Now that we've completed the first "unit" of the year, it's time to look at some of the underlying themes and connections in the texts so far. Remember that your participation grade is worth 100 points, that's roughly 8-10% of your semester grade, so it's not something you can blow off without consequence.
If you're one of those who never say anything in class, this is a chance to show that you are actually engaged in the readings. If you do speak up, that's great, but contributing to the online discussion couldn't hurt, either. Make sure your contributions are thoughtful and well-written. Don't incite arguments, be civil when you disagree with each other. Try to come up with something new and interesting, rather than posting a bunch of posts that only say "that was a great point, I totally agree." You may talk about all the texts and all the topics, or just pick a few that grab your interest.
I will be tracking your contributions, especially if you're absent on lecture days.
The texts under discussion this time are:
The Oresteia
Mourning Becomes Electra
A Rose for Emily
Hamlet
Sweeney Todd
A Modest Proposal
Topics:
1. Vengeance: most of the plays we've read so far have centered around revenge...a crime was committed against the protagonist(s), and getting back at the perpetrator is a key motivation for his actions. In every case, the process of taking vengeance ends up costing the protagonist something else he treasured. Discuss--in some detail--whether the vengeance was justified; what the underlying message of these revenge dramas might be; how to reconcile our sympathy for the protagonist with our intellectual understanding of his failings.
2. Fathers: until very recently in human history, the role of a father was unclear. Before we understood how conception worked, the idea of "paternity" simply didn't exist. For millenia, before DNA was codified, fathers were defined legally as simply the mother's husband (hence the stigma of illegitimacy). Right now, we're actually undergoing a transitional period as issues like surrogacy, sperm donation and same-sex parents affect the traditional ways "fathers" were viewed (see link below for a policy-making perspective on this issue).
Government Document
How do the fathers in our texts affect their offspring? What makes them "good" or "bad" parents? Does being a bad parent make them bad people? Seeing as all the texts were written by men, what can you deduce about the ideas of "fatherhood" that inform their work?
3. Taboos: Murder, incest, rape, cannibalism...historically, humans have avoided speaking openly about such things. These days, with tabloidism running rampant, we're less squeamish about media stories that touch on taboo subjects, but we still don't like to deal with them in our real lives. They still make us uncomfortable when they hit too close to home. What is the purpose of taboo? Why would people be conditioned to not talk about important issues that affect them? Is it in our best interest to bring such things into the open, or should they stay in the shadows?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
37 comments:
On the topic of vengeance, the cost of the protagonist's revenge highlights the cyclical nature of violence. With the saying, "One kind deed deserves another," it could also be said that "One bad deed deserves another." The theme of "an eye, for an eye, for an eye, etc." is prevalent throughout the vengeance drama's like The Oresteia and Hamlet .
Vengeance is commonly carried out by the son in response to the untimely death of his father. In both The Oresteia and Hamlet , both sons seek vengeance over their poisoned fathers. To a certain extent, the cowardly murder through poison justifies the sons' quest for revenge. If, instead, their fathers were killed on the battle field with honor revenge wouldn't be necessary. The trickery involved with poison implies the murderer was a "lesser man" and therefore needs to be dealt with accordingly. However, no matter how justified the revenge, we have to keep in mind that there will be consequences.
After you kill someone it is obvious that there will be some ramifications. In The Oresteia, Orestes is pursued by Furies (demons) until he is set free by Athena. On the other hand, Hamlet's consequence is his own death.
What we now have to decide is if the consequences were worth the revenge. If we take into account the time periods in which these pieces were set, the revenge seems justified in order to preserve honor. However, we shouldn't be surprised that those who sought revenge received some form of punishment. In a modern setting, where honor is less of a priority, revenge seems like a less desirable option.
In conclusion, it can be said that the underlying message of the revenge drama's is that violence only begets more violence. No matter how justified the action is, at its roots, violence and revenge are evil things. To be involved in either will cause corruption to the person. Those seeking revenge should seriously take into account the consequences of their actions.
-----------------------------------
Comments: I hope that was clear and doesn't seem like too much of a stream of consciousness. I only cited two works, so I think it will be interesting to see how the other pieces are used to agree or disagree with my points (if you got any).
On the topic of fathers, the men we read about brought kids into the world with women who could care less about them. As everyone who has had one knows, a good father is a valuable asset.
The father-child relationship is the defining factor of the fatherhood role.The words that a father speaks to his children in the privacy of home are not heard by the world, but they are clearly heard at the end and by posterity.
The fathers in our novels had an affect on their children. These fathers did things such as sending their children away,payed no attention to them, or just flat out had no relationship with them. Growing up with no father around or being neglected by father can cause a child not to develop good social skills or for them to get into bad things. We saw in plenty of these plays how relationships went with the kids and their fathers, and no matter how could or bad their relationships were they eneded up killing. So a role the fathers is critical in how a child turns out because a mother can't do it all on her own.
I would say that most of these fathers were bad parents. They had no interaction with their children at all.Active father figures have a key role to play in reducing behaviour problems in boys and psychological problems in young women.Being a bad parent doesn't necessarily make you a bad perosn. You can be a parent that lives the right way. But in these cases, these particular bad parents are bad people. They've messed up so many timess in their lifetime that even raising a kid the right way wouldn't save them.
When it comes to The Oresteia, Hamlet, and Sweeney Todd, vengeance drives the plot. The desire for revenge is programmed into humans, and those who are "weak" enough to give into that desire are ultimately punished for their lack of backbone. In all three texts, probably about 90% of the story's drama could have been avoided if the protagonist had simply said "You did a horrible thing, but I won't sink to your level and return the favor." For example, in Sweeney Todd, Todd could have very well come back to England without vengeance as his life's purpose, and he could have lived a comfortable life as a barber. Though it is true that he never would have been truly happy knowing that Johanna was with the nasty, perverted old Judge, Todd would definitely have ended up with more than he did by the end of the play. Also, if he had taken the blinders of revenge off, he might have been able to recognize Lucy as his long lost wife.
When analyzing the behavior and characteristics of fathers in the texts we have read, there doesn't seem to be a single "pure" father. When I say pure, I think of Atticus, from To Kill A Mockingbird. It's not that he was a saint or anything, but no one could argue that he wasn't a loving parent and an excellent role model. Both Agamemnon and Ezra Mannon are caring, but perhaps too much so. Sweeney Todd, who is a father himself, also loves Johanna. But all three characters' love for their respective daughters are slightly twisted in their own ways. The Judge, who is a foster father to Johanna, openly reveals to the audience his lust for Johanna. So far, the fathers we've read about aren't exactly the most loveable characters. They're a little sick, actually.
Taboo topics have been, and most likely will always be, hard to address. As humans, the thought of rape, murder, incest, and cannibalism are hard to come face to face with. However, these subjects cannot be avoided forever. Society needs to realize that as horrible as they are, they do exist. Purposely ignoring something that you KNOW is out there will not solve anything. Only when people become familiar with such taboo topics can they slowly shed their "squeamish"-ness and address the issues responsibly and preparedly. Having said this, I also believe that it is completely normal and even reassuring that these topics are taboo. If these topics were NOT taboo, and were casually discussed at afternoon tea, now that would be an even scarier thought. It is human nature to shy away from acts of such violence and cruelty. Learning to openly talk about these issues starts with fear, and then a gradual overcoming of that fear.
In some cases, a taboo serves the purpose of keeping something sacred, for example Orthodox Jews cannot say God's name, YWHW. God's name is far to sacred to write, much less say. Instead, they use a different named, the title 'the LORD'. Obviously, murder, rape, and incest aren't particularly sacred, but the same theory can still apply. If people openly talk about such taboos, it takes away the edge and the implications of the taboo and makes it just another thing in life, like over-use of a swear word. When rape and incest become a common part of language like the integration of swear words in casual speech, they lose the meaning. When you mention rape or incest, people usually recoil or respond with some sort of disgustedness. If murder becomes an acceptable thing in modern speech, then the act itself loses meaning. It's just another kind of death, like dying of old age. Taboos help keep the morality of a society, in a way. When we break down those barriers, we no longer fear the ramification of a crime. 50 years ago, students wouldn't swear in front of a teacher for fear of being punished. Today, we have students swearing at teachers in a classroom setting. Because swearing has become commonly accepted by the media, it is perfectly fine to swear whenever you feel like it.
That's not to say that taboos should be completely swept under the rug, because they shouldn't. The other side of the coin is to completely forget about them, and when future generations come about it might become totally acceptable. Like in all things, this requires balance. Too much will desensitize us, and too little will make us forget why they are taboo in the first place.
Taboos are humankind's accumulated unspoken relationships between : society and an individual, the weak and the strong, a man and a woman, and of course, the creator and the created.
Taboos aid in categorizing people in the "good" list and the "bad" list. It is clearly persumed that, even in the 21st century, anyone that speaks of sex, or manslaughter is labeled as an "inappropriate" person. We have purposely been made uncomfortable toward such topics, so uncomfortable that we are unable to talk about important issues that affect them. This continues to keep us sensitive toward the subject. If we started talking about a certain taboo, we would be so accustomed to the idea that we would no longer feel that it was inappropriate.
It is probably better that we do this. We can't blindly follow society's rules and avoid such topics. They are a part of our life and, who knows, one of us may have to come across one of these "untouchables." If we are open about the taboos, at least we are familiar with them and are prepared if we ever come across one is some form in the future.
A taboo is an ingrained personal, familial, regional, or societal idea that an action or emotion is inherently bad. So bad, it needs to be avoided by polite conversation, which either leaves it to be discussed by the lower classes, or to be completely shunned and left in the shadows.
Incest, rape, cannibalism, and murder, to name a few, are examples of modern day taboos. Incest and cannibalism are used primarily as negative stereotypes, both used to describe peoples that are "tribal", or "uncivilized". But our first encounter with incest occurs in Orestes' Oresteia, an ancient Greek tragedy by an ancient Greek playwright. Surely he can't be considered "tribal"?
But in essence, taboos are a natural way to enforce good behavior, to instill the idea of being a "good neighbor." By shunning the ideas of rape, murder, etc. into the dustbin of society, popular culture made it shameful to do heinous acts. Sure, you could still do them, but you would forever be ostracized from your society.
No story on this list, except for Sweeney Todd, in a reference to priest pie, mentions the clergy. The church was instrumental in the implementation of shame, guilt, and sin into the psyche of the faithful. Primarily to squash any other "pagan" religions other than Christianity, but also as a discrete method of indirect governance. They used shame as self restraint. Does the absence of the church in these stories contribute to the abundance of taboo we see in them?
Tianxiang Xiong, Period 6:
The works that we have read (The Oresteia, Hamlet, Sweeney Todd) that deal with the theme of vengeance are all biased against those who seek revenge; the initial perpetrators, such as Clymanestra, Claudius, and the Judge face no divine retribution. By divine retribution I mean ramifications for their evil acts that do not arise directly from the offended. On the other hand, the avengers are subjected to punishment in the hands of characters that are not directly related to those they wreaked vengeance upon. Orestes is plagued by the Furies, Hamlet and Todd are killed by characters not directly related to the act of vengeance. Such unjust worlds are poor settings for displaying the authors’ message: that pursuit of vengeance comes to no good end and is thus to be avoided. If anything, an unjust world inspires a sense of righteousness for revenge—if God or nature does not punish the evildoers, then man must.
That being said, the excesses of revenge (Hamlet’s killing of Polonius, Todd’s killing of customers, etc.) should not be overlooked—and in these three works the authors have made sure that the avengers do not live happily ever after. All told, Orestes, Hamlet, and Todd deserve pity and sympathy. It would be untruthful to say that, having been pushed as far as these characters, I would not consider walking the same path that they did.
***
Taboo topics are those that put into question our basic sense of what is right and wrong in the world. Murder, incest, cannibalism, etc. must be (and consequently are) universally deplored; when these topics surface, fear that we might find a justifiable cause for them forces us to quickly put them aside. If we can find a good reason for murder, what crime wouldn’t we call into question? If we allow incest, what relationship would still be off-limits? For the sake of a coherent society, these topics must be carven into our minds as “wrong.”
In modern society they can be brought into the open if we hold steadfast to the premise that these acts are not to be condoned; otherwise the nature of these topics invite nothing but wanton sensationalism.
Taboos will always be something people will be uncomfortable taking about in public. If people choose to talk to murder, incest, rape, or such things, the general public is surprised and is eager is learn more. Although we hear terrible stories in the media, we simply cannot digest that others go through this in their everyday lives. This is not because we are ignorant of other people's experiences in society, but because we just cannot imagine ourselves in those situations. As one opens the newspaper every morning, there is a story or another about murder and when we read it, we wish such an event doesn't take place in our lives.
A couple weeks ago, when my mom came home, she told me about a man who her friend used to work in the same company with. Rumors spread that he had raped his own wife back in his country, but the wife never came out with the truth, until last year, surprisingly. When he moved here to the United States, he remarried, but his wife turned him in about five years later..why she did wait that long?! No clue... As my mom was telling me this, I was just shocked. She's told me many stories like this and it's always something at the back of everyone's mind, and a fear many of us must deal with. As much as we hate to hear such depressing stories, we never want to know that many people's lives are ruined and are being ruined. Some taboo customs are prohibited by law, leading to countless consequences, while others bring shame and embarrassment upon people. Taboos are like the basis of society and it gives something to modernize based on. The more we deal with taboos, the more open society becomes and it's a gradual change for future generations.
People would definitely be hesitant to talk about important issues that affect them, because society tends to judge them differently in a matter of seconds. If one violates a taboo, he becomes a taboo himself. He sets an bad example for others or tempts others to follow, becoming a danger for many to avoid. Once they share their experiences with others, people benefit because they learn something for it, but they view them with a sense of disgust and fear as well. Taboos should be mentioned in public, as everyone of us needs to be aware of what's out there and to pass on experiences and stories for others. Bringing taboos into the open gives all of us a chance to learn from others mistakes and to be cautious at all times. Our intentions in urging others to share their stories with the public are not to hurt or embarrass others, but to have a more open minded, tolerant and accepting society that is desired by all.
Vengeance has been a popular theme in the works that we have read this unit. This is a theme that most people can relate to because we have all had a moment where we wished that we got to decide how to justly punish someone. Even though we might not recommend the course of action taken on by characters like Sweeny Todd and Hamlet, we can sympathize with them. The revenge factor adds another dimension to the literary work by making the characters more life-like. If the characters in some of the works from this unit did not breathe revenge, not only would they have been unrealistic, but I would have disliked reading about them. By seeing the reactions to each traumatizing event, we see a part of us in the character. I mean sure, none of us have had to come back as murderous barbers to get revenge on others, but we have all probably felt the hatred that Sweeny had towards the Judge for scattering his family.
On the topic of taboos, I really do not see the need to have them be a part of everyday speech. Sure, I agree with the fact that everybody needs to know about it and needs to know that it happens; but bringing such issues into the open will not have a beneficial effect. Come on people, it’s not like we are dealing with issues such as STD’s where awareness can make the difference; Taboos will exist whether people even know about them and talk about them or not. So the best thing to do as civilized people is to be informed but keep some censorship.
In my opinion, a parent can be labeled as "good" or "bad" based on the way their children turn out. All people are born good people. It is the experiences in our lives, and the ways that we choose to take them in that decide whether we will be good or bad. Our parents have a huge impact on that factor. Children need to have some freedom, but also some discipline. A balance of both will almost 100% of the time lead to a good outcome. If children have no freedom, then they almost always rebel. If children have too much freedom then they dont realize that there are consequences for their actions. Kids, especially males, often look up to their fathers as a role model. If their "father", as with the Judge and Joanna in Sweeney Todd, is trying to have some kind of sexual relationship with them, then that is definitely going to screw the child up in the long run. Or in the case of Hamlet, when Claudius becomes his step-father, that deeply affects the way that he sees his mother.
I would assume that these authors probably had some issues with their fathers growing up because most authors tend to write about things that they had experience with in their own lives.
On the topic of Vengeance:
Common sense and intuition may suggest that the law "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, and hand for hand…” (I believe this is from some sort of biblical text, but please feel free to correct me as my knowledge of the Bible and Christianity is very limited) is a just retribution where the punishment is like that of the injury. However, every single text we’ve read undermines this theory. Instead each text seems to say is that “An eye for an eye would make the whole world blind.” In other words, if the crime is like that of the punishment then the punishment itself becomes a crime and therefore has to be punished, which leads to an endless cycle. In Hamlet, The Oresteia, Mourning becomes Electra, and Sweeney Todd we see this complete cycle take place and in turn every character that sought to punish and seek vengeance is dead.
Not only does seeking vengeance put a character in a situation where they will have to defend themselves of other avengers, it also affects them mentally. Orestes and Orin are both tormented by the guilt of killing their own mothers in the process of seeking vengeance. The only way to avenge their mothers’ deaths would be to kill themselves. Sweeney is driven mad by his quest for vengeance that he adopts the insane idea that everyman high and low deserves to die. In the end Sweeney becomes the one who kills those he was seeking to avenge. Wanting to seek vengeance is the downfall of all the protagonists. Blinded by their love or and the need for vengeance they lose themselves and this is the greatest loss any human could possibly face.
All four of these texts suggest that the cost of vengeance is much greater the justice it may provide. The mere act of murdering destroys a person’s psyche and they are left in confused and insane state. I would also like to point out that The Scarlet Letter, Great Expectations, and The Great Gatsby also support this theme that the quest for vengeance poisons a person.
It’s human nature to ignore the things that make people uncomfortable. In the past, murder, incest, rape, and cannibalism are topics that people have tried to avoid all their lives. Coming into contact with any of these taboos would isolate them from society. Even right now, people do not like to deal with such topics even though they acknowledge their existence. Most people usually are not willing to testify or act as witnesses to things such as murder, and rape, because they are afraid of themselves being in a fix. Society has shaped our beliefs toward these taboos; if society had no influence on our beliefs, the so-labeled taboos would not have been so feared of. People were conditioned not to talk about important issues that affect them because they are in denial. They do not like things that can significantly alter their lives. I think it is in our best interest to bring such things into the open, because without doing so, these topics are always going to evoke chaos and surprise, even thought they shouldn’t because they portray reality, which people are trying to hide from. Overcoming the fear of talking about taboos should make makes us more prepared to hear the truth about the world.
Well generally the definition of a taboo is something improper or unacceptable to discuss in society. In my opinion taboos are created to make certain things not occur as often in life. For instance because people are uncomfortable to discuss rape, murder, or incest they should be less likely to participate in such activities. However this does not occur, according to the U.S. Department of Justice there is a rape every two minutes in some part of America and those are just the stats for rape there are just as bad if not worse ones for murder or incest.
People don't like discussing taboos because it makes them uncomfortable thinking about such things. This is natural according to human nature. However I feel if people were more open to discussing such taboos it might help to stop these disturbing crimes or atleast make them more preventable.
Josh noted the fact that cowardly murder opened the door for vengeance and in a way justified the murders committed in the name of revenge. I just wanted to expand on this a little. Although it is true that every initial murder was committed in a cowardly way (even in Sweeney Todd, although Todd was not murdered by the judge, deporting him was a very cowardly act), the murders that helped avenge the initial deaths were all very cowardly as well.
In Orestia when Orestes moves in to kill his mother and Aegisthus, he hides his identity. He then later kills them both while they are defenseless; not exactly the toughest way to kill an opponent.
In Mourning Becomes Electra when Orin kills Adam Brant, he does so by shooting him in the back.
In Hamlet when Hamlet finally works up the courage to kill Claudius, he doesn't fight him in a fair battle; instead, he stabs the defenseless king. Yes, I know Hamlet was poisoned and unfairly wounded and was going to die soon anyway, but this does not change the fact that he killed Claudius in a cowardly manner. Although I guess it could be argued, depending on your definition of cowardly.
And in Sweeney Todd, Todd wanted to exact revenge on the judge by hiding his identity and then slitting the unsuspecting judge's throat.
So really, the vengeance exacted by each character was an act of hypocrisy as much as it was an act of revenge. You could argue that by first committing a cowardly murder, each character that was later killed deserved to die like a coward should. However, this method of killing would not really bring any of the much desired honor that each avenger was seeking. In reality, they became no better than the murderers who wronged them.
This cowardly murder after cowardly murder sets off a chain as each avenger (except Orestes), in turn, also dies a cowardly death. Orin commits suicide, Hamlet is poisoned, and Todd has his throat slashed while having nothing to defend himself with.
In summary, a cowardly murder was rewarded with a cowardly death in a cowardly manner which led to another cowardly death. I hope I didn't confuse anyone too much, I'll gladly explain myself in any instance you didn't understand. Sorry for writing so much.
Vengeance is a morally gray act. Killing someone because they killed someone else you loved seems like a logical and ok idea. If a person wrongs someone else, they must be punished. Entire legal systems are based upon this premise. In both "The Oresteia" and "Hamlet", the sons avenging their father's death are seen as heroes, upholding moral law. These men cannot risk letting Clytemnestra and Claudius get away with such betrayal, and see the murder they commit as morally and ethically vile.
Paradoxically, vengeance is also seen as a sin. Orestes is punished for eternity by the furies, and Hamlet is killed because of his vengeful motives, leading us to see the error in their thinking. Violence only begets more violence, and "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind". This implies that these men were wrong, and should not have killed their parents.
This two-sided nature of revenge is what makes these stories so interesting. Throughout both plays, the avenging sons spend much time hesitating and considering the ethical ramifications of their actions. If revenge were such a one-sided, black-or-white decision, such thought would not be needed, and the stories would be trite and boring. If the characters don't avenge their dead fathers, they let the murderers get away with the most horrible of crimes. If they do take vengeance, they risk begetting more violence, and having misfortune and folly upon them. In the end, both sons decide that taking vengeance for their beloved fathers is worth eternal damnation murder will bring them
Jeeze, why did you guys have to write so much?
Anyways, whenever 'vengeance' is mentioned, we get this great notion about self-righteous justice. This usually follows by some unintended consequence because the protagonist was to rash or stupid to think things through. For an example, the emo and psychotic HAMLET. "oh boo hoo claudius killed my father and i totally want to avenge my father and bring back teh honor lol" Yeah, okay, so he completes the task. The main problem is that everyone dies in the process. Vengence, when taken into context with the texts we have read, becomes a selfish act to satisfy the inability to cope or tolerate whatever affliction was imposed on them. With the exception of the Oresteia Todd, Vinnie, and Hamlet could have lived better lives if they haven't killed. In other words, I don't think their actions were justified. Our first instinct whenever someone gives us crap is to retaliate; basically that's vengeance/revenge/etc. Most of the time, the best thing to do is to do nothing at all because there isnt anything that can be done without getting yourself (and/or others) knee-deep in sh**. The texts we read illustrates these consequences, and three out of the four plays are considered to be TRAGEDIES. Think about it.
On the topic of vengenance, all the characters that took vengenance either died, or suffered from lonlieness. Not only did they die, but more people died than that one person the revenge was intended for, so no I dont think it was worth it for the sons-or daughters- to avenge their fathers death.
In Sweeny Todd, We saw that Todd was more interested in killing the Judge than reuniting with his daughter. This ties in both with vengenance and fatherhood. he put vengenance over taking back his daughter, showing that being a father was just a title he didnt have to work for.
In Oresteia- Agamemnon sacrificed his daughter because he wanted the name of being a hero.
The daughters always came second. In many places it hasnt changed much even in this era.
I dont think it wouldve made them a "bad" person or a father then because it was common to act that way.
In The Oresteia, Mourning Becomes Electra, Hamlet, and Sweeney Todd there would be no stories if there wasn't vengeance. The underlying message of all these plays is to let things go and stop seeking selfish needs. A lot of the characters in the plays don’t think about how their actions of vengeance are going to affect anyone. I agree with Josh about every story is propelled by the concept of “an eye for an eye” and Vivian’s point about 90 percent of the drama wouldn’t have occurred if people hadn’t sought revenge. It seems ridiculous how all these characters can really think seeking revenge will really relieve them in the end. I think the main catalyst for everyone’s revenge is selfishness because all the characters do what they only want.
Fatherhood is not very well portrayed in all these plays as all the fathers seem to screw up their kids lives. All the fathers love their children in their different ways but they seem to not use their power over them very wisely and forget how to be fathers. Pride gets in the way of fulfilling their fatherhood duties. All the fathers are trying to maintain their social standing or their own standing with themselves. In the Oresteia King Agamemnon will kill his own daughter to win a war and King Hamlet tells Hamlet to kill his own brother to seek revenge. Their pride creates their vengeance on other people. Vengeance and pride never result in really getting what you want and soon as you do something or, in all these plays cases, kill someone, everyone’s life is affected and the children are harmed for life.
On the topic of vengeance, I believe that this is the single cause to most tragic endings in the stories we've read, for example: Sweeney Todd, Hamlet, and Orestia. Most characters could avoid this, and save themselves for what is to be their end. For example, Sweeney Todd could've saved himself and his wife if he hadn't been so focused on his revenge. The fact that he wanted vengeance so bad as he did made him blind to what is front of him. This also is true for Hamlet and Orestia . Laertes could have possibly saves himself from all that trouble if he wasn't so absorbed in avenging his father's and sister's death. But vengeance isn't simply created out of bitter hatred, most vengeance is seeked due to a father's untimely death.
Father's play a detached but formidable role in the lives of the characters we've read. In Hamlet, it became clear that the Hamlet sole purpose was to avenge his father's death and this it what ultimately cost Hamlet his life. This is why i believe that fathers were regarded as formidable. They instill in their sons the honor and glory that are suppose to come with manhood, and some of the characters we've seen, seem to not be able to handle such parental pressures. This brings up why so much of the sons avenging their father's death fail as they do. It seems that the father figure only create the drama and problems that appear within the family. For example Sweeney Todd brought upon his family death, he killed his own wife and left Johanna. This could also be said true with Ezra, he had caused Christine's hatred to evolve and ultimately drive the plot of the story that ended in such a tragedy.
As for the taboos, generally most people avoid mentioning them because they aren't typically the things your bring up during any conversation. It's hard to confront something like murder, incest, or rape. In fact, it'd be strange to bring up subjects such as these. These subjects are hard enough to bring up in normal conversations but they are also hard to confront within yourself. I don't think any of these characters can accept and swallow the fact they have done these crimes or had something happened to them. For a person to admit that they've done these crimes and accept the consequences are too overbearing and same goes for having something happened to them. This is probably why these taboos will most likely remain taboos. It's as if, if you don't bring it up it fails to not exist and that comforts us. But these subjects cannot remain in the dust forever.
For the topic of vengeance, there is one glaring idea that I have to point out. The women in the stories seek revenge because someone has directly wronged them, while the men seek revenge because someone has asked or told them to. Let’s take a look at The Oresteia. Clytemnestra seeks revenge on Agamemnon because he sacrificed their daughter, which is a DIRECT wrongdoing to her. In addition, he rides home conceitedly, flaunting Cassandra in her face. Because of all of the things that Agamemnon does to Clytemnestra, she kills him. She has reasons to because he has wronged her multiple times. On the other hand, Orestes kills Clytemnestra because of an oracle sent from Apollo. The oracle commands that Orestes seeks revenge on Clytemnestra or something horrible will happen. True, it is a direct wrongdoing to Orestes that Clytemnestra killed his father, but would he have come back from exile to seek revenge if not commanded? I don’t believe so. There is a part in the story when Orestes refers to Clytemnestra as mother, and he becomes hesitant. There is no point during the story that shows Clytemnestra to be hesitant. Therefore, her intent to kill is way stronger because she actually wants to do it.
The same idea applies to Mourning Becomes Electra, A Rose for Emily, and Hamlet. Similarly, Christine has no hesitation when she kills Ezra. When he proclaims his love for her, she immediately tells him to shut up, a sign that shows how determined she is. She will not let anything affect what she has set out to do. While Orin, who kills Adam, has the drive to do it, he does not necessarily do it for himself, although there is a huge part of him that hates Adam for taking Christine away. If it had not been for Vinnie egging him on by telling him about the affair, he may not have. So he kills Adam because he has been manipulated by Vinnie. He is actually carrying out Vinnie’s desires, instead of his own.
As for Emily in A Rose for Emily, I believe it’s quite self-explanatory. Homer wants to leave her, so she kills him. A little dramatic on her part, but she DOES have a reason for doing it. He is a jerk for just wanting the sex. Hamlet, also, is self-explanatory. The sons are avenging their fathers. It is arguable that killing one’s father is enough of a reason to seek revenge, even though the wrongdoing is not directly TO that person. But, looking at Hamlet, he may not have had the will to avenge his father if he had not spoken to his father’s ghost. Here it is again with the idea of a male killing another because of an order, or a command.
With that out of the way, I would like to address the justification of each killing. While it is a rash move to kill, I truly believe that each character is justified. Take Sweeney Todd, for example. He kills anyone that enters his shop because he truly believes that he is saving them from the hell that they live in, that he is doing them all a favor. Weird for him to think that way, but is it not justified? Who really has the power in this world to say what one does is right or wrong? The mind is a powerful device. In Sweeney’s mind, he IS doing the right thing. Why should someone else have the power to say that he isn’t?
This links me to the idea of existentialism. An existentialist decides things for himself, without any influence of the outside world. One may believe in something utterly ridiculous, but as long as that person keeps to that belief, and acts upon that belief, then that is all that matters. An individual lives for himself, and not any outside force or law.
Thus, for every character, in his or her mind, every action is justified. It may seem preposterous from our point of view, but because each character is so determined that what he or she is doing is right, then it IS right. For that reason, I believe that all of the murders were justified.
I would like to argue against Mary’s point that all people are born inherently good. Quite to the contrary, humans are born inherently evil, corrupt, and lusting for the worldly pleasures. It is up to the parents, the mother and the father figures, to set a good example and teach their children how to act. For instance, Laertes from Hamlet was always off in France partying and the like. Polonius did not provide Laertes with limits and rules on how he should act, let alone a loving father figure. Hamlet, on the other hand, had a father figure. But when this father figure was taken away from him, for reasons unknown to him, he is unable to find someone else to look up to. He instead takes to hating his uncle. From a Freudian perspective, Hamlet’s over rational thoughts and blood thirst for his uncle’s death may be a reaction to this abrupt loss.
Sweeney Todd was probably the manifest of all the things we consider taboo in today’s society. From rape and incest, all the way to murder and cannibalism. However, back then much of this may have very well been happening in London. Even though Jonathon Swift (who also lacked a father figure) may have wrote A Modest Proposal as a sarcastic piece, there still might be those who have taken it seriously. By putting stories like these out there, they may have been providing some sort of comic relief to the readers. But hey, in a world full of corruption, who’s to say we can’t laugh it off and move on.
According to me, vengeance has been a human condition since the beginning.This is a true human feeling that everybody considers.
In Hamlet, Mourning Becomes Electra and all the other texts related to revenge.. on some part I believe it was justice. Hamlet took revenge of his father's death but that was fair enough.
And speaking about taboos, murder, incest and rape ...humans should understand it and accept it....but still we need to keep it in shadows somewhere,..everyone knows about it anyways,..and i don't think discussing it everyday would help.
The media have changed the way we view some of these taboos. For instance, we see murders and other crimes on the news every day. Yet I believe most people wave it off as just something that happens in society due to the sinful side of the human nature.
From that perspective, I would say, yes, taboos do become meaningless. But surely the acts of those taboos doesn't become meaningless? Repeatedly using rape, murder, and incest doesn't make them any less uncomfortable in real life. I can't imagine selling babies as food to keep parents rich and happy. Nor can I imagine eating pies with human meat in them. But the question is, is it possible that if we all speak cannibalism freely, we can accept eating our fellow human beings?
Unless our values change completely, I doubt we will agree that cannibalism is moral. What about adultery? There are lots of stories of husbands and wives cheating on each other, but I wouldn't say Claudius or Clytemnestra are not doing anything wrong.
Taboos are there to avoid the subject of any shamefulness and fear. They keep us from looking into the problems. If we aren't allowed to talk about the problems, they become very difficult to solve. Seeing all the "taboos" in the works we've read so far didn't make taboos meaningless; the acts themselves are not more justified now compared to before.
I think the purpose of taboos is to make people feel more comfortable about things that we’re not supposed to talk about because when you know its taboo then you know its OK not to mention it. Society turns subjects such as rape, incest, murder, and cannibalism into taboos because they don’t know how else to handle it. I believe that the more something is talked about, whether it is an uncomfortable subject such as rape; people begin to develop the confidence to bring it up. If taboo subjects aren’t talked about they are most likely to happen and people who are affected by such things won’t have the courage to talk about for fear of being ostracized from society. I agree with Vivian when she mentions that just because something is not talked about it’ll make it go away. In fact, I think it has the opposite effect.
The fathers in the texts Sweeney Todd and Hamlet have a great affect on their offspring, Johanna and Hamlet. The death of Hamlet’s father made him seek vengeance and it also caused him to develop a strong hatred towards Claudius. Claudius’ actions towards his mother also made him view his new step father differently. The judge’s sexual and emotional feelings toward his step daughter also mess up Johanna because she thinks the judge deeply cares about her when he’s really having twisted thoughts about her.
Just because the father might be a bad parent, I don’t think it would be fair to label them as a bad person. Some people are raised differently and the way they are brought up has an impact on their own parenthood. Not all parents know if what they’re doing is right or wrong, but the final outcome of their children could give them an idea if they are “good” or “bad” parents.
Since all the texts were written by men I agree with Mary and would assume that the authors probably had some problems with their own fathers or even with their children, if they had any.
On the topic of vengeance:
In every story there is at least on person who commits an act of vengeance. Its justification is purely known by the one reinforcing it, but people from other perspectives view otherwise. It is true that in every case, vengeance leads to a loss of something important. In Sweeney Todd, Todd’s actions led to the murder of his daughter and wife. There is some irony to this because Todd spent all of his time in the play plotting the murder of the man who took them away.
Sweeney was consumed making things even that his motives to avenge his family ultimately led to their demise. The treasure Sweeney lost was the treasure he fought to avenge. His vengeance was justified only in one point of the story. His search for the judge only gave an excuse to quench his thirst to kill. One by one, he killed all of his customers except for one man who brought his family along. The fact that Sweeney did not kill that man was honorable, but the fact that he didn’t with remorse shows that the demon barber could no longer feel what it was like to be in a family and his memory of his wife’s supposed death was only important by name. In my opinion, the underlying message of Sweeney Todd is that being overzealous about revenge will lead to self destruction and the destruction of your surroundings. His failings can be reconciled with the fact that his emotions took over and gave in to human nature.
In Hamlet, Hamlet was driven to kill his uncle after discovering his father’s ghost. His actions were justified, but the way that he carried out his job was not. Hamlet did not have to flaunt the fact that he knew about how his father died to Claudius, but could have made one swift motion to kill him. In the en, Hamlet was able to kill Claudius but ended up passively killing his mother and various other people. I believe that the underlying message of Hamlet was that procrastination makes things worse.
Literally, paternity makes someone the father of another, but fatherhood is understood in another way as well. A “father” must be physically present in the child’s life to be considered a “good” father. This theme throughout the literature is ironic because the absence of the fathers causes much of the conflict. In The Oresteia and Mourning Becomes Electra, the fathers are off at war and the mothers are left at home to tend to themselves and their children. This causes feelings of discontent with Christine and Clytemnestra with their family roles and with their partners.
The presence of the father (or father-figure or two parents of any gender) in the rearing of the child is extremely important. Despite her father’s absence, Lavinia clings to the memory and love she feels for him. The father cannot just be in the symbolic form for them to be effective and good parents. Although Agamemnon and Ezra both appear as symbols of the families pride and accountability, neither of them are present for much of the plot in either of the plays. They do, however, leave a lasting impression on their children. The daughters, Lavinia and Electra, love their dads so much they border on obsession. The absence of their fathers have left them hungry and starved for their attention. Driven by the honor and love for their fathers, they carry out plots of revenge against their mothers. Although they both hate their mothers, the acts they carry out still bring a curse upon themselves and their families.
In relation to the sons, father and son both vie for the affections of the mother. Without a father, Orin and Orestes are forced to become the man of their families. They must carry out the will and law of their fathers. Orin is a little too willing to fill Ezra’s place as Christine’s “man of the house.”
The authors must have lacked a loving father-figure in their own lives. As the absence of the father in these plays drives much of the vengeance and hardship, it would be safe to say that the authors blame much of their struggle on their fathers’ inadequacies as parents. Their ideas of fatherhood seem to suggest merely symbolic ones, since the father is rarely present in either of the plays, and is killed off almost immediately upon arrival home.
The theme of vengeance is prevalent in most of the plays that we read. A character’s need for revenge, for justice, is the driving force behind the majority of the action that occurs in the plays. It is also what eventually leads to the downfall of the character. But not only do their actions ruin their lives, they also negatively impact the lives of those around them. Problems do not always have to be solved by taking revenge. Had the characters not been so blindly driven by their need for revenge and had they acted more mature about the matter, they probably wouldn’t have ruined as many lives. So often, vengeance blinds the character so much that they forget what they are fighting for. For example, in Sweeney Todd, Sweeney decides to avenge the destruction of his family by destroying the judge. He was so adamant about taking his revenge that he became blinded by his hatred for the judge and ended up killing exactly what he was fighting for.
I don’t believe that the actions of those seeking revenge are justified. Those taking revenge believe that doing so will solve all their problems – that they will get the justice they want. However, they don’t take into account the consequences of their actions, which at times are greater that the rewards. For example, in Hamlet, Hamlet’s belief that avenging his father’s death will solve all his problems is proven wrong when, in the end, although he kills Claudius, many other lives are unnecessarily lost as well.
The underlying message in all the pieces is that although vengeance seems to provide the person carrying it out with justice, it also brings about a lot more consequences. It is, as Josh and Vanathi stated, an endless cycle ("an eye for an eye...") and doesn't seem to bring an end to anybody's problems.
I think that for the literary pieces that revolve around vengeance, the authors were careful to allow the reader to relate to the protagonist. We recieve insight to the motives behind vengeance, obviously, and thus see both sides of the conflict. For example, in Sweeney Todd, Sondheim eventually illustrates the tragic fall of Sweeney Todd and how his fortune was stripped from him. Therefore, as a reader, we empathize, even pity, him. This theme of vengeance is closely linked to that of taboo. The conflict in many of the pieces we have read this year is initiated because at least one character defies morals. We have seen countless examples of murder(practically all of the works) and even incest(Claudius and Gertrude in Hamlet). The Oresteia and Mourning Becomes Electra are fine examples of stories made tragic by taboo as we see characters corrupted by both lust and blood-lust. Therefore it is apparent that taboo is the spark that ignites vengeance. That desire for revenge is further fueld by taboo itself. We see characters such as Hamlet and Sweeney Todd attempt to avenge their families, but end up breaking taboos that they had once fought against. This corruption of motives leads to the characters' downfalls, and then we understand that simply ignoring values leads to costly consequences. Jonathan Switft's peice illustrates this concept of taboo not so explicitly. He speaks of eating babies, but he is satirizing the negligent government and through this, he warns of society's downfall. So society is analagous to individuals in that if they commit these taboos, both would crumble under their own corruption.
On the topic of taboo...
The purpose of taboo is identify certain topics that are generally avoided by the multitudes because of the feeling of discomfort that is elicited by the discussion of such topics. Over time cultures change and so do ideals of social correctness. As a result, taboos of yesterday may be taken as trite and commonplace today.
Justifications of avoiding open discussion of taboos varies with the characteristic of the person and situation he/she is engaged in. For example, a man steers clear of the topic of murder rape when he is conversing with others because he does not desire to be reminded of his sister's defiling and subsequent murder years ago. A woman may change the topic of discussion from incest because she fears the ridicule of her peers on her stand on the topic. In short, there is a myriad of reasons that people use to justify their avoidance of taboo discussion.
Despite all these justifications, valid or not, taboos should still be discussed. Much of the time, the cause of human conflicts is caused by the lack of or the unwillingness to communicate and discuss one's mind. Only through civil discussion and holding the utmost respect for those that possess contrasting opinions can mankind develop a peaceful coexistence.
Vengeance is tricky to justify because its not easy to identify a persons intentions for doing what they did. In Hamlet, it was quite easy to see that his vengeance was driven purely by the fact that Claudius killed his father. Some people say violence isn't the answer but what else can you do to a person who committed a crime. I think Hamlets actions were definitely justifiable. You could also say karma takes action. Claudius deserves to lose his life for taking another human beings life. It just happend to be fate that Hamlet was the one to kill Claudius. On the downside of course, Hamlets actions somewhat caused Ophelia to go crazy and suicide. Hamlets plots to kill Claudius kind of backfired and made him lose the love of his life. So at this point 2 people who he admired and loved were dead. The reason for all this was because he was unable to cope with his emotions. They took control of him and he ended up killing Polonius, before killing his intended target! For Mourning Becomes Electra, the vengeance theme is the same thing as Hamlet. Adam Brant could be compared to Claudius, Orin can be compared to Hamlet, and Ezra can be compared to King Hamlet. The same exact plot occurs in Mourning Becomes Electra as it did in Hamlet. Same drives and motivations caused Orin to kill Adam Brant as did Hamlet with Claudius. Hamlet lost Ophelia, and Lavinia lost Orin and Ezra. Just to kill one person, each of the protagonists had to lose 2 of their own loved ones.
I think the key message to take from these two stories dealing with vengeance is the fact that yeah you may get your revenge, but at what cost are you willing to fulfill your revenge. I'm not sure I'd be willing to lose 2 loved ones just to get rid of an enemy of mine. It seems big price to pay in order to fulfill your plan. Another message that is shown in the 2 plays are the fact that you can't get everything that you want. Everything doesn't go the way that you planned it too. I'm sure Hamlet did not count on Ophelia to suicide. Likewise, Lavinia didn't want to lose her brother after losing her father. Even though Lavinia's enemies were dead, i don't think the price she payed for their deaths was soothing.
I do give a lot of sympathy to Hamlet and Lavinia, mainly because its tough to lose people so close to you. Especially when your mind set is set on killing someone else. Killing someone is not easy to do, and it stirs up many emotions inside. Losing loved ones just adds to the emotions built up already until you just explode and lose it. The characters may only concentrate on achieving their mission, but as an audience we know that the cost of their achievement has a lot of effect on them.
We can at least somewhat understand why certain literature characters are so vengeful. Sweeney Todd being taken away from his daughter and his wife, who he now thought to be dead, must have been beyond terrible. Him being vengeful is not suprising, but it is not justified. Yes, killing the men who did this to him may be understood, but what about those innocent people whose lives he ended? Those people had families, too, families that would be torn up to find out what had happened to their loved one. Sweeney Todd, although this is what happened to him, is too angry and vengeful to try to understand these other people. And in the end, all of his unjustified slaughtering and murdering led him to nearly killing his daughter and actually murdering his wife.
Similarly, Hamlet was supposed to kill his uncle to avenge the death of his father. Even though he had only been after one man, he murdered multiple people, including his own mother.
Basically, if these people had never sought to seek revenge, but had tried to accept their situations and move on, their lives would have been much better off. Sweeney and his treasured wife would have lived and he would have been able to know and be with his daughter. Instead, their lives were torn with misery and hatred. And even though it is hard to see why such actions are wrong when one is so angry, one must still try to not act on them until they can later realize why they were doing the right thing.
When "unorthodox" or "unpolite" things occur that seem shameful or just plain weird, people are conditioned not to talk about them. Whether they are led to believe that talking about these taboos will bring shame or make people look down upon them, people are taught that talking about these things is wrong. However, I think it is better to not bury such stigmas, but to keep them in the open. People fear the unknown, and keeping these topics unknown keeps people frightened. Yes, actions such as rape and murder are terrible things, but if they are more talked about, and therefore more understood, there is a much better chance to be able to put a stop to them. Especially if such things are going on in one's community or home, the people will be much less willing to try to bring up what is happening to them if it is considered a shameful taboo.
Any number of justifications and counter-justifications can be made for vengeance--it is a concept that does not fit into tidy categorizations of 'black' or 'white'; and yet, neither does it dwell in the grey areas of morality. It embodies both extremes simultaneously.
In Sweeney Todd, The Oresteia, and Mourning Becomes Electra, none of the avengers are under the impression that their vengeance will solve their troubles, nor even alleviate them. Upon finding his daughter under the dubious care of the judge, Todd is immediately engrossed in the business of bringing about the judge's downfall. At least on the subconscious level, he recognizes the immense danger, the sheer immorality, and--more likely than not--the futility of his vengeance.
The judge's murder can only hurt him (for what town would not notice the sudden disappearance of their most prominent figure?); Joanna is lost to him, by virtue of time and estrangement and her new love for Anthony.
Todd accepts this brutal truth in kind--it is worth the price. For it is more the act itself Todd aspires towards than any outcomes that might be born of it. Certainly, his goals are not his daughter, his family.
The same is true of both Clytaemnestra and Lavinia (and by extension, Lavinia's counterpart in The Oresteia, the actual Electra).
After murdering her husband, Clytaemnestra states outright "I brooded on this trial,/this ancient blood feud/year by year. At last my hour came./Here I stand and here I struck and here my work is done./I did it all". She asserts that indeed, her betrayal was justified, at the personal level. But she also recognizes the darkness in her actions--that fact that it is not and cannot be accepted as 'justifiable' by the world. She takes full responsibility of her actions and any consequences that might follow. These consequences, of course, are put on hold by virtue of Aegisthus' ascendance to the throne and for a time Clytaemnestra escapes unscathed.
A modernized rendition of the vengeance born of Clytaemnestra's revenge plot is exacted by Lavinia Mannon with a similar lack of consternation. Though Lavinia is not so self-deluded as to believe her tactics are entirely pure--convincing her shell-shocked brother to murder their mother's lover, driving her mother to suicide, attempting to escape everything by dragging Peter into the web she's woven for herself--by the end of the play she resigns herself to the consequences of her vengeance.
For her, vengeance is an empty thing. Empowering for the scant moments it is being carried out, but ultimately an action that renders her undeserving of anything but an empty house and old memories.
In all three works, vengeance leads ultimately to self-destruction--and the consequences seem to outweigh the original reasonings for which it was pursued. Sometimes, however, there is no 'right' course of action; most often, the most difficult choice one will ever have to make is between two painful things--to discard honor [to let Turpin 'win'] or to discard one's life? the death of freedom or the destruction of a past life? At this point, there is no justification. Only action.
Vengeance is the active option, coupled with resignation as the inactive. Todd, Clytaemnestra, and Lavinia all choose vengeance over simply giving in because even if their stories will not end in happiness, at least it will be due in part to their own agency. If they can take control of this one thing, have power over this one aspect--then perhaps transforming their lives into sad stories is worth it.
After all, the price is only their identity.
The most stunning scene in Mourning Becomes Electra is the first scene after Christine's death--Lavinia stands as Christine stood at the beginning of "Homecoming"; she is dressed in the same colors and is every inch her mother. O'Neill's stage directions highlight this transference immensely--the resemblance is, pun unintended, truly haunting. To wreak vengeance on one's most hated enemy, one becomes some piece of him--ironically, it is most often the very aspect of said enemy that led one to despise him in the first place.
Todd resents Judge Turpin for upending his family, his life, everything for which he lived--and yet, the first thing he does upon returning to his hometown is unmask the 'Italian' barber's fraudulent practice (only to kill him soon after). To bring about the fall of the one who destroyed him, Todd destroys. Clytaemnestra is the same, Lavinia is the same--she avenges the death of her dearest loved one--her father--with the murder of Christine's lover and the madness of Christine's precious son.
And yet, despite these transgressions, one cannot help but empathize on some level with this transformation. There is something to be said about the strength of someone who is able to act, even knowing that that action will lead to their inevitable downfall.
The decision to give up vengeance and move forward is better moderated by safe, clean morality--certainly, it errs on the side of self-preservation, and the preservation of the lives of others. But vengeance is at once both extremes--our white morality (the part of these characters that chooses action over inaction) and black ruthlessness. It is powerful for that darkness--and it is admirable, because it is the one thing so many of us could not bring ourselves to do, for fear of change, of pain, of shame. Perhaps these things are the black side of acceptance, forgiveness.
In my opinion, a parent is not a bad person if the child does not turn out right. Parents try to shape their kids into what they feel is right, just because we do not agree with their upbringing does not mean that they are bad parents. Parents, for the most part, play a big role in the personality and the mentality the child will grow up to have. Parents also have an affect on their child depending how much the child looks up to them and perhaps respects them.
The same notion applies to the affect the fathers have on their children in the texts we have read so far. None of the fathers are "bad" but their intentions are not exactly saintlike. The only father who I think did not love his child in some sick way was King Hamlet. King Hamlet had such an affect on young Hamlet that it was enough for the King's ghost to come and tell Hamlet that he should now kill the current king because he is corrupt. Think about it. The only reason that the story of Hamlet even exists is because of the effect that King Hamlet had on young Hamlet. Hamlet cold have chosen to ignore the King's message but instead he went along with it because it was his dear father and not someone else.
Some of the other fathers such as Agamemnon, Ezra Mannon ,and the father of Emily in "A Rose for Emily" loved their children, daughters specifically, in a twisted way. Agamemnon's daughter Electra had a bit too much love for her father. Electra was hateful of Clytaemnestra because she felt that her mother was the one who was taking her away from her father. Agamemnon had quite an affect on Electra, enough for Electra to hate her mother. Another example was with Ezra Mannon whose daughter, Lavinia, had a very strong feeling for him. Lavinia felt that her father was too good for her mother. The main reason being that Christine did not appreciate Ezra, because she was desperate to have an affair with Adam Brant. Lavinia really loved her father because of the image she had of him in her twisted mind. Also Emily's father in "A Rose for Emily" did not think that any suitor was good enough for Emily because he felt that she was better than everyone else. The reason behind this might have been that maybe he thought that she was so beautiful that he wanted her to stay with him all his life. Emily's father has an affect on her because even she did not disobey him in his decisions, well at least not until he died. Also she refused to accept that fact that her father was dead until they had to finally haul the body out of the house because he was starting to smell.
So fathers do affect their children but just because their children do not turn out right does not mean that they are bad people. One could certainly argue that they are bad parents and do not know how to raise a child but they are not bad people. All the texts mentioned above were written by male authors. Observing the relationships of the fathers and their children in the texts we can probably infer that the author's fathers might have affected them in either a positive or a negative way. I am guessing that it was probably more in a negative manner, because of the way they portray the fathers of the stories.
Mary opened this one up, saying that all people are born good. I have to say that people are products of their environments, born into indifference, and we ingrain SOCIETY'S perception of right and wrong into them. Society is the determining factor in good and bad, and not to bring in a book from the next unit, but it's easier to see when you compare the ideals of Brave New World to that of our own.
But the question was about fathers. Fathers are environmental factors and the driving forces in these pieces. Sweeney Todd had a father that wanted to protect his daughter. In this sense he was a "good" father. But what makes him "bad" is the dirty business he gets into and his vengeful undertakings. A Modest Proposal was not a piece of fiction, and called for parents to be "good" by feeding their families with an alternative source and "bad" by eating away their future workforce. Mourning Becomes Electra had a father figure that pushed the limits on the morality of his daughter's obsession with him. Ezra's simple presence drove his wife to an affair and murder. Common sense tells us that he had a negative effect on his children, the results of which are evident in one committing suicide and the other committing herself to a life of solitude and self-loathing.
With all the desensitizing that has happened in the last decade with all that appears in the media, it's surprising that we are so uncomfortable with taboos. Each piece has it's gore - Oresteia, Hamlet, and Sweeney especially. They all have overt murder in different forms, and you can see the progression of time through how much is revealed onstage. The oldest, Oresteia, limits the view to shadows miming death. Hamlet, later in the timeline, is bolder and shows the jabs, but cops out with poison that we can't really see. Sweeney Todd, the most modern, leaves nothing to the imagination, blood and bodies right in your face. The fact that there is a taboo even on Sweeney should be a comfort, though, showing that we still have some form of reverence for the tragedies that happen and that we don't see them simply as entertainment.
On the other hand, when it comes to real life, our squeamishness is a product of the fictionalization that TV shows have given crime. We expect the glory and the beautiful people to come and save the day.. but that's not real. It's a conflicting emotion born of the need to be rescued from our fears - whether that be of rape, murder, or cannibalism. We are looking for the fairytale version of events and get an imperfect picture instead.
n Hamlet, vengeance played a major role and was the underlying factor in which Hamlet kills Claudius, but ends up dying immediately afterwards. Hamlet's desire to see revenge his father's death, triggers the rest of the events in the novel. As Hamlet learns that King Hamlet was killed by none other than his brother, Claudius, he is ordered by the ghost to kill Claudius. From this, we can conclude that vengeance was indeed justified because his deceased father orders him to, and it is his duty to perform the task. However, due to Hamlet's good nature, he delays the revenge he is seeking, giving a chance for Claudius to plan something against Hamlet as well. He had a perfect chance to kill him while he was praying, but felt that it would be an inadequate revenge and decides to wait for the right opportunity.
Hamlet's death by his own uncle is given significance to and honored greatly. We as readers tend to feel sympathy because he is the protagonist and for the fact that his father's orders backfired on him. One would expect Hamlet to avenge his father's death and also win over the throne by murdering Claudius. Nonetheless, Shakespeare shows us that the orders given by King Hamlet to seek revenge not only lead to Hamlet's death but the deaths of many characters and to the power Fortinbras gains.
Various messages of the revenge dramas can be seen, but in this novel especially, the protagonist doesn't benefit from his vengeance even the least bit. Not only has this corrupted his royal family, but Hamlet is forced to he watch his mother die and to know that he will die immediately after. This novel also proves that taking vengeance takes away things that the protagonist treasured. However, another perspective of Hamlet seeking revenge is the way in which he was honored after his death. As Fortinbras learns about Hamlet's tragedy, we are given some satisfaction at the end of the novel as Hamlet is carried away in honor and dignity.
Dennis mentioned that “The purpose of taboo is identify certain topics that are generally avoided by the multitudes because of the feeling of discomfort that is elicited by the discussion of such topics. Over time cultures change and so do ideals of social correctness. As a result, taboos of yesterday may be taken as trite and commonplace today.”
While I do agree that taboos evoke feelings of discomfort, I disagree with his second point. I don’t think taboos are “taken as trite and commonplace today,” the effects are still the same. Rape will always be rape, no matter the time period. Pop culture and modern technology has just made us more aware.
In short, taboos encompass everything we are ashamed of. However it has become acceptable to openly address taboos (to some extent) such as murder, cannibalism, and rape thanks to pop culture and the media. Television shows such as The Simpsons and South Park thrive on taboos; it is why we find them so humorous. Yet what makes a taboo comically appealing if we are so ashamed of them at the same time?
It is simply human nature to find solitude and even humor in another person’s misfortune. For example, America’s Funniest Home Videos is a mishmash of clips of men being kicked in the privates and people falling off sidewalks, and people actually watch this and enjoy it. Why? Because we find comfort in the fact that someone else has failed or suffered instead of us. While taboos and bruised testicles aren’t exactly on the same level of misfortune, The Simpsons use both just as freely in hopes of receiving laughs.
And then there is the question of moral code. Taboos are seen as downright wrong. But not by all. We draw conclusions about what is wrong oftentimes from the opinion of the majority, which we interpret as the universal moral code, the rights of society. However, there is always a minority. What some consider a taboo is seen as perfectly just to others. For example, the Fore people in Papua New Guinea practiced mortuary cannibalism. To them, cannibalism is a ritual. To us, it is a sin.
While the purpose of a taboo is to keep order and justice, I don’t believe that they should be avoided. I agree with Vivian when she said “However, these subjects cannot be avoided forever. Society needs to realize that as horrible as they are, they do exist. Purposely ignoring something that you KNOW is out there will not solve anything.”
On the topic of fathers, an ideal father, according to the Social Fatherhood and Paternal Involvement article, is one who contributes financially and emotionally to support his child, is one who devotes his time, affection, and fondness to his child. Mothers often harness the family together, but without the father’s intuition, the family will always remain incomplete and even dysfunctional. In the series of plays and novels we’ve read in this unit, each of the fathers fails to play a role of a “good” parent because he fails to provide emotional support.
In Sweeney Todd, Todd ventures out in search of his daughter with the hope of avenging the judge and taking his daughter back, but along the road he becomes so consumed in our things that his daughter takes the back seat. Rather than rescuing his daughter in some heroic and immediate series of actions, he stalls about at Mrs. Lovett’s house and hopes that he can rescue his daughter from such a remote location. Knowing that the judge could make merry to his daughter anytime, he continues to take his sweet time and kill customers. Was it truly necessary to kill each person who came to him for a haircut just so he could rescue his daughter? Anthony, Johanna’s lover, on the other hand, takes the quick road to Johanna and rescues her. All Todd thinks about is taking revenge on the judge for taking his daughter away by giving him a “haircut.” He’s a selfish man! Thus, he most definitely doesn’t play the role of the “good” parent. If so, he would’ve thought about his daughter’s well being before revenge.
In Oresteia, Agamemnon decided to sacrifice his daughter Iphigeneia. On his way to Troy to participate in the Trojan War, Agamemnon's ships were suddenly motionless as Artemis stopped the wind, and the only way to appease Artemis was to sacrifice Iphigeneia. And Agamemnon did just so. True, one can argue that if Agamemnon hadn’t sacrificed Iphigeneia, everybody else would have died, but this doesn’t deduct from the fact that killed his daughter Iphigeneia. He still is a bad parent. He could’ve said to his fellow men, with some level of consequence, “We will fight as one! We will die as one!” instead of immediately sacrificing Iphigeneia. Though he does prove to be a bad parent, he doesn’t prove to be a bad person. His actions are all altruistic, are all meant to benefit the majority on the ship. He chose to sacrifice one, regardless of who he or she is, and save the rest. Then again, he could have been a bad person if the sole reason he killed his daughter and saved the rest was so he could have an army that would fight and bring him to glory, instead of having to return home empty handed.
In The Mourning Becomes Electra, Mannon proves to be both a flawed father and husband. He instigates the downfall of his entire family through, one, not being a loving, caring husband who constrains his wife, and, second, through sending Orin to war. If only Mannon had loved his wife so dearly that she couldn’t even dream sleeping with another man, then Christine would have never killed her husband, shattered Lavinia’s heart, and brought about her downfall and that of the family. If only Mannon hadn’t sent Orin off to war, against his will, Orin would’ve stayed home and developed some social skills and understood how wrong it is to have lust for your mother, rather than dreaming about his mother as he is off in war. Mannon, here, not only proves to be a horrible father, but he also proves to be a horrible person, as he indirectly brings down the downfall upon his family.
Considering that all of these pieces were written by men, we could conclude that the authors may have been overcome with such feelings– lust for their mother, selfish revenge, and heartlessness – at some point in their life and included it in their piece.
In most of these pieces, the men proved to be bad fathers. However, when determining whether the men were bad people, there were multiple facts to consider that put me in either a determined or ambivalent state.
On the topic of vengeance, Todd and Hamlet chose to avenge, leading into turmoil, because they are more interested in the means that the end. Thus, though their actions may not be rational, they are validated by their agency.
In Sweeney Todd, Todd, upon discovering that Judge Turpin has his daughter, seeks revenge on the judge. Thus, he moves into the “haunted” room upstairs to Mrs. Lovett’s pie shop and opens up his barbershop, where he kills all his customers. His sole motive was to draw the judge to his barbershop and then kill him. He was just so angry that somebody infringed on his “property” and tried to shame his manlihood that he only thought of revenge, while Anthony, Johanna’s lover, quickly rescued Johanna and ran off with her. By the end of the play, as Todd grieves over his wife's body, Toby — who wants revenge for the murder of the only mother he's ever known — sneaks up behind him. Todd lifts his head, willingly allowing Toby to slit his throat, and dies with his wife's body in his arms. At that time, I realized Todd’s killings were just another form for him to exert his pain. He didn’t mean to be treacherous; life and agony made him treacherous.
Hamlet exacts revenge on his uncle Claudius, who has murdered Hamlet's father, the King, and then took the throne and married Hamlet's mother. The Ghost of King Hamlet demands that Hamlet avenge him; Hamlet agrees and decides to fake madness to avert suspicion. Through the play, in which a man pours poison down another man’s ear, Hamlet slowly weaves out the truth as Uncle Claudius storms out of the room. Later, in his dying moments, Laertes is reconciled with Hamlet and reveals Claudius' murderous plot. And in his own last moments, Hamlet manages to kill Claudius, manages to avenge his father’s death. This vengeance was justified because Claudius, a culprit, sneaks into the king’s seat without exposing a hint of his conniving actions. It most certainly is time that the truth comes out and that the king be avenged! Thus, despite Hamlet’s many flaws in pursuing revenge, Hamlet reconciles our sympathy.
In all the pieces this unit, vengeance seems to be a critical point that drives the pieces in and out of chaos. Though the protagonist often doesn’t take the most rational path, he always keeps the spirit of vengeance in his heart as he steps closer and closer to revenge. Even though we may conclude whether an action is justified or not, in truth, we aren’t one to determine the validity of the action. As Anne had mentioned, existentialism allows individuals the agency to plan and execute as they believe they ought to. If their course of actions are valid in their eyes, then it must be justified.
Post a Comment