so that the realizations of what’s been done are spaced far after the deeds themselves. This is intentional. Lane has mentioned before the classic example of Alfred Hitchcock suspense, seeing the bomb under the table. This is far more terrifying then it simple exploding. Oedipus takes this concept one step further the victims are walking around bloodied and ruined long before we see there look of horror. Paradoxically the victims all express there horror long before fate is fulfilled. In both these ways Sophocles tells us that events are trivial compared to knowledge.

Meditation 5

After reading Oedipus Rex, I realized that it bothers me how all Greek Tragedies can be resolved by an off the wall idea that always is true. In Oedipus Rex, there are several examples of this, such as Oedipus being recognized as the child that was taken away because he has weak ankles from being tied together as a small child; and how the shepherd is easily locatable because the messenger thought he would be needed again some day. There are little bits to every Greek tragedy we have read this year that just complete the story and make a perfect tie to current events even though it has been 30 years since the previously discussed event happened. In all the versions of Electra, there is some idea thrown out about seeing if the hair is the same, or checking the footprints for similarities, or looking for Orestes in his cloak from his childhood or the memory of scars gained from childhood are all used to identify Orestes from his childhood and are all acceptable means of recognition (except in Euripides Version). It just bothers me how all these silly little things can tie someone to someone else or can prove the validity of a story when in reality it just seems like it was planned from the beginning for, say, Oedipus’s legs to be bound so that he would be recognized later. It just seems all to perfect and planned out for me to want to believe these stories and I don’t understand why people would take these stories as true. I mean didn’t people believe that this is what happened to the gods and that these stories are accurate representations of the gods lives? If I were to look at these stories I would be more inclined to relate them to movies in today’s society where the good guy never gets hurt, always get the girl, and the girl’s hair look amazing no matter what just happened to her. I wouldn’t believe these things actually happen, just that they are stories for entertainment because everything turns out too perfect to actually be true. They are very good stories and are very well written and enjoyable, but I just don’t understand how they could ever be perceived as true.

Oh Euripides, How I Love Thee.

Title/Subject: Meditation 4
I felt like the characters of this myth did not fully flush out into actually human beings until I read Euripides’ version of the myth. This is really rather strange considering that some of the characters, namely Aegisthus, do not even have dialogue and never once appear on stage. In Aeschylus and Sophocles’ versions the characters are somewhat prototypical. They do what they must because fate as lead them to act. Euripides’ Electra explores the choices set before the characters and gives reasoning behind all the terrible things that have come to pass in their family.
Euripides adds a few little touches to the myth that add depth to the well-known characters. For example, Clytemnestra plainly admits to having had an affair only because her husband was unfaithful first. She blames him for her disgrace and deems that it is unjust for men not to be criticized for their affairs. She makes some pretty good points in this version of the story prior to the knowledge that she is going to die. In the other two myths she only brings up the ‘old shit’ in begging for her life. I found myself more readily sympathizing with her. It was an odd experience for me because I had been so firmly attached to my perception of her as a stupid bitch. And yet here she was coming to purify her daughter after the birth of her grandchild and making some very accurate statements about patriarchal culture. I was almost touched.
Another interesting addition by Euripides was Electra’s forced marriage to a peasant man. This new little twist demonstrates just how far beyond her father’s murder Aegisthus has gone to torture her. She describes her marriage as “a living death.” Though we never even encounter Aegisthus, his cruelty is felt by this one short statement. It is also revealed that the new king has not honored Agamemnon’s grave properly. Electra’s rage seems justified in these instances, but is later complicated by Orestes doubt. That is probably my favorite thing about this version as a whole. Euripides provides amble opportunity for the characters to really have it out with one another. Even those who are seemingly together on an issue.

Meditation #4 The Electras -- K. Marchant -- 2/21/07

In Euripides’ Electra and Sophocles’ Electra the major difference that stuck out to me was that in Euripides’ version the majority of the action happens at the cottage of the peasant that Aegisthus married Electra off to. In Sophocles’ version the action happens outside of the palace if Agamemnon and Electra is not married. This to me shows a difference in how the playwrights were trying to portray Electra. At the palace the audience might not be as sympathetic towards her while at the cottage they might be more inclined to be on her side because of her situation.

Another difference that stuck out was how the character of Electra and Orestes’ sister Chrysothemis, who propels the action of the story in Sophocles’ version by discovering that someone had gone to Agamemnon’s tomb was replaced in Euripides’ version by a combination of Electra’s husband, the peasant and the old man who took Orestes to safety. The supporting characters propelled the action by what they said to Electra and how they helped her and Orestes’ with their plan or in Chrysothemis’ by how they didn’t help with the plan.

Something else that I found interesting was who brought the news of Orestes’ death to Electra. In Sophocles’ version a friend of Orestes’, Paidagogos, brings the news of Orestes’ death to the palace and Electra, who was standing outside talking to the chorus. While in Euripides’ version Orestes himself, disguised as a weary traveler tells Electra himself. Why did Euripides decide to have Orestes himself break the news and why did Sophocles decide to have a friend of Orestes bring the news?

Julia D ELECTRA

In reading Euripides and Sophocles Electra I was tempted to title my meditaion “can somebody please slap Electra?”But I realized her response would,and is throughout the plays, very similar to Leo in the producers.

http://www.mooviees.com/2167/quotes

Leo Bloom: I'm hysterical! I'm having hysterics! I'm hysterical! I can't stop when I get like this. I can't stop. I'm hysterical. Oh my god. Ah-la-la-la.
[Bialystock throws a glass of water in Leo's face]
Leo Bloom: [stunned] ... I'm wet! I'm wet! I'm hysterical and I'm wet!
[Bialystock slaps Leo]
Leo Bloom: ...I'm in pain! I'm in pain, and I'm wet!... and I'm still hysterical!

Like the play the Producers Sophocles makes frequent use of humor as well as irony.

My favorite lines in any of the Electra’s are 66-69 in Sophocles

“But say I’m wrong and you are right say he offered her up for Menelaos’ sake, must you then murder him? And by what law? Take care, or in issuing this decree You issue yourself remorse and death for if a killer merits death you must die next to satisfy that justice Take care, you offer lies for pretext.”she goes on to say even in my words it is your deeds that talk.”.I disagree with the assertion in the intro that dramatic impact is more important then ethical significance to Sophocles. He deals with ethics in a diffrent way then Euripdes but without a sense of ethics the irony is lost. Sophocles tells us that ethics do not exist in a void. You must think. You must listen.. Like in the Cherry Orchard there is a mix of subtly and absolute bluntness and both plays share repeated versions of the phrase “why don’t you listen? Sophocles makes sure we take certain the grains of truth vengeance can be self destructive.He does not emphasis as much as Euripdes this issue on a global scale but that is because he want’s us to think to apply it rather then just memorize.

Sophocles, Euripides, and Aeschylus

How is it possible that there can be multiple versions of the same story? Wouldn’t the differences between the plots discredit the story as a whole? This is the case with the varying accounts of the return of Orestes by Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides. Each of the three has written different interpretations of the story of a brother and sister’s attempt to avenge their father’s death. One would assume that the mere presence of three varying versions of the event would discredit the validity of the story. After all, true historical facts would not be so controversial. However, I believe that one must accept the consistencies between the stories as trivial effects of the varying interpretations.

One can see how the accounts differ when examining how Electra comes to believe that Orestes has returned. In The Libation Bearers by Aeschylus, Electra is suspicious that her brother is in town because she sees a lock of his hair and his footprints near her father’s tomb. Her suspicion is confirmed when Orestes shows her an article of clothing he was given as a child. This is different from Sophocles’s account in Electra. In his version, Electra doubts that Orestes is who he says he is until she sees her father’s ring on his hand. This ring convinces her of Orestes identity. However, Euripides writes in his story of Electra that she sees a lock of Orestes’s hair, his footprints, and an article of his childhood clothing and still doubts his return. She only believes that the man is her brother when she sees a scar on his forehead from when he was a child. These differences suggest that none of the three stories is to be trusted because the accounts are too inconsistent with one another.

However, I think that these discrepancies are somewhat irrelevant. I think that there will by differences between the versions of all stories that are passed on throughout time. The more important thing is the fact that each of the three stories describes two siblings that yearn to avenge their father’s death. Each story depicts Electra’s initial disbelief of Orestes’s return. For a story that has been known to hundreds of generations, I think the idea that this story is still alive is impressive. The details of the story can vary, but the overall plot is the same; therefore proving the story more valuable for its mere existence and survival throughout time.

Meditation 4

The characterization of people in the different plays is varied due to the variety of styles employed by different authors. Aeschylus uses Pylades more dramatically than most; he is the one to convince Orestes to kill his mother by putting it simply, the gods commanded it. In Euripides the one to convince Orestes to kill his mother is Electra. In Sophocles he doesn’t really have to be convinced, also his mother is the first to be killed. Euripides version makes the characters seem much more human, more fleshed out through his use of dialogue. Also Orestes inner and outer conflict with murdering his mother, makes him seem less like a epic hero but rather like the average man stuck in a Catch 22. If he doesn’t kill her he is wrong by the gods, if he does kill her he is wrong by man. Also Electra seems much more vengeful in Euripides version than others, on page 120 of the play, she kills ever single argument of Orestes just to get back at her mother who subjugated her. She is not even really in Aeschylus’s version of the play. Whereas Pylades in Euripides version is simply a plot device for Electra to get married to which I think is a cop out. I feel Aeschylus was more of epic storyteller in his version of events, making it so even though Orestes had a second thought he really never hesitates. Also it is in that version that you really get to see the violence. In Euripides version it seems to happen off screen.

Oh, the similarities

In all three versions of the scenes with Electra, there are some major similarities. Obviously, the fact that her brother, Orestes, has been exiled and wants to avenge his father's murder. Another is the part that he is always with Pylades, yet Pylades never speaks. They are constantly together, and as each story progresses, Orestes and Pylades hide somewhere as to not be seen, let it be a physical thing as they hide in the bushes, or an appearance thing as Orestes disguises himself as a messenger to tell Clytamnestra that Orestes has died because he knows that she will not recognize him.
But Clymtemnestra is not the only one who does not recognize Orestes. Electra does not recognize him when she sees him in any of the versions. In Sophocles' version, she does not believe that it is him until she sees the ring of her father on his hand. She then all of a sudden knows that it is him. In the Euripides version, the old man is the one who knows that it is Orestes. He sees a lock of hair that matches Electra's, and the foot prints, but she turns down every single idea that it could be Orestes'. It isn't until the old man points out a scar on Orestes' forehead that she believes it is him. And in Libations bearers, she believes almost immediately that her brother is there when she sees a lock of hair that she believes matches her own, and she sees foot prints that match hers.
I believe that each of the three interpretations has a major effect on the Oresteia as a whole due to the fact that they all revolve around relationships. In The Eumenides, Electra and Oreste's are not characters mentioned, yet they still have a connection because they are the children of Clytemnestra and Agamemnon. It isn't until Libation Bearers that they appear and the relationship between the two of them and their mother is as horrible as would be expected, and there is the reference of the murder of their father from Agamemnon. Also, the intensity of the relationships is different in each of the renditions. In Libation Bearers, the relationship between the children and their mother is not as intense as the relationship between them in Euripides' Electra. This is seen because they take more time to speak about killing their mother in Libation Bearers, but they quickly jump to the thought in Electra. This shows that the relationship effects the dramatics of the play.
I believe if there is a strong sense resentment and hate between two characters, and I can feel it when I read their lines, then it is more dramatic to me to picture. The feelings of hate felt by Electra and Orestes towards Clytemnestra adds to the dramatics of the Oresteia as a whole.

Meditation Four: Interpretation is the fienst form of flattery.

Title/Subject:How are the three ways the story of Orestes and his family is told different from one another?

One wouldn’t think that three different people writing something based off of the same myth would end up telling such different stories, but they have. As I learned in my CI class, interpretation is everything. To put what I’m saying in more modern terms, I see the plays we’ve read so far an adaptation of the story of Agamemnon, Orestes, and Electra. This isn’t a foreign concept – writers and producers do this all the time today, so why wouldn’t it have happen in the time of ancient Greeks? It obviously did.
I see the trilogy we read by Aeschylus the original story – maybe because it was the first telling I read of the story, but also because it seems to be the most completely telling. There seems to be no huge bias towards Agamemnon, Clytemnestra, Orestes, or Electra. It simply tells what happened – the war was fought, people died, revenge was had.
The way Sophocles told the story of Orestes and Electra was with Electra as the main character. Electra wasn’t a very dominate character in Aeschylus’ trilogy, but I could see why someone would be interested in her perspective. This reminds me of how writers can take minor characters in famous stories and construct completely new and different stories around their point of view. Author Gregory Maguire does this with characters like the Wicked Witch from The Wizard of Oz and an ugly stepsister from Cinderella. The plot of Sophocles’ Electra centers on the interaction between Orestes and his sister and the action they take against their murderess mother.
I find the way Euripides tells the story of Electra to be very, very different from the other writer’s views. Euripides takes Electra and the history behind her – the Trojan war, all the murders in her family – and condenses them. The war and the line of murders that start with the sacrifice of her sister are reduced into a few paragraphs of chorus work. What it does is show her life in a different setting all together – she was promised to a peasant man in order to keep her in line and in hopes that if she does have children, they will not be able to avenge her father’s death. This is more like a soap opera style way of telling her story. (Blasphemous, I know.)
While each of these writer’s have the same basic myth or story to work off of, like I said before, their interpretations make all the difference.

Somehow Posting can be the most difficult and easy thing to do

Electra!!
When Sophocles’ Electra opens up we hear a very different fate that she is succumbed to, than that of Euripides’ Electra: Electra is married in Euripides’, and no man cherishes her in Sophocles’. However, her state of poverty seems to be similar, except that she lives with her parents in the palace in Sophocles’ and then in a measly home in Euripides’. There are two characters added, one in each of these plays that seem to represent somewhat the same values- Chrysothemis and Electra’s husband, who is given no name other than Electra’s husband. These characters both feel the pain of Agamemnon’s death, yet both are too feeble to strike out against the offenders. Chrysothemis encourages Electra to submit herself to the strong; Electra’s husband in a sense does this as well, even though he never blatantly says it. By being married to him Electra is forced to submit to the strong (Aegisthus); however, she does not consummate the marriage, her firm commitment to her own strength. Really the characters are not all that similar, but they replace each other in the plays.
On the subject of Agamemnon’s grave, it has been treated very differently in each play. In Sophocles’ play, Agamemnon’s grave is openly grieved; in fact, even Clytemnestra orders offerings to be taken to him, though she never takes the offerings herself. In Euripides’ play, Electra speaks of how Agamemnon’s burial has been without honor and ceremony- he has had no wine poured out for him.
The discussions between Clytemnestra and her children are very vivid and poignant for me- not because I happen to remember killing my mother- because it is here that the children tell her of the crimes she committed against them, and it is here that she pleads with them, reasons with them, reminds them that she bore them out her own flesh and milk. Of course, the children are no longer listening but rather acting out a deed that was done long ago in their minds. Clytemnestra and Electra have a compelling conversation on the motives they had for their feelings and (in Clytemnestra’s case) actions. Clytemnestra makes a very good case against Agamemnon, asking if he held more love for Menelaus than their daughter. However, Electra’s case for her father leaves much to be disputed; for example, she talks of Artemis’ anger with Agamemnon’s boasted hunt. He was held back from battle because of his pride; granted he is only human, but it doesn’t seem to be a very good argument for killing his daughter- he had brought all his misery upon himself. However, Electra uses divine intervention as her critical stance: the fleet would not have left if they did not appease Artemis; it was indirectly Artemis who killed the daughter, or at least it was Artemis who so demanded it. Then Electra asks Clytemnestra why it had to be her specifically who had to kill Agamemnon. This is hypocritical because Electra through out Sophocles’ play will not be reduced to a mere woman, that if she must she would carry out revenge herself. I think that Electra’s arguments only further Clytemnestra’s; but maybe this was Sophocles’ purpose. In Euripides’ play, though, I felt that both arguments were given equal merit and were very illuminative of their humanity, with all its caprices and follies. I thought that Clytemnestra’s argument was the best I’ve heard yet; she really lay out all the events following up to the sacrifice and it elucidated to the audience that it could be attributed to man’s pride and sexual instability (I just wanted to add that, nobody has to agree). Electra however, gives her best argument as well; she points out the follies in women and their sexual corruption, not only Helen’s but also Clytemnestra’s. She continues to point out in Clytemnestra’s actions bad decisions of impulse such as her treatment of her children; it’s ironic in fact, Clytemnestra’s treatment of her children after she worked so hard to avenge her daughter’s death. In fact, Euripides does a fantastic job of pointing out the human flaws of each of his characters; Clytemnestra admits that she might have forgiven Agamemnon if he hadn’t come home with a mistress. What a confession! One thing that is constantly recurring is the use of the Gods to justify an action. Clytemnestra does not have a God to call upon for her deeds; no god ordained that she should kill her husband- she is autonomous. Only Orestes and Agamemnon use the gods for defense; they are the only ones who are defended. Clytemnestra must defend herself.
The last thing I will touch upon is the moment before Clytemnestra’s death. In the Libation Bearers, we encounter Electra at the very beginning but she does not appear again. When Orestes kills Clytemnestra, she and him have a powerful discourse with her pleads and his anguishes against her. In Sophocles’ Electra, the same thing happens, except that this time it is Electra and Clytemnestra who have this discourse; it is almost as though Sophocles’ has filled in the absent Electra’s experience through her mother’s death. He approached the question of ‘where is Electra during this time’, especially since she wanted vengeance so clearly as well. He does not necessarily displace Orestes, but rather has Electra answer her unwitting mother’s screams through the door. She has no impact on her mother, but rather on the audience with her words, which I believe were created for her own gratification. Euripides has yet another approach: as Clytemnestra cries her last words- which are short, just one line of help- only the chorus answers her and they answer her in compassion and grievance. What a copious splattering of responses to the single death of Clytemnestra. Each playwright chose a different character: why? It is almost as though the character they chose and the response they wrote are their own most sincere responses to this woman’s slaughter.
Oh yeah, I also wanted to mention that in Euripides’ Electra, Electra-instead of Pylades- was the one to persuade Orestes to continue with his fate; she used the gods to encourage him just as Pylades did. The chorus condemned her for this after the death (even though they encouraged before the death); it was a woman who brought Orestes’ downfall.

Same but different

I found it strange how different the two versions of Electra actually were; I expected roughly the same story, albeit with maybe a slight change in dialogue from one version to the next. This was certainly not the case. Not only were some of the characters different, but the order of events, as well as the events themselves changed looking from Sophocles' telling of the tale to that of Euripides. The only similiar aspect I noticed between the two was that of the offerings on Agamemnon's grave. Even so, the context with which that scene occured in the two versions of the story was very, very different. It just goes to show that people often interpret things in very different ways. Take the bible for example - it was written by many, many people over many years, and the stories take form in so very many different versions written by many different people, all interpreting things in their own ways. It seems that it's up to each individual reader to accept a version of Electra's story for themselves, or perhaps choose a happy medium that combines elements from both varaitions of the tale.

Meditation 4

Meditation 4

It seems weird to me that there would be different plays telling the same overall story, but in completely different ways. Why is this? The only thing I can think to compare it to would be a current day written book which has a movie come out after it about the same thing. The storylines aren’t exactly the same though. In the end, however, the same result happens. To start off with the plays by Sophocles and Euripides have different characters from the very beginning. Differences in these characters include Electra’s relationships. In Euripides’ play she is married and very poor while there is no mention of a husband in Sophocles play. Also in Sophocles play, she has a sister named Chrysothemis who is not mentioned in Euripides’ version. Another difference between the two is the storyline with Orestes. In Sophocles’ play he is said to have died in the beginning in a chariot race to cover up him coming and taking his revenge, while in Euripides’ play he is said to be alive from the very beginning. The killing is also done differently. In Sophocles’ version the children kill their mother first and then her lover, but in Euripides’ version the lover is killed first and then followed by their mother. What makes all of this even crazier is they both end in the same way. The children get their revenge of their father’s killing, but in two very different ways. While I liked both versions of the play, I do not understand why there would be a re-make of the same thing.

Blog 4

The story of Electra is unique to me in many ways. I have a hard time understanding why things are said a certain way in Greek plays as it is, but when you read this play it seems to be even harder. I could understand what was going on but why is there such a difference between the two translations? One book that this could be compared to is the Bible. Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote there books of the Bible about some of the same events, and each one had there own cultural differences. These differences caused for the stories to appear as different, but in reality all four authors were talking about the same event. Time and cultural are key factors that effect how a story is written. That is why there are so many remakes of Greek plays and Shakespeare’s plays today. Electra has different translations due to how people perceived how the story is told.

Meditation 4

Meditation 4:

I found it weird that all of the plays were similar but had minor differences, which makes sense because the story was told orally. When I think about why the stories became so different I think about the game telephone that I played when I was in middle school. The story is passed between people, and after a number of people hear the story it starts to change or become misunderstood. I am a little confused on why some of the plays have different characters though? Where the names just changed or are the characters totally different. The plays are supposed to be the same, so the difference in characters and style of writing confused me. The one thing that is consistent in all of the plays is that Electra helps Orestes avenge the death of their father. I do not have much prior knowledge of the Greek plays so I found it hard to understand the stories, but I think I got the main idea.

Meditation 4

After reading all of the Electras I was surprised at how different each story was while still being a consistent whole. Things were very different throughout them but they maintained the myth. I think that is how myths get started, everyone hears a different version of everything and then in turn they tell a different version. I myself tend to exaggerate certain things. Any myth that is told is a little different every time it is told, because it is an oral tradition. Words change, people change, but the general meaning remains the same. If you look at any urban legend there are tenfold different ways the story can be told, and has been told, but the moral of the story is all the same; don’t pick up strangers on the highway, don’t be out late at night, the list goes on. The story of Electra is the same way, every author has a different style, a different language, but in the end Electra helps Orestes to avenge their father’s death and kill their mother, a heinous blood crime. The gods told Orestes to commit this crime, so that Clytemnestra would have to pay for the wrong that she did. Also throughout Electra and the Electra myth it is obvious the women’s place in society as well as how they were thought of. Women were dangerous people, not to be trusted, but at the same time they were almost the equals of the slaves. I find that very upsetting, however Electra, like her mother, proved to be a strong person with a strong will, fighting to do what she believed to be right.

Electra

As I was reading the various interpretations of Electra, I found it odd that each different translation should have their own set of characters, setting and even word usage. Obviously, since they are interpretations by different authors, so the words will not coincide; but at the same time, is it acceptable to change the original story? As I read the various interpretations of the same story, I was intrigued by the fact that, on occasion, characters would be left out; or not included in certain scenes of one interpretation, but in another be visible and speaking. Between the latter two translations of Electra, even the opening settings differ greatly. For example, in Euripides' Electra, "the scene is outside the peasant's cottage. It is night, a little before sunrise," (94). Yet, in Sophocles version, "Scene: Mycenae, before the palace of Agamemnon. (Dawn. Orestes, the Paidagogos, and Pylades are discovered). Not only have the authors changed the setting to make the story their own, they have also incorporated new names and places into it. It was so interesting to read the plays and see why the authors may have chosen this setting or that, each difference has a purpose. Each story is meant to be told a different way, so as to present a certain point. At first I was confused as to why each author chose different elements for their story of Electra, but then it occured to me that the reason is that without these various differences, the play would not be their own.

Meditation 4 2-21-07

Let’s just come out with it, the Greeks confuse me. I understand the plays we have been reading but all I can think is, why? So here is what I don’t get- like I mentioned in class, why is Orestes murder considered a blood crime by not Clytemnestra’s or Agamemnon’s? I mean Agamemnon killed his own daughter, doesn’t that make it a blood crime, I can understand Clytemnestra’s story, but still didn’t she kill her husband? Shouldn’t she get some sort of punishment for that and well frankly shouldn’t Agamemnon have gotten some sort of punishment for killing his daughter? And on top of all that, if Clytemnestra’s murder was foretold- did Orestes have a choice, is it really his fault he was destined to kill her? I definitely agree with Athena’s choice to set him free on that accord- he was only doing what he was commanded to do by the God’s and well in Euripides, his sister. I can’t see why his murder was made out to be so much of a bigger deal than the rest when he had the most justification from the gods. And what is up with Euripides retelling Sophocles story of Electra, if the ancient Greeks believed that these stories were what was true of the gods and their lives, then wouldn’t Euripides have rewritten history? I can see a retelling and maybe a different version that he has heard about Electra meeting her brother again and recognizing him for the first time. But what about the rest of the story, I mean, crucial things change- like who tells Orestes to kill his mother and how he does it, and there is more background to the characters and Euripides goes further into detail as to what happens to the characters after the murder is committed. I’m not gunna lie, after reading all of these plays I can’t figure out why there are so many differences in the same version, or why they aren’t consistent within the stories. There is so much history within these stories that I don’t understand and I don’t see how people could learn and remember the stories if they are not the same every time they are told. I think it would help if I brushed up a bit on my Greek history, but even still I feel like there are so many little things that are easily overlooked and make it hard to understand while reading, let alone in an amphitheatre of 40,000 people. Greek tragedies confuse me- that’s really all I know after reading both Electras.

V day and the Greeks J'D

The vagina monoluges seemed to link alot to the greek plays we have read.The idea of gifts fate and idenity all were explored.Finding this aspect of womanhood was like recieving fire it had a price of upsetting others.The woman who went to the workshop dealt with that as did the woman who was repeadtly asked by the man to be seen.
There is also the idea of contradcting fates and rules nature verses nuture, nature over nature.One nature outweighing another .That women are bred to be docile but deep within them is something greater is dealt with in the Vagina monolouges as well as a lineage of womanhood that outweighs what a mother want's or society want's in that moment.The same thing is dealt with in the Orestia to kill ones mother is wrong but if she comitted a greater evil that overides.
Linked to that is the concept of fate in all the plays fate seems to be both defied and followed and awarness is always present but only after action can people truly see themselves.

V day and the Greeks J'D

The vagina monoluges seemed to link alot to the greek plays we have read.The idea of gifts fate and idenity all were explored.Finding this aspect of womanhood was like recieving fire it had a price of upsetting others.The woman who went to the workshop dealt with that as did the woman who was repeadtly asked by the man to be seen.
There is also the idea of contradcting fates and rules nature verses nuture, nature over nature.One nature outweighing another .That women are bred to be docile but deep within them is something greater is dealt with in the Vagina monolouges as well as a lineage of womanhood that outweighs what a mother want's or society want's in that moment.The same thing is dealt with in the Orestia to kill ones mother is wrong but if she comitted a greater evil that overides.
Linked to that is the concept of fate in all the plays fate seems to be both defied and followed and awarness is always present but only after action can people truly see themselves.

Meditations on Electra

Title/Subject: Meditations on Electras

This is a reminder that this week's meditations are not due to be posted until Wednesday at noon. You should have read both Sophocles' Electra and Euripides' Electra before writing your post.

Consider the following as a subject for your meditation:

You've now read three versions of the same segment of the same myth. There are many elements of the story that are consistent to all three - consider the characters, their characteristics, their basic actions and the order in which they take place. Some are consistent to two versions but not all three. Some parts of the story are dramatically different from one playwright's version to another.

While it would be wise to begin from individual moments and specific points of contrast, consider also how these differences (or perhaps the moments of consistency!) affect the myth as a whole. What story is Euripides telling, and how is it different from Aeschylus' story? How does Sophocles differ from them both?

It may help to concentrate on (a) how is the story as a whole different in each telling, and what purpose might that serve, or (b) if you're familiar with other works by any of these playwrights (such as Sophocles' Oedipos Tyrannos or Euripides' Medea), what do these differences tell us about how each playwright's style and approach is different? How are Greek tragedies different from one another, even when they're dramatizing the very same myth? What is the nature and purpose of mythic variation, using the Electra narrative as a specific point of focus?

Need Help

Title/Subject:Blogs

If anyone needs any blogs to critique or any critiques of their blogs I am willing to do them, and it would really help if anyone could critique some of mine. thanks. I'm on facebook or if you please comment here so I know to bring them next time or whatever works. thanks again.
Ian

Blog 3

The story of Agamemnon is known for it’s murder, back stabbing, and revenge. I am not good at comparing Greek tragedies with one another, but the movie Spider-Man and the sequel Spider-Man 2 remind me of the powerful need for revenge. Peter Parker (spider-man) is best friends with Harry Osborn. Spider-man kills Harry’s Father Norman Osborn (green goblin), therefore Harry wants to avenge his father’s death. The overwhelming anger controls Harry and his determination for revenge grows. Greek tragedies may be considered to be fake stories but they are still relevant to life as we know it today. Murder obviously occurs on a daily basis and the stories behind each murder can be compared to a Greek tragedy. Revenge for someone is very common because you or another person may feel wronged and you want the person who wronged you to feel the way you do. It is a very selfish way to think, but we all have done it.

meditation 3

Title/Subject:In the play Agamemnon, the thing that I get most out of it is the concept of revenge. I like to watch comedy movies and this revenge reminded me of the movie Anchorman. In the movie Anchorman, the new TV anchor is a woman and she is out to prove that she is just as good as the men at this job. She and the lead anchor, Ron Burgundy, have their issues with each other for obvious reasons like pride and wanting to be the best. The woman anchor takes her revenge on Ron for not treating her as an equal and makes him say something very inappropriate for a TV news show. While this doesn’t actually kill Ron literally, it figuratively could because he has nothing left to live for without his news show. No children are involved in the revenge like in the play, but this is the fist thing that came to my head when we were asked to compare what Agamemnon reminds me about.

Meditation Three: Agamemnon is just like the rest of them.

I think that Agamemnon is a lot like all the other Greek plays and epics I have read in my years of studying theater and the history of theater. I know that plays like this, Oedipus Rex, etc; are supposed to be very important and influentional to modern day theater, but I find them all rather boring.


I think that most Greek plays sound very similar in plots and in action, even in the way that they are told. Perhaps that is how it was meant to be, especially if they were putting on these plays as part of a festival where the best one won prizes, but I don’t understand why they are exalted so much today. Yes, they are the backbone of today’s theater. That doesn’t make the characters interesting or the plot ingenuous. Someone always gets betrayed, someone goes off to war, one family member kills another for any multitude of reasons – I feel like I am always reading the same play over and over. I understand how important they were to the development of actors – Thespis stepped out of the chorus, then came at least two to three actors for every performance – but I am simply bored by reading Greek plays. They all remind me of one another.

Seen it all before

Agamemnon follows the typical pattern of any tragedy. Comparisons can be made to Shakespeare regarding the common themes of jealousy, murder, adultery, etc. Many comparisons are made regarding such works as Hamlet and Macbeth, and also a few from Romeo and Juliet. The most common theme seen in tragedies, or at least the most prominent anyway, is the insatiable need for revenge.

As with many tragedies, a need for revenge is one of the main themes. This was certainly the case with Hamlet, who was trying to avenge his father's untimely demise. Clytemenestra was seeking revenge for a more personal reason - mainly, the concept of 'hell hath no fury like a woman scorned'. The irony here was that she was not only the scorned, but the one doing the scorning, so her need for revenge wasn't completely justified as it might otherwise have been had she not been an adultering bitch as well as a mother mourning her child. Her character could be compared to that of Beatrix Kiddo in Kill Bill - she at first believed her child had been killed, and was determined to kill everyone responsible as revenge for that act - but Bill made that not such an easy task, because he ordered attacks on her after she left him. The concept there was that there were consequences to breaking the heart of a murdering bastard. Revenge also plays in regarding Romeo and Juliet, with Romeo killing Tybalt in response to his slaying of Mercutio. Those murders put Romeo's life into a tailspin that eventually ended in his uneccessary and tragic suicide.

Agamemnon and The Princess Bride

After reading Agamemnon in its entirety, I became plagued as to how to relate it or correlate it with anything. In its time this play was probably an intriguing notion with originality on its side. I soon came to realize, however, that this story is most definitely recapitulated continually in different light with slight modifications over the course of history. I've read Kyle's comparison to The Lion King, and like his, I chose to compare it to a movie.

The Princess Bride contains a character that is full of ambition and fury for vengeance, Inigo Montoya. Although the murderer that he seeks is not a strong, independent woman, the story line is mostly the same. In the stead of Clymnestra, a six-fingered coward is the one who committed the murder.

The actual search for his father's killer is what takes place during this movie, which is more closely related to The Libation Bearers. However, the expository play Agamemnon is crucial in the development of sympathy for both Clymnestra and her vengeful son. The Princess Bride does not have this element of setting up, we only see Inigo Montoya and learn of his past through his dialogue.

In short, the characters of Agamemnon are strikingly similar to that of The Princess Bride. Buttercup correlates similarly to Cassondra, the beautiful bride that has been taken away as a concubine (maybe not an exact carbon copy of Cassondra, but its close). Westley embodies Agamemnon, and Inigo Montoya does the same for Agamemnon's son.

Once again, the storyline of at least one the characters in The Princess Bride is similar to that of Agamemnon, but as one can also see, it is very different as well. This work is so great that Aeschylus' story will continue to be retold through different persepectives and modified plot structure.

Amanda Mims

After reading this it took a while for me to find anything that it reminded me of. I was drawn to the classic story of the beautiful Helen as well as the sacrifice of Iphigenia for some sort of success. Sacrifices were critical to religion back then and certain religions such as Santeria still practice it today, however they only use animal sacrifices. This intrigues me so I decided to research sacrifices as well as the god Artemis to see if sacrificing certain things made the gods happier than other things. It seems as though she would not allow any deed to go unpunished, she loved revenge. The only sacrifice that Artemis would receive would be that of a virgin girl. She was pure and valued her virginity, when she was a young girl she asked her father, Zeus, to grant her eternal virginity. One of the most interesting things I found about Artemis was from www.pantheon.org , it said: “When young girls reached puberty they were initiated into her cult, but when they decided to marry, which Artemis was not against, they were asked to lay in front of the altar all the paraphernalia of their virginity, toys, dolls and locks of their hair, they then left the domain of the virgin goddess.” This fascinates me the way that there is such a large transition between being a virgin and no longer being one, because in every society it is a critical moment, but Artemis made that moment so much more serious.

Meditation 3

In reading Agamemnon, I noticed that there are many trends of backstabbing and revenge involved in Greek theatre. Even from just knowing the stories of Prometheus and the Gods and the Titans, all the gods seem to have gained their titles by overthrowing their Fathers for things they have done and in turn been overthrown for pain they have caused. Actually, the best example I can think of that relates to the revenge that is sought through avenging deaths and all the suffering that occurs because of the deaths is Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Hamlet is trying to avenge his father’s death, much like Clytemnestra is trying to avenge her daughter’s death. Both have come up with elaborate plans to reach their goal and end up hurting themselves in the end, Hamlet dies and Orestes is seeking Clytemnestra for revenge of his father’s death. This sort of story with revenge, murder and turning on family members occurs quite often throughout history. In reading other meditations there are several more examples, from the Bible and Chicago and so on; but the story of revenge is a very prevalent one through time. I believe that this sort of story is used over and over again because it is a very simple controversy to want revenge for pain caused to you- it is an easy story to rewrite and tell again and in many different ways.

Utter Greekness (Micaela Hoops)

Title/Subject: What is familiar to me about Agamemnon?

Familiarity struck me with Agamemnon’s utter Greekness. It is full of prophecy, tragedy, revenge, murder, of which consist Greek tragedies. I see many parallelisms in Oedipus Rex, the Odyssey, Medea, and Macbeth. Revenge inspires all of these plays; each a mirror to life’s tales of vengeance. Agamemnon sought revenge; Clytemnestra sought revenge; the chorus of old men sought revenge. It is a universal theme.

Revenge seems so arbitrary, since the deed that ignited the desire for vengeance is already done- revenge will not undo any tragedy; yet, it is so fundamental to human history and literature. I thought it interesting the recurring stories; Aeschylus mentions Odysseus in lines 305-310, claiming he is ignorant of whether Odysseus had a safe journey. Agamemnon has a much more poignant similarity with the Odyssey, though, and that is the defiance of the Gods by the humans. A battle between mankind’s hubris and the Gods is a recurring theme. The Odyssey begins because Odysseus defies Poseidon; his journey is made a miserable one by the God of the ocean. Of course, in Agamemnon, the defiance is a much more subtle one; it is one forced upon Agamemnon by his wife when she demands that he walk on the purple pavement she ordered out to celebrate his victory and wealth. He feels it is the God’s privilege to “tread embroidered beauty”; perhaps it is the playwrights’ intention to connect a possible punishment from the Gods. Cassandra suffers the same ailment, having cheated her lover Apollo, and now suffers not escaping his anger. What’s interesting is that “one will come after to avenge my death, a matricide, a murdered father’s champion” and this satisfies her; honor is satiable. In fact, honor demands retribution: Clytemnestra is injured by her husband, just as Medea is, and exacts revenge; however the difference is that Clytemnestra is avenging her child’s murder, while Medea is avenging with her children’s murders.

Children are often the victims of their parents self-destructive actions, especially in Greek tragedies. In the Odyssey, Odysseus’ son is almost the skeleton of his mother’s suitors’ cruel desires. Oedipus is sent off to die by his parents’ fear of the prophecy on their death; ironically, they set up the conditions, which would lead Oedipus to killing his father. Prophecy is always a predicament human’s try to solve, but only fulfill those very predictions. In much of Greek literature is self-fulfilling prophecy a recurrence; it also occurs repeatedly in Western literature. Macbeth is a clear example of this; even though the prophecies seem unrealistic- like his being killed by a man not born of woman. Of course this is part of the genius of Shakespeare: he continues the tradition of making impossible prophecies come true. But this is off topic, just an inserted opinion.

The point is that prophecies are realized continuously. What is inevitably crossed upon is revenge and prophecy; therefore these are familiar to the human condition.
It seems that the Gods have brought nothing but grief to humans; it was because of three Goddesses that the Trojan War began at all. It was for Artemis’ favor that Agamemnon sacrificed his daughter. The originary epic, Gilgamesh, is manifest by the interference of the Gods’ in Gilgamesh’s life. He meets his friend Enkidu because of a God’s manipulations; Enkidu is sent a woman- the first woman he encounters- by a God, to civilize him and send him to fight Gilgamesh. This man profoundly affects Gilgamesh’s life. Humankind has been writing about life and fate explained through direct and indirect influences of divine hand. Even now, we can admit (I know I can) attributing unexplainable events to divine intervention just by asking ‘God’ why something happened. Or justifying decisions to God’s mission; I mean, we are on a crusade in Iraq passing out God’s gift of freedom. This is a familiar recurring behavior of humans. In fact, even revenge plays out in the Iraqi war; didn’t Saddam Hussein threaten George Bush senior? Is President Bush not motivated a little by vengeance? It’s eerie to think that we have not changed much since we started recording history. Anyways, there is just one more thing I will mention; it’s a detail that made me pause. His wife stabs the unwitting Agamemnon; he is betrayed. Julius Caesar was also stabbed by betrayal.

Written by Micaela Hoops
Posted by Kirk Andrew Everist 2/12/07

Agamemnon and All My Children

Title/Subject: Meditation 3

The Oresteia is something akin to a primordial soap opera or miniseries. I do not say this by any means to disrespect the ancient art of tragedy. I merely see a correlation between these seemingly distant forms. Agamemnon is especially soap operatic in that very little action occurs in the episode aside from a few dramatic tidbits here and there. The entire play takes place in a single day much like any good daytime television drama. The resemblance between themes is absolutely undeniable: murder, betrayal, adultery, vengeance, etc. Audiences have always been drawn to stories that are rich in their own history. Housewives and the elderly tune in week after week to see new developments in the characters they know and love. The characters of The Oresteia possess a similar layering. However, in tragedy one cannot simply dismiss previous character developments like those in Days of Our Lives. Clytemnestra is a prime example of how detrimental this can be. The murder of her husband cannot merely be reduced to avenging her daughter’s death. As is revealed to us at the end of the play, there are many layers to this crime. Her affair with Aegisthus, her husband’s cousin, and the appearance of Cassandra have no doubt played into her decision to take Agamemnon’s life. If one considers these as a part of her motive, then she does not exactly come out of the situation smelling like roses.

Revenge in Agamemnon - 3

Greek Tragedies are often characterized by very dark plotlines involving themes like betrayal, murder, and deceit. Agamemnon, the first play in Aegisthus’s trilogy The Oresteia, is no different. In this play, revenge acts as the main force that drives the characters Clytemnestra and Aegisthus to murder Agamemnon and Cassandra. One can see such acts of revenge in theatrical productions throughout time. Two examples of plays that contain acts of vengeance similar to those in Agamemnon are Shakespeare’s tragedies Hamlet and Macbeth.

In Agamemnon, Clytemnestra’s husband, Agamemnon, sacrificed their daughter, Iphigeneia, to gain support from the gods in the Trojan War. Clytemnestra was greatly angered by this and plotted to kill her husband to avenge Iphigeneia’s death. This idea of seeking vengeance for the murder of a family member is evident in Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Macbeth. In Hamlet, King Hamlet’s ghost tells Prince Hamlet that he was murdered by his brother, the new King Claudius. The Prince becomes determined to plot against his uncle and avenge his father’s death.

Another example of a character that seeks revenge for the murder of a loved one is in Shakespeare’s play, Macbeth. In this piece, Macbeth learns from three witches that he should beware of the Scottish nobleman Macduff. In fear of losing his title as king, Macbeth orders for Macduff’s family to be killed. Upon hearing that his wife and children were executed, Macduff promises to defeat the person responsible as a reprisal for his loss.

Like many Greek Tragedies, the action in Aeschylus’ Agamemnon is driven by a mother that seeks revenge for the death of her daughter. However, by examining Shakespeare’s plays Hamlet and Macbeth one can see that this idea of seeking vengeance is not only evident in ancient theatre, but in Shakespearian theatre as well.

Same Difference

After studying Greek tragedies in high school and now in college, there are some common ties between all of them. Not just within the lineage of the Greek rulers, but also in the lives and happenings in each story. They begin with war, such as in The Iliad by Homer, and there is much death and suffering within the communities and the families of the soldiers. Much of the stories are told by the Chorus, who share characteristics of each character, and they give clues as to what might happen later in the play. There is mourning. In Agamemnon, the chorus is reminded of the sacrifice of Agamemnon’s daughter, and they mourn for the soldiers and Menelaus who are all lost at sea after their success in the war.
Another thing in common between the tragedies is the theme of jealousy. Clytemnestra is jealous of Cassandra, Agamemnon’s slave and concubine. Clytemnestra tries to be friendly, but fails in her attempt. Cassandra has a premonition, much like the other Greek Tragedies when one of the characters can see death, and, again, much like other tragedies, Cassandra has a premonition about a curse that has been laid upon the house of Agamemnon, and that he as well as she, will die. And sure enough, her predictions come true, and Clytemnestra has murdered both her husband and Cassandra.
In relation to other Greek tragedies, this play is very similar. There’s pride, jealousy, murder, death, premonitions, and confusion. Greek tragedies are all quite confusing, at least in my point of view!

bloodlust and intelecutalism in the Orestia

ahh, "hell hath no fury..." well you know the rest.

take note, we now have a chorus leader, one who has stepped out to speak for the chorus on thier own. So what aspects of individualism in greek culture does this represent? from what i can tell the chorus is really a crowed, though thier dialogue is in unison it is really a discussion among themselves, the thoughts of the people. So where and why did we get a single person stepping forward to question the players of this story? if he really is a single person, how does his dialogue differ from the chours
line 520 "I would oten groan from a darkened heart" the I here is most interesting of the chourus leader. "I" mourned for my king etc... he is speaking though, of the land itself as an entity, longing for its ruler.

anyhoo, also find it interesting about the Greeks in general the furies, the spirits of vengences, are usualy personified as women.

ok onto the real deal, the concept of justice and revenge. The Greek tragedies are all about the “Natural” order of things. Reg, patri, fratri, and matricide are all constants. However, the act of revenge appears to be perfectly normal, even something that sets back the balance of the world. i.e. you kill one of my people ergo the world is out of wack until I kill you. I love this concept of a very “primitive” justice and am even more fascinated by our modern departure from it. Clyaemnestra’s sin is hardly the fact that she slays the killer of her child, but that it was her husband and king. She and Aegisthus have brought ruin upon them and theirs because they have killed their king and family, an act which the gods will surely frown upon. Interestingly enough, it was Artemis who demanded the sacrificing of Agamemnon’s daughter in the first place. Of course it falls upon Orestes to kill his mother and Aegisthus in order to avenge his father. However this matricide breaks the natural law and he is persecuted by the furies as a result. The existence of tragedy hinges on this concept. In order to fulfill one of our duties/obligations we must betray another, begging the question “what is noble?/how should be live?”
this is all well and good when examining the classics, but does anyone else notice a little continuity problem when looking at these (and indeed many other even non-Greek) works. “Murder” is not a sin as long as it is “justified”. The act of vengeance is regarded in a positive light. If someone were to kill your family, you would be expected to kill the killer to avenge your family. I just want to note, that these were not some primitive, backwater, cannibalistic people. These were an intellectual people from whose culture we see the roots of history, science, philosophy, mathematics, not to mention theatre and they were expected to carry this hubris which entailed killing for honour.
well, i got no juice left tonight to continue this discussion

blessings be
Lord Addison

Revenge

In the play Agamemnon, Clytemnestra takes revenge on her husband for killing their child in order to let his fleet be able to make it to Troy to fight a war. Getting revenge is a common practice that can occur in our everyday lives. Whether it is hitting an enemy or holding a grudge, almost everyone has practiced revenge in some size, shape or form. One example of a movie that shows revenge is Remember the Titans. While no one dies in this movie because of revenge, revenge is still shown. The city council that elects high school football coaches to the county hall of fame get revenge on Coach Bill Yoast for not losing a game to an all white football team. Their revenge consisted of not letting Coach Yoast into the Hall of Fame. Another movie example of getting revenge is the movie The Lion King. This movie is more like the play Agamemnon, because Scar is killed by Simba after Scar kills Simba’s father. Another way they both relate together is the fact that the killing is all done throughout one family. There are also everyday life examples that can be compared to this play. Many times we see on the news where a child dies and people are killed because of that child’s death. Revenge can be an ok thing if it is not taken to the extreme. However, when that happens, death can occur to innocent people if it gets out of control.

Greek Tragedies

Title/Subject:Agamemnon

Throughout theatrical history, themes of death, power, greed, betrayal and fate reoccur time and time again. Agamemnon proves itself no different. As I read on, the similar themes kept showing themselves; behold is Helen's power of beauty, in Greek Mythology, the goddess of love, Aphrodite expelled beauty's power to achieve her goals. During this play, I found multiple instances of common Greek myths. The prophecies reminded me of Oedipus Rex and Oedipus' journey to escape his fate, yet ironically only traps himself into the situation. Another play where prophecies play a crucial role was Shakespeare's MacBeth, the three haggard witches prophesize MacBeth's greatness and rise to power, thereby deeply impacting MacBeth's future. Death played a vital role as well, reminding me of oh so many Shakespearean and Greek Tragedies, the best examples I think of are Hamlet and Medea - where Death not only creates drama, but character motivation and reactions which broaden the storyline. When Aegisthus' brothers are served as dinner, this reminded me of the Greek Myth of Zeus, eating his children.

Shakespeare seemed to be one of the most prominent authors whose stories correlated with Agamemnon. Not only the themes, but the lyrical type which the play was narrated, connecting sharing links. But like I already stated, this also seemed like a typical Greek Myth, complete with death, fate and just a dash of cannabalism to spice it up a bit.

Meditation #3 -- Katie Marchant -- 2/11/07

Because I couldn’t find something in Agamemnon that reminded me of something else I researched the sacrifice of daughters and the most similar sacrifice is from the Bible. In Judges chapter 11, verses 29-40 a man named Jephthah vows to God that he will sacrifice the first person who comes out to greet him if he returns home victorious from the war against the Ammonites. When Jephthah returns home after decimating the Ammonites the first person to come out and greet him is his only child, a daughter. He was devastated and did not want to go through with his vow to God but his daughter told him that he had to and all she requested was two months to spend with her friends before Jephthah sacrificed her. Her father agreed and after the two months she returned to her father and he performed the sacrifice.

The similarities between the story of the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter and the sacrifice of Iphigenia include that their fathers sacrificed them to a god, similar circumstances; both of the fathers needed the help of a higher being in warfare, Jephthah with the Ammonites and in Agamemnon with appeasing Artemis for better winds sailing to Troy to defeat the Trojans and retrieve Helen, and also the fact that neither of the daughters fought their impending sacrifice. One of the differences is that in the Judges story we do not know how Jephthah’s wife reacted to the sacrifice of her only daughter while in Agamemnon we know that Clytemnestra was upset enough to murder her husband in retailiation.

http://www.gospelhall.org/bible/bible.php?passage=Judges+11&search=&ver1=esv&ver2=&commentary=&submit=Search

Agamemnon Blog 3

The idea of getting revenge for a past wrong is old as time, I've seen it in countless movies, books and plays. The idea that revenge is a dish best served cold seems all the more evident in the play Agamemnon. This is also not the first time I've seen a wife kill a husband, or a man come back from war victorious being killed. As for the matricide, this is seen in the movie Chicago, in fact the very idea is celebrated in the song and dance sequence "Cell Block Tango", the idea of murdering ones husband over a wrong against them is a very common theme running through different facets of performance, and or life itself. In Hamlet we see revenge as a very logical idea, because of the reasons behind it, his father was killed so to get back at those that had wronged him and his father, he takes it upon himself to seek revenge. In Kill Bill, the very title tells you the plot, which in a lot of ways is very similar to Agamemnon. Sometime ago Bill with the help of his army supposedly killed her family and her baby girl. We of course later find out the baby is alive, but the point still remains the baby girl, the love of Beatrix Kiddo's life was thought to be murdered before she was conceived. And so Beatrix seeks revenge, and to achieve this revenge she has to kill her lover Bill. In actuality we also see some of the Electra myth as well in the fact that Bill is a father figure. But there are countless examples of current media in our daily lives that has some resemblance to Agamemnon.

GRRR!!! cant figure out how to post....frackin kids these days and thier frissen frassen technomailhullabulloo

first off, i hate blogger.
i forgot my username so I posted a post as anonymous on monday and it said it had to be approved by the person in charge of the blog, but i still dont see it up here. well, here is the prometheus post with a link to the paint picture i drew for it on facebook. GRRR!!! cant figure out how to post....frackin kids these days and thier frissen frassen technomailhullabulloo
blessings be
http://austincollege.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=30238757&id=35702024&ref=mfPrometheus bound Stage directions
This version is written to be performed in a black box theatre using either a round or three quarter’s round seating arrangement. The seats should be raised so as to create a “pit” for the performance on stage. Audience (A) seating is raked and the aisles should be ramped or have stairs so that the aisles are level with the raised seating. The chorus (C) should be dressed in civis with plain, expressionless face masks speak from both aisles so as to proved a feeling of the “audience” speaking. Each aisle should have one man and one woman speaking. Center stage should be a rock where Prometheus is bound. The rock should be raised almost level wit the feet of the first row of audience members. I thin I want to take out the bridge between P’s rock and everybody else, but not sure. Otherwise the ramp should go to Upstage where Hermes and Hephaestus speak. This area should be raised so they stand above the heads of the first row of audience so they might seem larger than everyone else (they are gods so let’s give them some credit). P stands C and after Hephaestus’s exit there should be a spot on him. If possible make sure his bound hands are not visible. Hands should be kept in the dark throughout. Otherwise hands should be cuffed and chained either upstage or to the ceiling. I know I have violence written twice, what I mean is there is a violence and power on each side (will probably need a circular cast for Violence/Power/Chorus/ Ocean/etc…). They speak from behind the audience on either side (possibly trading off lines). Violence is male on stage L and female on stage R, opposite for Power. Violence is clad in all black and power in all white robes (not necessary, but the more androgenness the actors, the better). Both should wear expressionless face masks of matching colour. Ocean speaks from place marked “ocean”.

Staging Prometheus Bound

Unfortunately, I think my ideas for staging Prometheus Bound are very similar to everyone else’s. I think that a play that was originally done with very minimal set, like in the Greek era, should be performed today in a similar way. The story is complex enough without ever-changing sets.


I really like the idea of taking the prologue and staging it like the actors talking are in a classroom or talking about class – I think that this would help engage college students or young adults who may not know a lot about Greek myths. I think that the stage should be dark, expect for a large spotlight on the students at the front of the stage. They are sitting in chairs with desks attached to them, much like what we have in many of the buildings at Austin College.


I think that the way I see the play being done is the type of approach I would expect if it was being done in a college setting – the actors aren’t professionals and neither are the set builders. I would have one large boulder with low ledge for Prometheus to sit/kneel. The rest of the action would take place on the actual stage, which is only a little lower than the ledge of the boulder.


I think that each character would be designated a color that would be displayed by projection behind the boulder – the Daughters of Ocean would be blues and greens, Io the cow-girl would be browns, blacks, and reds. Any action with Violence and Power would have very dim and minimal lighting. The stage would remain mostly dark when the Daughters, Io, or the messenger comes, but the boulder and it’s immediate surrounding would be well lit.


I don’t think Prometheus Bound needs an elaborate set. I think that there needs to be more focus on costumes, lights, and sounds.

Meditation One : My Theater Background

I thought that I had a fairly good grasp on theater history. I know that it stems from Greek festivals to honor the god Dionysus, the myth of Thespis, etc. In junior high and high school, I ended up taking 4 years of theater – much of my classes were devoted to some form of theatrical history. I also know a bit about theater, simply from a performer’s standpoint.


After being in class for a day, I realized that from the time after the Greek festivals up until Shakespeare’s time, I’m a little fuzzy on what happened in the theater. I know I’ve learned bits and pieces, but I can’t readily recall much of what I’ve learned. I think I know most about the costuming and casting of Shakespeare’s time – women weren’t allowed on stage, patrons gave the theater their old garments and things like that.


I’ve read a few plays from earlier Greek writers and I’m familiar with many of Shakespeare’s works. My primary reason for taking this class is to learn about what went on in between. The history I know about theater is already a rich history, I know that the parts I’m missing will be interesting as well.

I need a clever title...

As I read this, I see a more modern production. I see the proscenium stage with the typical audience facing the stage on one side, and the lights are dimmed enough so that you see starts on a single drop hanging on the front of the stage. In the first part of the show, the speakers are standing on the downstage right corner, with no Prometheus with them. They are speaking off stage to him as though he is standing right there in the wings. When they go to chain him, the one chaining him walks off stage to do such an action and then walks back on stage to continue delivering his lines.
Then, there is a blackout. And as the lights come back up, you can see through the scrim, as it is also rising, to a huge boulder in the middle of the stage with Prometheus bound to it. And as the chorus speaks, they walk out to the front of the rock to speak to him. As the chorus of girls comes in, there is a light sort of piano music playing in the background as they sing and dance to it. I also see Ocean flying down on a moster-looking contraption and landing on top of the rock, to speak to Prometheus from atop the boulder. After the chorus has finished their singing, they remain silent as Prometheus speaks. Once they start their second Ode, they are dancing and singing around the rock, circling many times. Suddenly, there is a single light on the back of the stage, making it possible to only see the outline of the people on stage, as Io enters onto the stage. She stays towards the stage left corner of the stage as she sings her songs. The lights slowly come back to normal as Prometheus notices her. She stays to the left of the boulder as the chorus moves to the right side, watching intently as Prometheus’ story is told. Finally, Hermes appears stage left, and the lights change to a red tone. As Hermes exits, there is a sudden blackout with flashing lights to be like lightning and roaring thunder. Total blackout; lights come back up to an empty stage and the background lights bright much like with Io, where if there were something on the stage, only the outline would be seen. The split second Prometheus finishes his exclamation, there is a blackout. Curtain closes.

Title/Subject:Monday, January 29, 2007

first Meditation

So it's a perfect day in California the waves are high the sun is out and I have of course chosen to spend hours in a dark theatre with the works of a dead white guy known as the Bard,looking up words no longer in the basic dictionary.
I am taking this class because I am enough of a dork to have have researched, acted in, and directed Shakespeare for fun (although I often still spell his name wrong) and I still am hungry to learn more about him and theatre in general.I like theatre history because theatre needs people to stay alive. If you understand a play you can actually revitalize it, create a time machine of sorts ,mabye it won't be exactally the same but I like the idea that theatre needs you . Once a movie or a painting is created that's it. You can enjoy the work but you can't be the artist. Theatre lets you particpate.
AC has a great collection of books on Shakespeare my knowledge is from that and a number of other sources including an amazing actor/dramaturge I met two years ago during "As You like It" who I am currenlty blanking on the name of.I also like http://www.shakespearehigh.com/library/surfbard/ and The Merry Wives of Windsor (Arden Shakespeare: Third Series) (Paperback) by William Shakespeare, Giorgio Melchiori (Editor) is the best scholarly work I have ever read on anything.It answered so many questions of mine about the background and inspiration of Shakespeare it was astounding.
Also I like http://www.m-w.com/ to hear words out loud.My knowledge of the orgin of theatre officially is that Thespis a Greek steped out of the chorus and the play as we know it was born.i learned this to perform a "dance" for Thespians.But I know there's alot before and after Thespis in Theatre history.Personally I think the orgin of theatre is bordeom I once saw a play called Pagent that was created by a bunch of guys stuck in a log cabin after a snow storm.That to me is how all great plays start "I'm bored tell me a story, I'm tired of only hearing you I want to be in the story too, lets have costumes lets add .... into the future.
P.S. I learned habitual elipses use and much of my theatre knowledge from Joe Powers.
P.P.S. The picture( which you can no longer see accept on a seprate blog called meditation one) is a break backstage of Merry Wives it reminds me of "American Gothic."
Posted by artpoet at 9:13 PM 0 comments

Meditation 2 Julia D

Meditation 2
Prometheus is Shackled to the wall of center stage which should be painted like rock. Across the rock is a huge spread eagle shadow image painted to show how big Prometheus the Titan is compared to the actor. The rest will be a rock wall for characters to climb. If possible Prometheus is dragged up the wall by violence but as this may be hard Prometheus can climb up because he has already accepted his fate. When he is shackled he should also be nailed there and the vibrations should be felt by the audience through the speaker systems. When stories are being told points in time the stage will be will rise from the floor a vision of a fire will appear on it . The chorus has the arms inside to long blue silken feathered wings they move them up and down in a ordered fashion like the movement of a Chinese dragon. The Ocean is lowered from the fly on a paper mache horse with wings of the same silken fabric his daughters wore but more billowing. Io wears a cattle skull rather then horns.