Oedipus the King. Oedipus character - Essay Example

This is because even as a king he failed because of his character that was flawed. Oedipus is the protagonist of the play. He is a man who is neither virtuous nor just, but a flaw in him leads to his failure. This paper explores Oedipus character by focusing on the flaws of stubbornness and pride, to ascertain the contributions they had to his failure as a king of Thebes’s people. “Oedipus the King” is a play in which Oedipus is the focal character, and is represented as the most terrible hero.

Oedipus is shaped as an attractive personality that has many characteristics, both good and bad. However, it is worth noting that the flaws in his character override his good character during most of the times, and it is sad to ascertain that his stubborn nature leads him into misery. In as much as Oedipus is responsible and intelligent which is evidenced by the way he unraveled the riddle of sphinx that was most revered by his subjects, I think that this might just be a cover up of his misgivings in his participation in the death of Lauis.

This is why in the play; he lets his people believe his noteworthy quality as his dedication to the truth (Davis et al, 56). The quarrel he has with Teiresias is one of the indications of his flawed character. This is because, he is overwhelmed by anger that emanates from the fact that Teiresias might have liaised with the authorities to connect him to the murder, after all Teiresias knows the truth. Therefore, his pride does not allow him to accept the advice that he gets from Teiresias, which if he had chosen to heed to it would have prevented him from succumbing to the realism of the world.

It is noteworthy that Oedipus character is not transformed throughout the play, as he remains equally independent in every way. Even though, it is well understood that marriage should be based on mutual dependence between two individuals, Oedipus has often been shown not to listen to his wife, and this has always resulted in eliciting anger from his wife who at some point terms him as “Doomed man! O never live to learn the truth!” (Davis et al, 69). I am of the opinion that this distance he creates between him and his wife is meant to obscure him from getting to know the truth, however, despite all his efforts to do that, it finally turns out to be his own enemy when he finally pleads guilty of the murder.

This is so ironical in that instead of his pride and inflexibility overriding his good character to hide the people from the truth, it is this character that finally sets him up and is forced to admit to the crime. According to the book, this turn of events is as a result of his search for the truth while blinded from the start, and never gets to realize this which eventually brings him agony. However, in my opinion his character is to blame for the misery because if only he could have lowered his pride a little bit, and accepted Teiresias advice of not searching for the truth, and avoids his anger towards her, he could have not plunged himself into the misery.

This is because it is this action of trying to look for the truth about the murder and not the act of murder itself that drives him closer to his guilt. This means that if he could not involve himself with the investigations his anger and sturbonnnes could not have surfaced to take advantage of him, therefore, he could remain the good leader as his people had known him. Therefore, my argument is that pride and inflexibility are cause of his failure, and it is with no doubt that he exhibited these traits especially in the matters concerning the death of Lauis, and this was just adding up at every instant, that eventually was too full to be contained, and this was how the truth surfaced.

His character is evidenced in the play on many occasions