Monday, January 13, 2020
Comparing and Contrasting Tragic Heroes †Oedipus and Prufrock Essay
Introduction: Francis Scott Key Fitzgerald (1896 –1940) the Irish American novelist and short story writer of the twentieth century said â€Å"Show me a hero and I will write you a tragedy†(as quoted in memorablequotations.com). Indeed more often than not, great tragedies of yore were always centered round the deeds or the misdeeds of a hero (usually a man of noble birth) his misfortunes and the cursed nature of his life, fated to suffer and fall from glory. The concepts of heroes and heroism have themselves undergone vast changes from Sophocles’ (496-406 B.C) times. Consequently, the idea of hero-based tragedy indeed, even the basic traits of heroism has undergone transformation. As against the noble-born, valorous hero of Sophocles and Aristotle (in The Poetics of 30 B. C.), the common man who struggles to make a decent living, and fulfill ordinary aspirations such as wanting to be loved, given affection, loyalty, friendship etc, in a mundane, mechanized, and mad-after-money world (bereft of human values) – his life has become the focus of the twentieth century tragedies. This essay, shall take two characters, Oedipus – the King (425 B.C), in the ancient drama of Sophocles, and J. Alfred Prufrock, in the twentieth century poet T.S. Eliot’s (1888 –1965) â€Å"Love song of J. Alfred Prufrock†(1915), and analyze their similarities and dissimilarities, with a brief definition of Tragic Hero as given by Sophocles, and the definition of a Tragic Hero in modern times. Definitions with illustrations of Tragic Heroes – Ancient and Twentieth Century: First, the idea of a tragic hero, in the ancient times shall be discussed.  Aristotle, who was a great Greek philosopher and thinker, stipulated a couple of traits as absolutely necessary for a tragic hero: he must be noble origin, or at least possess a noble spirit, and he must be the cause of his own suffering. Aristotle (384-322 B.C), quoting the character of Oedipus depicted by Sophocles, laid down certain rules that a tragic hero must possess: a leader who is filled with good and bad elements – Oedipus was of noble birth and had many noble characters like wanting redeem his kingdom from the plague, but he also was too proud etc; he is ignorant of his imminent fall, though the audience have prior knowledge of it – in case of Oedipus the audience had prior knowledge of his birth and identity, while he considers himself the son of Polybus, the king of Corinth; his inherent flaw or â€Å"hamartia†is the cause of his fall – his belief that he can over come the prophecy that he will kill his father; suffers isolation because of this – self-exile from Corinth; suffering is irreversible – the blinding he causes to himself later; undergoes punishment because of his own pride or â€Å"hubris†– Oedipus pursues the killer of King Laius, despite counsel against it; a misguided sense of heroism, wherein he is prepared to take on the guilt of the state or kingdom on himself – his belief that he can somehow overcome the prophecy of the oracle by leaving his parents; resulting in greater conflict with fate – Oedipus finally goes to Thebes and killed his own father, without knowing who the latter was, thereby fulfilling the oracle; a restoration of balance to the original state of social harmony through cleansing of pity and fear – Oedipus undertakes to go away in exile which was the punishment he had ordered for the killer of the previous king handing over the kingdom to Creon; which he called â€Å"catharsis†or â€Å"tragic satisfaction†(adapted from Allingham, 2002:1). Thus Oedipus exactly fits the role with of a tragic hero, as laid down by Aristotle. Coming to modern tragic hero of the twentieth century, as mentioned earlier, has come a long way from the stipulations of the ancients for tragic-heroism. Daniel J. Boorstin (1914 –2004), an American writer, and the Librarian of Congress, talks of the heroes of the modern world as being â€Å"anonymous†and â€Å"the unsung hero: †¦ the honest cop, the hard worker at lonely, underpaid, unglamorous, unpublicized jobs†(as in memorablequotations.com). A modern tragic hero may described as someone who does not hold any of the ancient lofty ideals, rather as an ordinary man who is disillusioned with the ruthless world around him and is not able to come to terms with it and suffers thereby with a feeling of helplessness, and is unable to realize his full potential because of this. Typically, he is subjected to moods, driven by extreme happiness or plunged into extreme sorrow, very sophisticated, filled with doubts, lives in the crowded cities yet suffers desperately from isolation, smart yet sensitive, and often disillusioned to such an extent that he feels life itself has lost all meaning or relevance to him. Eliot’s Prufrock, typically suffers all these qualities. For example, he is always filled with self-doubt, â€Å"a deep phobia of life, turning into what one could perhaps best describe as complete biological defeatism†(Mirsky, undated). He seems to be the very best representation of so many negative attributes, like procrastination, indecision, doubts, frustration that reflects the impotent helplessness of the modern, urban man. The first few lines in the poem are from Dante’s Inferno, which is used as a prelude, to show that Prufrock, the protagonist is already doomed and is voicing out his thoughts because he is so sure that no-one is hearing them. The poem describes the innermost feelings, extremely tortured with a wanting, to disclose his love to his chosen woman, but prevented from self-doubt, and fear, phobia, â€Å"Do I dare / Disturb the universe?†(Eliot, lines 44-45), because he only knew too well the out come of such expression â€Å"That is not what I meant at all†(Eliot, line 97). The vivid description of the places, possibly his dwelling place, reflects the sordid state in which the typical twentieth century man lived, and the isolation he felt â€Å"of lonely men in shirt-sleeves†(Eliot, line 73). Eliot’s Prufrock, ultimately fails even to begin his proposal to his lady love, because he could not muster the courage to do it, with a premonition of failure overcoming him and, grows old, suffering life-long loneliness. In a sense this defeatism, is his flaw that proves to be the cause of his woes. He claims that he is not â€Å"Prince Hamlet†(Eliot, line 111), referring to the Shakespearean tragic hero, implying his lack of royal lineage, but the irony is that he is, in fact exactly like Hamlet, who by postponing his decision avenge his father’s death, by killing kill Claudius, leads to the death of many others, and finally his own. All this prove that, he does conform to the image of a twentieth century tragic-hero. Comparing and Contrasting, the two tragic heroes: One similarity between the two characters that strikes a literature student immediately is that, both Oedipus and Prufrock, actually are depicted as surviving long into old age, despite all their sadness and failures and disillusionment. Almost as if to chew cud, ruminate all that had gone by and to die a slow painful death of their miserable actions; misguided in Oedipus’ case, â€Å"Woe, woe, and woe again! / How through my soul there darts the sting of pain, / The memory of my crimes†(Sophocles, lines 1372-74) and inactions in the case of Prufrock, â€Å"I grow old†(Eliot, line 120). Both, ultimately realize their folly, or flaw, but are helpless to reverse the situation. In Prufrock’s case, he is entirely the cause of his own suffering, but still is impotent to change the situation. Both despise themselves for their helplessness. Thus, their sufferings seem amplified and add to the brooding quality of their tragic lives. Both are isolated and are despised by the world, in their thinking. Prufrock states that he doesn’t think that the mermaids will sing to him; Oedipus begs to be led away hurriedly, being the most polluted of all, and â€Å"Of all men most accursed†(Sophocles, line1396). Though the two characters share the above stated common traits and both are tragic heroes, there are quite a few dissimilarities too. The first difference is the form of portrayal of the tragic heroes. Oedipus is the hero of the dramatic form, and hence his character is more clear and open to study, presenting a fuller picture of all his characteristic traits and complex behavior. Prufrock, on the other hand is neither a king, nor of noble thinking, and he is the tragic hero in a poem. Implicitly, the shortage of space in a poem puts limitations on extensive character portrayal of the hero. Thus, the student is able to study only a portion of the character’s life-span of Prufrock, in contrast to the full life history of Oedipus. The other most striking contrast is that Oedipus is an ancient tragic hero – actively upholding the principles of high idealism, altruism, justice, and valor while being beleaguered by feelings of jealousy, treachery, disloyalty, dishonor, greed, lust for power etc, the modern, tragic-hero is more of an anti-hero, and impotent. In the sense, he is so defeated by the power of the dull, uninspiring world around him, that he prefers to rather remain inactive, than to actively try to change his situation and be defeated. It is almost as if the uselessness of the attempts of the ancient tragic heroes have been embedded in the collective psyche of the modern tragic hero, and hence, he is already aware of the outcome, he doesn’t even want to attempt. Oedipus not being aware of his true identity, led him to wrongly believe that Polybus was his father, and thereafter his vow never to return to Corinth. But still he, as the mark of a true hero took an action of self-exile which ultimately led to fructify the designs of fate. Nevertheless, he was action-oriented and defeated. Whereas, the modern tragic hero in Prufrock, is so much a pessimist, that he remains defeated with inaction – by sheer preference. In fact, it is said that T.S. Eliot was reflecting on the dismal conditions of the world surrounding him, and this poem partially paved the way for his other later works like The Wasteland (1922). The differing time-periods of the two characters have resulted in the portrayal of the different societies in which these two heroes lived. For example, the people of the land of Thebes have been represented as the Chorus, and they are actively involved in the happenings of the state, the king and the welfare of the state, showing a healthy environment; whereas, the desolate depiction of the twentieth century environment, in Eliot’s poem is more dismal, and uninspiring. It seems the society as a common force had died out, or at least not visible. Conclusion: The tragic heroes Oedipus and Prufrock belong to totally different ages; consequently, present entirely different set of traits and ideals by which they are depicted. While both the heroes have some aspects common to all tragedies, they also display very contrasting traits which make their study, all the more interesting. However, both are symbols of negative impact that afflict the state, ancient and the twentieth century.                                                    List of readings and works cited The sources on which this essay is based on are: Eliot, T.S. (1888–1965).†The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock†in Prufrock and Other Observations.  1917. On line edition Published May 1996 by Bartleby.com  Web address http://www.bartleby.com/198/1.html Accessed on June 12, 2006. Sophocles. Oedipus the King, translated by E. H. Plumptre. Vol. VIII, Part 5. The Harvard Classics. New York: P.F. Collier & Son, 1909–14; Bartleby.com, 2001.            Website address and  http://www.bartleby.com/8/5/3.html Accessed on June 12, 2006. Other works cited and readings that have helped in gaining a better understanding towards writing this essay are: Allingham, V, Philip. 2002. â€Å"Aristotelian Tragedy and the Novels of Thomas Hardy†in The Victorian Web. Website: Accessed on June 12, 2006. McCoy, Kathleen., & Harlan, Judith. (1992). ENGLISH LITERATURE FROM 1785 (New            York: HarperCollins, 1992: 265-66) Web site address:            < http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/english/English151W-03/prufrock.htm>            Accessed on June 12, 2006. memorablequotations.com (2005). â€Å"Memorable Quotations: Heroes†website address Accessed on June 12, 2006. Mirsky, D.S. Undated.  â€Å"T. S. Eliot and The End of Bourgeois Poetry†trans. by Gunnar Jauch, Annelie Hultà ©n, and Arwin van Arum. Website address Accessed on June 12, 2006.    Â
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.