AP English: "Joining the Conversation" about Oedipus and Tragedy

OEDIPUS: a tragic hero? tragically flawed? or just tragic?

You MUST REFER to specific parts of Aristotle's DEFINITION BELOW when you "JOIN THE CONVERSATION" (that's a hint) and SUPPORT YOUR OWN ARGUMENT.

Extra credit for the strongest argument.
Aristotle (the philosopher who wrote about the beauty of art) believed that Oedipus the King was the prototypical example of a "tragic hero." Read each part of his definition below. Then, decide to what extent you agree with Aristotle's idea that Oedipus is the perfect representative of a tragic hero.

From Aristotle's Poetics:

1. The tragic hero is a character of noble stature and has greatness. The character must occupy a "high" status position but must ALSO embody nobility and virtue as part of his/her innate character.

2. Though the tragic hero is pre-eminently great, he/she is not perfect. Otherwise, the rest of us--mere mortals--would be unable to identify with the tragic hero. We should see in him or her someone who is essentially like us, although perhaps elevated to a higher position in society.

3. The hero's downfall, therefore, is partially her/his own fault, the result of free choice, not of accident or villainy or some overriding, malignant fate. In fact, the tragedy is usually triggered by some error of judgment or some character flaw that contributes to the hero's lack of perfection noted above. This error of judgment or character flaw is known as hamartia and is usually translated as "tragic flaw" (although some scholars argue that this is a mistranslation). Often the character's hamartia involves hubris (which is defined as a sort of arrogant pride or over-confidence). True for Oedipus? Make your claim.

4. The hero's misfortunate is not wholly deserved. The punishment exceeds the crime. True for Oedipus? Make your claim.

5. The fall is not pure loss. There is some increase in awareness, some gain in self-knowledge, some discovery on the part of the tragic hero. True for Oedipus? Make your claim.

6. Though it arouses solemn emotion, tragedy does not leave its audience in a state of depression. Aristotle argues that one function of tragedy is to arouse the "unhealthy" emotions of pity and fear and through a catharsis (which comes from watching the tragic hero's terrible fate) cleanse us of those emotions.True for "Oedipus"? Make your claim.

For extra credit, read all of the following claims about the play "Oedipus." They all connect to one another. Then, "join the conversation."

For Oedipus, there exists his temper, his unrelenting pursuit of the truth, and his suspicion. His temper is exhibited in the argument between Teiresias and himself, where Teiresias states the truth and Oedipus replies, “Do you think you can say such things with impunity?”(p.36) and later calls Teiresias a “shameless and brainless, sightless, senseless sot!” (p.36). His suspicion was also shown in this exchange where he says, “Creon! Was this trick his, then, if not yours?”(p.36). Lastly, his unrelenting pursuit of the truth is demonstrated when he finally believes he is the murderer and Polybus was not his father, and yet he still continues with his search, saying, “I must pursue this trail to the end”(p.55). These characteristics were only fuel to the fire and added to the pride created a blaze that consumed him.Oedipus' tragic flaw (his hamartia) was pride; the Greeks called it hubris. He thought too highly of himself, believed himself to be invincible, and he had the arrogance to keep asking questions when he knew he should have stopped.
--IB paper posted online

Somehow, "hubris" (ungodly pride, arrogance, and so forth) has come to be identified as the usual tragic fault of Oedipus. I cannot understand why. But whenever something bad happens to a basically good person in a tragedy, students are invited to see "hubris." Why can't we just accept that in Sophocles ' world, bad things happen for no reason? Is it because teachers are afraid to let their students in on a dirty little secret: if there are gods, they are capricious and malicious.
--Ed Friedlander, doctor and literary critic


"The flaw, or crack in the character [of Oedipus], is really nothing -- and need be nothing -- but his inherent unwillingness to remain passive in the face of what he conceives to be a challenge to his dignity, his image of his rightful status. Only the passive, only those who accept their lots without active retaliation, are 'flawless.' Most of us are in that category. The terror and the fear that is classically associated with tragedy comes, ultimately, from questioning the unquestioned.
--Arthur Miller, author of "Death of a Salesman"

IB second period: "Joining the Conversation" about Oedipus and Tragedy

OEDIPUS: a tragic hero? tragically flawed? or just tragic?

You MUST REFER to specific parts of Aristotle's DEFINITION BELOW when you "JOIN THE CONVERSATION" (that's a hint) and SUPPORT YOUR OWN ARGUMENT.

Extra credit for the strongest argument.
Aristotle (the philosopher who wrote about the beauty of art) believed that Oedipus the King was the prototypical example of a "tragic hero." Read each part of his definition below. Then, decide to what extent you agree with Aristotle's idea that Oedipus is the perfect representative of a tragic hero.

From Aristotle's Poetics:

1. The tragic hero is a character of noble stature and has greatness. The character must occupy a "high" status position but must ALSO embody nobility and virtue as part of his/her innate character.

2. Though the tragic hero is pre-eminently great, he/she is not perfect. Otherwise, the rest of us--mere mortals--would be unable to identify with the tragic hero. We should see in him or her someone who is essentially like us, although perhaps elevated to a higher position in society.

3. The hero's downfall, therefore, is partially her/his own fault, the result of free choice, not of accident or villainy or some overriding, malignant fate. In fact, the tragedy is usually triggered by some error of judgment or some character flaw that contributes to the hero's lack of perfection noted above. This error of judgment or character flaw is known as hamartia and is usually translated as "tragic flaw" (although some scholars argue that this is a mistranslation). Often the character's hamartia involves hubris (which is defined as a sort of arrogant pride or over-confidence). True for Oedipus? Make your claim.

4. The hero's misfortunate is not wholly deserved. The punishment exceeds the crime. True for Oedipus? Make your claim.

5. The fall is not pure loss. There is some increase in awareness, some gain in self-knowledge, some discovery on the part of the tragic hero. True for Oedipus? Make your claim.

6. Though it arouses solemn emotion, tragedy does not leave its audience in a state of depression. Aristotle argues that one function of tragedy is to arouse the "unhealthy" emotions of pity and fear and through a catharsis (which comes from watching the tragic hero's terrible fate) cleanse us of those emotions.True for "Oedipus"? Make your claim.

For extra credit, read all of the following claims about the play "Oedipus." They all connect to one another. Then, "join the conversation."

For Oedipus, there exists his temper, his unrelenting pursuit of the truth, and his suspicion. His temper is exhibited in the argument between Teiresias and himself, where Teiresias states the truth and Oedipus replies, “Do you think you can say such things with impunity?”(p.36) and later calls Teiresias a “shameless and brainless, sightless, senseless sot!” (p.36). His suspicion was also shown in this exchange where he says, “Creon! Was this trick his, then, if not yours?”(p.36). Lastly, his unrelenting pursuit of the truth is demonstrated when he finally believes he is the murderer and Polybus was not his father, and yet he still continues with his search, saying, “I must pursue this trail to the end”(p.55). These characteristics were only fuel to the fire and added to the pride created a blaze that consumed him.Oedipus' tragic flaw (his hamartia) was pride; the Greeks called it hubris. He thought too highly of himself, believed himself to be invincible, and he had the arrogance to keep asking questions when he knew he should have stopped.
--IB paper posted online

Somehow, "hubris" (ungodly pride, arrogance, and so forth) has come to be identified as the usual tragic fault of Oedipus. I cannot understand why. But whenever something bad happens to a basically good person in a tragedy, students are invited to see "hubris." Why can't we just accept that in Sophocles ' world, bad things happen for no reason? Is it because teachers are afraid to let their students in on a dirty little secret: if there are gods, they are capricious and malicious.
--Ed Friedlander, doctor and literary critic


"The flaw, or crack in the character [of Oedipus], is really nothing -- and need be nothing -- but his inherent unwillingness to remain passive in the face of what he conceives to be a challenge to his dignity, his image of his rightful status. Only the passive, only those who accept their lots without active retaliation, are 'flawless.' Most of us are in that category. The terror and the fear that is classically associated with tragedy comes, ultimately, from questioning the unquestioned.
--Arthur Miller, author of "Death of a Salesman"

IB first period: "Joining the Conversation" about Oedipus and Tragedy

OEDIPUS: a tragic hero? tragically flawed? or just tragic?

You MUST REFER to specific parts of Aristotle's DEFINITION BELOW when you "JOIN THE CONVERSATION" (that's a hint) and SUPPORT YOUR OWN ARGUMENT.

Extra credit for the strongest argument.
Aristotle (the philosopher who wrote about the beauty of art) believed that Oedipus the King was the prototypical example of a "tragic hero." Read each part of his definition below. Then, decide to what extent you agree with Aristotle's idea that Oedipus is the perfect representative of a tragic hero.

From Aristotle's Poetics:

1. The tragic hero is a character of noble stature and has greatness. The character must occupy a "high" status position but must ALSO embody nobility and virtue as part of his/her innate character.

2. Though the tragic hero is pre-eminently great, he/she is not perfect. Otherwise, the rest of us--mere mortals--would be unable to identify with the tragic hero. We should see in him or her someone who is essentially like us, although perhaps elevated to a higher position in society.

3. The hero's downfall, therefore, is partially her/his own fault, the result of free choice, not of accident or villainy or some overriding, malignant fate. In fact, the tragedy is usually triggered by some error of judgment or some character flaw that contributes to the hero's lack of perfection noted above. This error of judgment or character flaw is known as hamartia and is usually translated as "tragic flaw" (although some scholars argue that this is a mistranslation). Often the character's hamartia involves hubris (which is defined as a sort of arrogant pride or over-confidence). True for Oedipus? Make your claim.

4. The hero's misfortunate is not wholly deserved. The punishment exceeds the crime. True for Oedipus? Make your claim.

5. The fall is not pure loss. There is some increase in awareness, some gain in self-knowledge, some discovery on the part of the tragic hero. True for Oedipus? Make your claim.

6. Though it arouses solemn emotion, tragedy does not leave its audience in a state of depression. Aristotle argues that one function of tragedy is to arouse the "unhealthy" emotions of pity and fear and through a catharsis (which comes from watching the tragic hero's terrible fate) cleanse us of those emotions.True for "Oedipus"? Make your claim.

For extra credit, read all of the following claims about the play "Oedipus." They all connect to one another. Then, "join the conversation."

For Oedipus, there exists his temper, his unrelenting pursuit of the truth, and his suspicion. His temper is exhibited in the argument between Teiresias and himself, where Teiresias states the truth and Oedipus replies, “Do you think you can say such things with impunity?”(p.36) and later calls Teiresias a “shameless and brainless, sightless, senseless sot!” (p.36). His suspicion was also shown in this exchange where he says, “Creon! Was this trick his, then, if not yours?”(p.36). Lastly, his unrelenting pursuit of the truth is demonstrated when he finally believes he is the murderer and Polybus was not his father, and yet he still continues with his search, saying, “I must pursue this trail to the end”(p.55). These characteristics were only fuel to the fire and added to the pride created a blaze that consumed him.Oedipus' tragic flaw (his hamartia) was pride; the Greeks called it hubris. He thought too highly of himself, believed himself to be invincible, and he had the arrogance to keep asking questions when he knew he should have stopped.
--IB paper posted online

Somehow, "hubris" (ungodly pride, arrogance, and so forth) has come to be identified as the usual tragic fault of Oedipus. I cannot understand why. But whenever something bad happens to a basically good person in a tragedy, students are invited to see "hubris." Why can't we just accept that in Sophocles ' world, bad things happen for no reason? Is it because teachers are afraid to let their students in on a dirty little secret: if there are gods, they are capricious and malicious.
--Ed Friedlander, doctor and literary critic


"The flaw, or crack in the character [of Oedipus], is really nothing -- and need be nothing -- but his inherent unwillingness to remain passive in the face of what he conceives to be a challenge to his dignity, his image of his rightful status. Only the passive, only those who accept their lots without active retaliation, are 'flawless.' Most of us are in that category. The terror and the fear that is classically associated with tragedy comes, ultimately, from questioning the unquestioned.
--Arthur Miller, author of "Death of a Salesman"

What Is Talking About Fiction For? -- AP ENGLISH THIRD PERIOD

There is no point in looking for hidden meanings in everything you read. If a meaning is important, it shouldn’t be hidden. And besides, once you’ve determined what you believe a text might mean, how would you possibly know if the meanings are really there or not? And even if you could confirm those meanings, why spend time talking about it? In short, what is the purpose of crafting an analysis of text? No one benefits from that. The author doesn’t need to know. And whether we analyze a text or not, the text doesn’t change. It’s still there, just like it was before it was analyzed. Whether or not I determine that text Y has a beautiful motif of red, no one’s life gets changed. In fact, the original gets ruined with all that talk talk talk about the text. So what's the point? -- internet blog on English classes

"Talking with friends about books harks back to the original impulse behind storytelling, the forging of human bonds. We have told ourselves stories not just in order to live, but in order to live with one another. Primary storytelling itself is insufficient for the forging of human bonds, for audiences need to talk about the stories they read and to compare their interpretations in order to be sure that they have read the same story. The more isolated from one another readers feel, the more they need such secondary conversations in order to establish a bond with other readers. " --paraphrased from Brian Hall's essay on book groups

"An unfortunate split runs through arts education, reflecting the romantic culture war between creators and critics, between the teaching of art itself and the teaching of art criticism. The assumption is that a great masterpiece is so powerful that it cannot help making an impact on any student who can be brought to read it carefully. If the experience of reading is to mature and be stretched beyond the place where it already is, it needs a critical vocabulary with which to express itself. It is therefore misleading to oppose the firsthand rexperience of reading to secondhand critical analysis about our reading. How we talk about books shapes how we read the books themselves." -- Gerald Graff, "Clueless in Academe"


"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." -- attributed to Sigmund Freu
Respond to these thoughts and to one another. Please use your "joining the conversation" template.

What Is Talking About Fiction For? -- IB ENGLISH SECOND PERIOD

There is no point in looking for hidden meanings in everything you read. If a meaning is important, it shouldn’t be hidden. And besides, once you’ve determined what you believe a text might mean, how would you possibly know if the meanings are really there or not? And even if you could confirm those meanings, why spend time talking about it? In short, what is the purpose of crafting an analysis of text? No one benefits from that. The author doesn’t need to know. And whether we analyze a text or not, the text doesn’t change. It’s still there, just like it was before it was analyzed. Whether or not I determine that text Y has a beautiful motif of red, no one’s life gets changed. In fact, the original gets ruined with all that talk talk talk about the text. So what's the point? -- internet blog on English classes

"Talking with friends about books harks back to the original impulse behind storytelling, the forging of human bonds. We have told ourselves stories not just in order to live, but in order to live with one another. Primary storytelling itself is insufficient for the forging of human bonds, for audiences need to talk about the stories they read and to compare their interpretations in order to be sure that they have read the same story. The more isolated from one another readers feel, the more they need such secondary conversations in order to establish a bond with other readers. " --paraphrased from Brian Hall's essay on book groups

"An unfortunate split runs through arts education, reflecting the romantic culture war between creators and critics, between the teaching of art itself and the teaching of art criticism. The assumption is that a great masterpiece is so powerful that it cannot help making an impact on any student who can be brought to read it carefully. If the experience of reading is to mature and be stretched beyond the place where it already is, it needs a critical vocabulary with which to express itself. It is therefore misleading to oppose the firsthand rexperience of reading to secondhand critical analysis about our reading. How we talk about books shapes how we read the books themselves." -- Gerald Graff, "Clueless in Academe"


"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." -- attributed to Sigmund Freu
Respond to these thoughts and to one another. Please use your "joining the conversation" template.

What Is Talking About Fiction For? -- FIRST PERIOD

There is no point in looking for hidden meanings in everything you read. If a meaning is important, it shouldn’t be hidden. And besides, once you’ve determined what you believe a text might mean, how would you possibly know if the meanings are really there or not? And even if you could confirm those meanings, why spend time talking about it? In short, what is the purpose of crafting an analysis of text? No one benefits from that. The author doesn’t need to know. And whether we analyze a text or not, the text doesn’t change. It’s still there, just like it was before it was analyzed. Whether or not I determine that text Y has a beautiful motif of red, no one’s life gets changed. In fact, the original gets ruined with all that talk talk talk about the text. So what's the point? -- internet blog on English classes

"Talking with friends about books harks back to the original impulse behind storytelling, the forging of human bonds. We have told ourselves stories not just in order to live, but in order to live with one another. Primary storytelling itself is insufficient for the forging of human bonds, for audiences need to talk about the stories they read and to compare their interpretations in order to be sure that they have read the same story. The more isolated from one another readers feel, the more they need such secondary conversations in order to establish a bond with other readers. " --paraphrased from Brian Hall's essay on book groups

"An unfortunate split runs through arts education, reflecting the romantic culture war between creators and critics, between the teaching of art itself and the teaching of art criticism. The assumption is that a great masterpiece is so powerful that it cannot help making an impact on any student who can be brought to read it carefully. If the experience of reading is to mature and be stretched beyond the place where it already is, it needs a critical vocabulary with which to express itself. It is therefore misleading to oppose the firsthand rexperience of reading to secondhand critical analysis about our reading. How we talk about books shapes how we read the books themselves." -- Gerald Graff, "Clueless in Academe"


"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." -- attributed to Sigmund Freud

Respond to these thoughts and to one another. Please use your "joining the conversation" template.

THE MOST EFFECTIVE BREAK UP SONG ever, and WHY

Today you will be listening to a radio show called "This American Life." It's a [fantastic, insightful and often really funny] radio show that tells all sorts of stories with shared themes.

Please go to the following link: http://thislife.org/favorites.aspx

Be prepared to scroll down.

Scroll down until you see a show called "The Break Up." The entire show is one hour long, but you only need to listen from minute 5:15 to minute 32:31, or about 27 minutes of story. During that time, you'll hear from a writer named Starlee Kline who is going through a terrible break-up and trying to write a song about it.

Then:

1. Bearing in mind our discussion (and Plato's and Aristotle's, and Starlee Kline's) of what art and fiction are for, argue with this claim:

"Against All Odds" by Phil Collins
is the most effective break-up song ever made.

Here is a link to hear the song again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Sd0W1RyMnE&feature=related

2. If you do not agree, please nominate the one song that you believe instead to be the most effective break up song EVER. Be prepared to compare the effects of your choice and the Phil Collins song.

a. Explain why this song does the things that you believe fiction/art should do.
b. Discuss the specific overall effects your choice of song actually creates.
c. Explain how -- with what techniques -- this song creates the effects that it does.
d. Explain why this song is a more effective break-up song than Collins' song, or ANY other song nominated by ANYONE else on the blog.

In your discussion of technique and effect, you must refer to specific details and choices in the song. Please use your cheat sheets for this assignment. They will help ensure that you are discussing specific techniques and effects.

If you can, ALSO post a link to youtube or elsewhere so we can hear it, too.

Check your grammar.

Strongest argument for most effective song wins a homework extension certificate.


http://thislife.org/favorites.aspx