“Not rounding off, but opening out.” Comment upon the way the writers deal with the ending in relation to the whole. In your answer you should refer to two or three of the works you have studied.
In both Oedipus the King and the Wild Duck, the play ends with tragedy. However, that is the first and last of their similarities. Both authors, Sophocles and Ibsen, use their endings to convey different messages.
In Oedipus the King, the play ends with the fall of the main character Oedipus. The end of the play parallel's Oedipus's fall from grace. Creon takes away Oedipus's daughters which symbolizes the fact that Oedipus has fallen so far from his once mighty position as king to not be able to choose when he can meet his daughters. This event allows the play to come to head as this completes Oedipus's fall. Creon's comments vocalizes Oedipus's transformation:
"Still the king, the master of all things?
No more: here your power ends.
None of your power follows you through life."
-Sophocles 250
In relation to the rest of the play, the last scene is part of a linear descent that fate assigns to Oedipus. It is interesting to note however, that the tragic events that happen to Oedipus are beyond his control. Juxtaposed against this storyline is Oedipus's personality. Even as he his at his lowest point, he begs for his daughters to be taken care of and for his exile. This displays the importance of honor for Oedipus; he abides by the curses that he announced to Thebes. The end of Oedipus the King plays a dual role. The first is to show the inevitability of fate, but also to display the ability of man to face the "black sea of terror" with honor (1528).
The end of the Wild Duck finds Hedvig, Hjalmar's daughter, dead by her own hand. In the final pages is a dialogue between Gregers, the meddling idealist, and Rellings, Gregers' foil and cynic. Here Ibsen places two conflicting ideas on the inherent goodness of human nature. Although Ibsen is sympathetic to the optimistic ideals of Gregers, Ibsen ultimately sides with Rellings' belief that humans are inherently flawed. This conversation between Gregers and Rellings ultimately serves as an analysis of Gregers' motivations for his actions and the examination of the nature of man through the character of Hjalmar. Ibsen uses Gregers' idealistic interpretation of the tragedy of Hedvig and the reconciliation of Hjalmar and Gina to point out the existence of nobility in humans. However, he immediately contradicts himself with Rellings' claim that "[i]n less than a year little Hedvig will be nothing more to him that a pretty theme for recitations" (216). Rellings' belief that the glory in Hjalmar is a temporary state displays Ibsen's cynicism in man. At the end of the conversation Gregers appears to concede, hinting that Ibsen's belief aligns with Rellings more than him. However, the play ends without the knowledge of the eventual outcome of Hjalmar, casting doubt on Ibsen's cynicism.
No comments:
Post a Comment