Oedipus proved to be an extremely curious man who was constantly seeking answers, but regardless, when he was told the information he sought by someone else, he always refused to acknowledge it. Oedipus often had the answers he searched for right in front of his face. Yet somehow, he managed to dismiss all of them completely, because he did not like the idea of them. For one, after Creon tried to deny Oedipus’s accusation against him, instead of listening to what Creon had to say, Oedipus chose to ignore it and insult him by telling Creon, he had the, “art glib of tongue, but [Oedipus was] slow to learn from [him]; [as Oedipus] kn[ew] too well [Creon’s] venomous hate” (Sophocles and Storr 547-548). Oedipus was literally refusing to believe a word Creon said, because in Oedipus’s mind, Creon was King Laius’s killer.
“ I desire the things that will destroy me in the end” was what a wise poet, Slyvia Plath, once said. Everyone wants things in life, but the ability to decide if the foolish choices that each individual makes can lead to destruction, keeps the world in check. Throughout the entirety of The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet there are countless instancences where characters chose something which can, in some way, lead to the eventual deaths of Romeo and Juliet. However, the only character who consistently chooses the wrong choice knowingly, whether it be for self gain or glory, is Friar Lawrence. He was the only character not directly swayed towards one decision or the other by infatuation, loyalty, or rivalry.
Barabas wants the universal wealth. Faustus is looking for omniscience. In developing such ambitions in drama, Marlowe often lets himself wander in wild extravagances. Though, many qualities which are necessary to improve drama were beyond the range of Marlowe’s genius. There is practically no feminine interest in Marlowe’s plays and he does not have humour.
Holden constantly complains about society and the world around him, it’s always too much for him, it’s always forgery. “I’m always saying “Glad to’ve met you” to somebody I’m not at all glad I met. If you want to stay alive, you have to say that stuff,...” (Salinger 51). Holden’s observation is discussing that people often lie when leaving a conversation or when saying hello to people, Holden claims that he hates when people say they are glad to see you because they do not mean it.
When Macbeth is prophesied to be king he strongly believes it but, as he was close to dying, he chooses to not fear death or the prophecies for any longer. William Ernest Henley on the other hand, presents himself as unafraid of fate, throughout the poem since he does not believe in it and claims he has an “unconquerable soul”(Henley 4). Through these texts, the authors propose that actions are caused by motivation, everyone handles challenges differently, and that struggles or rewards are given through someone else’s free will. Though fate may be implicated from time to time in these texts, one’s ultimate decisions made them who they are and what they
When Hamlet begins to speak, the images come to him without the slightest effort. Clemen describes the images as immediate and spontaneous visions. Hamlet’s imagery shows the viewer that whenever Hamlet thinks and speaks, he symbolizes thought. His images are not beautiful and soft but they always hit their mark. Hamlet also needs images for his “antic disposition.” The other characters continue to think he is mad.
Existentialism is a philosophy that promotes the idea that every individual is responsible for bringing meaning into his or her own life. Waiting for Godot shows how everyone is wasting their lives waiting for a God or a deity to bring salvation, which is exactly what Vladimir and Estragon are doing in the play. The first piece of dialogue in the play, said by Estragon is “Nothing to be done.”, and is constantly repeated throughout the play as “We can’t do anything.” Over and over again, they find ways to keep them from waiting, to pass the time. As I said, at the end of each act, they both decide to leave, by saying the same
When we first finish reading Waiting for Godot, there is one question that comes through our mind: why so? The absence of a conclusive end of the play challenges us to wonder about the logic of writing something that appears to make no sense. In which way and to which point can Didi and Gogo be taken into consideration? Could they be representatives for the entire human being? But what could they represent – they do nothing but wait for someone about whom all we are told (and about whom they certainly know just as little) is that he is named Godot.
Sartre (1957) said, ‘man is condemned to be free; because, once thrown into the world he is responsible for everything he does.’ Lucky’s infamous speech contextualizes how life has no fixed purpose and that we are rather condemned to live in it. Western modernized society seems to be as if striving to learn about everything and invent stuff to carry out all our daily tasks. Writers like Camus, describe how boredom has caused us to put serious efforts into thoughts and question out own identity. The first thing we notice about Lucky’s speech as a whole is that it lacks structure and literal meaning, much like the entire play when viewed wholly. ‘Beckett defines every known law of playwriting; his play is about nothing….
Which brings out my next point, the theatre of the Absurd. Theatre of the Absurd plays a great role in this play and is influenced by the philosophical concept of existentialism, where there’s meaning to everything but at the same time everything is nothing. An example would be the character Lucky, despite the name “Lucky” he lives his life as a slave of another character, Pozzo. Lucky is known as a character that has a lot of knowledge but is unable the share it as he doesn’t have the ability to speak coherently. This can be shown in the long speech made by Lucky in the first act, where he talks about a lot of topics that seem unrelated to each other, suggesting that Lucky’s current life is very complicated and is shown in a darkly humorous way.