The External Conflict in Oedipus Rex: Man vs Fate - Research Paper Example

The External Conflict in Oedipus Rex: Man v. Fate One of the most common themes in ancient literature is man versus fate or man’s inability to control his fate. In Greek mythology, Achilles and Aeneas are only two of the characters who illustrate inability to govern their fate, with Achilles dying because of his heel flaw while Aeneas repeatedly escaping death as his goddess mother saves him from misfortunes. The power of fate over man is also evident in the story of Christ who was crucified despite his innocence and control over his followers. In Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex, the main character is likewise made to suffer this external conflict. The theme of fulfilling prophesy leads the play to end tragically, thus creating disappointment among readers. Similarly, the same theme shapes the elements of the play, thus resulting in the creation of one of the best plays of all times. With this, the theme of man versus fate can be considered the play’s best and worst element. The external conflict of man versus fate affects the play positively as it shapes the characterization, plot and emotionality. It makes the elements more interesting and much-awaited as the audience is informed of the truth at the very beginning. Nevertheless, it also serves as the worst element of the drama as it leads to the damnation of the main character. Oedipus suffers damnation for two reasons: murdering his father and marrying his mother. These two unthinkable sins are enough for Oedipus to deserve damnation. The theme of man versus fate helps improve the characterization as it makes Oedipus a round and developing character. His ignorance of the truth at the beginning makes him look weak and helpless. Consequently, as he fulfils the prophecy, he appears vindictive and kingly, able to solve the great puzzle and save people from death. Later on, his inability to decipher the truth as prolonged by his dialogue with Teiresias makes him less pitiful and guilty. In the dialogue, Oedipus seems to be denial of the naked truth in front of him. The conflict of man against fate thus leads the audience to see the character of Oedipus in different angles. The theme also shapes the plot to make it more interesting. Establishing the prophecy at the beginning, Sophocles makes a clear conflict and ending. Unfortunately, the prophecy leads Laius to disown his firstborn and worse, have him murdered. Reacting selfishly to the prophecy in order to protect his life and kingship, Laius deserves the punishment that his own son gives him, that is, death by the latter’s hands. Moreover, the plot is also embellished with the presence of the sphinx whose sinister and remarkable form elevates Oedipus to deserve the royal crown after overpowering it. Finally, the external conflict also leads to the downfall of Oedipus, thus defeating the kingship that he gained and putting things in their proper order. The external conflict further helps establish emotionality of the play. Seeing the origin of the main character, viewers pity the young Oedipus for being banished or supposedly murdered by his own father. When Laius orders the banishment of his own baby, he also orders the murder of it. This thought then creates in the audience a certain amount of anger towards Laius for being irresponsible and cruel as a father. Furthermore, the banishment also leads the audience to pity Oedipus for not knowing the truth in order to act in accordance with it. Equitably, the theme also moves the audience towards anger at Oedipus. They could be angered to see Oedipus murder his own father, thinking that he should not do such a crime. They could experience a more intense anger as they witness Oedipus marrying his own mother, and worst, have children by her. Nevertheless, taking into consideration the external conflict, the audience could have mixed reactions on the said events. As Dodds (17) notes in his essay titled, On Misunderstanding the Oedipus Rex, several literature students form a notion that Oedipus Rex is a story of tragic flaw. In defense, he argues that a character ending in tragedy due to tragic flaws as that described by Aristotle is one having wealth or an elated position and losing it because of his own character flaws. Since Oedipus is not of this type, Dodds proclaim him as one suffering what Gould (31) refers to as “tragedy of fate.” The external conflict or “tragedy of fate” likewise presents some negative impacts on the narrative content and form of the play. Basically, the exposition of the prophecy in the beginning controls the content of the play. On one hand, it focuses the plot and characterization to the planned destruction of Oedipus. On the other, it predestines the characters, thus losing the element of surprise in the turn of events. In the end, Sophocles is faced with a challenge to end the play in a manner not expected by the audience as they can readily decipher the tragedy of the main character even at the very beginning. As such, the external conflict working against the element of surprise may not work with an intelligent audience. Therefore, some could consider the conflict as a demerit of the play. Gould (36) believes that the “tragic fate” of Oedipus is to blame but he contends that denying the tragic flaw will not help to address the issue. Rather, several aspects of the play could lead to this notion. Relevantly, looking into the time when Oedipus conceives children, viewers may find a gap in the play. Definitely, it is incorrect to expect a dramatization of love scenes between Oedipus and his mother but imagining the play in modern art forms such as the telenovela series of Asia, the story would be different, it would be focused on tragic flaw because by then, the characters will have more explorations of their experiences and more chances to reflect upon their fate. Considering the said argument, believing that Oedipus Rex is a tragedy of fate could lead the modern audience to believe that the form of the play, especially the gap in it, presents a loophole that should be explored further in order to properly identify whether Oedipus is a victim of his fate or of his own ignoble character. The gap being referred to is the time that Oedipus marries and conceives children. Writing in medias res, Sophocles does not explore the said part in the play. To say that it is understood to omit scenes in this part is reasonable, especially in the case of a stage play. Nevertheless, it should not escape the attention of the readers. To correct this flaw, there should be scenes showing how Oedipus regards his mother, how he gets attracted to her (if he ever does). Moreover, in later interpretations and adaptations of the play, there should be scenes showing the depths of Oedipus’ feelings for Jocasta, not to mention the way he makes love to her, in order to give light to the present debate. Indeed, to do so would be too elaborate and confounding but such ideas could help identify whether Dodds’ opinion is of importance. If the said measures are done and Oedipus shows intensity in the love scenes, the tragedy will clearly be of character and not of fate. This leads to the idea that the tragedy is of fate and not of character. In the play, the gap fails to tell how intimate Oedipus and Jocasta are as lovers. Conversely, it can be assumed that Oedipus is not only bound by the prophecy of his birth but also by the cultural norms of his society, which form part of his fate. It is better to say that the fate that works in his marriage with Jocasta is not the fate related to his birth but the fate that he assumes after solving the riddle. Although the two ideas are related, it should be considered that solving the riddle, in itself, leads to gaining the trust of the people and the responsibility over them. Therefore, the tragedy that fate brings is renewed or heightened by the solving of the riddle. This explains why the love scenes can be omitted. Basically because for Oedipus, marrying Jocasta is more of a responsibility than a choice. In the play, Sophocles advances the scene to the time when the two already have children and are faced with the retributions of fate. This leads the audience to suspect that there is love between Oedipus and Jocasta but such is not enough to illustrate the sexual attraction he has with her. In turn, it can be assumed that Sophocles actually goes away with the complexity of illustrating the sexual attraction because the relationship exists more out of responsibility for both mother and son or out of ambition to be a king, on the part of Oedipus. The said argument leads to the idea that the external conflict or the realization of it could lead to questioning of form as presented above. For curious viewers, the belief in the tragedy of fate could lead to questioning the focus of the play, especially of the beginning or the cultural setting of the story. In particular, they will likely say that the focus of the play, which is determining the reason for the plague, is not a valid start as it highlights the negative treatment of Oedipus towards Teiresias, thus: OEDIPUS: Is it endurable that I should hear such words from him? Go and a curse go with you! Quick, home with you! Out of my house at once! TEIRESIAS: I would not have come either had you not call me. OEDIPUS: I did not know then you would talk like a fool— or it would have been long before I called you. (l.505-507) In conservative cultures that pay high respect to elders, the words of Oedipus for Teiresias could be too hurting, hence deserving punishment. Highlighting them in the beginning of the play could lead to the notion that Sophocles is actually moralizing as regards paying respect to elders. On a different note, Gould (38) note that some critics given attention to the mythical characteristics of the play. This consideration elaborates the idea of looking more closely into the structure of the play. As Megas (135) claims, Oedipus Rex may have originated from some ancient myths such as one titled, “Potametes” which was originally found in Epirus. This myth tells the story of a boy who marries his mother. Although the couple does not bear a child, their story is very close to Oedipus Rex. Taking this example, the issue regarding the structure of Oedipus Rex, which suggests questions regarding its purpose and originality should not be dismissed. The external conflict between man and his fate makes the play equally interesting and flawed. It is no wonder that some critics opt to point out the tragic flaw of Oedipus instead of the tragic fate that he faces. In sum, although it is important to consider issues surrounding character flaw in practical terms, the void in the structure or form supports the idea of the tragic fate more than the tragic flaw. Works Cited Dodds, Eric Robertson. "On Misunderstanding the Oedipus Rex." Twentieth Century Interpretations of Oedipus Rex: A Collection of Critical Essays. Ed. Michael J. O'Brien. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1968. 17-29.  Gould, Thomas. “The Innocence of Oedipus.” Oedipus Rex-Sophocles. Ed. Harold Bloom. NY: Infobase Pub., 2007: 31-70. Megas, George. “On the Oedipus Myth.” Oedipus: a Folklore Casebook. Ed. Lowell Edmunds and Alan Dundes. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1995. Sophocles. “Oedipus Rex.” The Norton Anthology of Drama Shorter Edition. Eds. J. Ellen Gainor, Stanton B. Garner and Martin Puchner. NY: WW Norton & Co. Read More