Nina And Oedipus example essay topic

Both Nina In The Seagull And Oedipus In Oedipus Rex Make Their Fates Even Worse Through Their Ow The inevitability of fate is a key theme in Sophocles Oedipus Rex and in Chekhov The Seagull. I was fascinated by the ways this inevitability was conveyed by Chekhov and Sophocles respectively and the ways in which the actions of the characters contributed to and heightened their fate. I shall attempt to compare and contrast the way in which Oedipus and, to a lesser extent, Nina make their fates more unbearable by their own actions and choices. In each case the author uses characterisation to enhance and increase the sense of inevitability and hence the sense of tragedy in the respective plays. Sophocles has created his Oedipus not as innately evil but as a likeable character. It is this that makes the conclusion of his play even more tragic.

[1] Had Oedipus been presented as an evil character we would have felt much less sympathetic towards him, as it is Oedipus appears to be the very essence of goodness at the commencement of the play and in this way makes his downfall owing to a realisation of the truth even more dramatic. He is an ideal king one who feels for his people. This addition to a well-known story by Sophocles makes the resultant dramatic irony extremely effective. His evident flaws of character make it plausible that he could have unknowingly killed his father and married his mother.

He is human but at the start of the play his excessive pride, impetuousness and efficiency, all human failings, seem to obscure and divert his search for the truth. Furthermore, he is arrogant and conceited, particularly concerning his personal successes: Oedipus: Why, when the monster with her song was here, spa kst thou no word our countrymen to help And yet the riddle lay above the kenan called for prophets skill but then I came and slew her. These features of Oedipus personality lead him inevitably to assume that he, the great Oedipus, liberator of his people, could not possibly be the murderer that they seek. Hence, it is Oedipus inflated ego that causes his fate to be so severe and his downfall so great at the end of the play.

Furthermore, despite Tiresias words early in the play, Oedipus refuses to believe the truth that he is responsible for Laos death. His arrogance leads him to unknowingly curse himself, thus making his fate worse: Oedipus: Still let him speak; no heavier doom is his than to depart uninjured from the land and none may give him shelter, none speak to him but all shall thrust him from their homes, declared our curse and our pollution. Oedipus has been living a blissful life devoid of problems and worry. He is in a state of denial throughout the play, with the prophesy concerning him playing on his mind and constantly willing it to be a mistake and convincing himself that it must be so. Oedipus has a great sense of integrity and he finds it difficult to believe that he could commit such irreparable sin.

His denial only worsens the eventual realisation of the truth. The design of Oedipus personality by Sophocles is worth consideration. We feel sympathy for his predicament, cringe at his pronouncements, and recognise his apparent faults. It is the humanity of Oedipus that makes Sophocles portrayal of him so successful, allowing the audience to identify with him as a human being rather than just a type.

In contrast, Chekhov is experimenting with the character of Nina. By putting an unformed character into a situation such as that manufactured by Chekhov in The Seagull we find that we become sympathetic towards her, rather than blame her for her stupidity, we warm towards her and pity her and even feel that she has been exploited somewhat. The character of Nina arouses interest through this lack of character formation; she becomes a character that the audience can empathize with. In her final speech, her loss of youthful exuberance is apparent and this becomes tragic, as it was this that made her character so attractive. [2] It is Ninas personality that makes creates her downfall perhaps to an even greater extent than in the case of Oedipus, as there is no sense of a God defined inevitability in Ninas fate. Ninas ambitious nature leads her to follow Trigorin in pursuit of fame and fortune.

Her innocence and childish ambition leads her to follow her dreams despite Trigorins subtle warnings. Her heedlessness stems from a determination to follow her dreams whatever the consequences: Nina: Id willingly put up with poverty, disappointment, Id live in a garret, and eat nothing but rye bread. Id suffer terribly, Id be so dissatisfied with myself, so aware of my own short comings, but in return Id demand fame yes, genuine, resounding fame. It is her youthful naivety that leads to her inevitable downfall.

In contrast to the fully formed character of Oedipus, Nina has yet to find herself and hence her actions are less determined by her character traits and more by her instincts. This leads her to become infatuated with Trigorin who personifies many of her dreams of success, and perhaps it is this that causes her to fall in love with him. Interestingly, however, it is her experience that forms her character and by following her dreams and seeing them left in tatters. This causes her to form a harsh perception of life and become tougher and more resilient.

Her words in the final scene tell us much about her new self: Nina: I know now whether we act or write isnt fame, it isnt glory, its none of those things I used to dream of, its simply the capacity to endure. To bear your cross, and have faith. Despite the curse, it is Oedipus own instinctive actions on realisation of his sin that causes him to be blinded, thus making his fate worse. It is his own remorse that causes him to punish himself in this way. On the other hand, the act of blinding himself is inevitable because of the emotional, passionate and good character that he is; his character traits make his actions inevitable. He becomes a man driven by the heart, not the head.

His humanity becomes increasingly apparent both to himself and the audience. In her conversations with Trigorin, Ninas obsession with fame is clear: Nina: And I wouldnt mind changing places with youth see what it feels like being a famous, talented writer. Whats it like to be a celebrity What does it feel like Although Nina insists on asking questions such as these, she pays no heed to the response: Trigorin: Nothing in particular. Ive never given it much thought its something that you just dont feel Nina fails to take heed to Trigorins subtle advice that fame does not make one happy, but simply makes one strive for more fame. In this way, Nina makes her own fate far worse by her lack of attention. Had she paid attention and realised the reality that lay behind her fantasy we might have seen a very different Nina at the end of the play.

In Ninas case, it is nothing but her driving ambition that leads to her downfall, and in this was she makes her fate worse by her own actions. Like Oedipus, her heart increasingly drives her. Regardless of Ninas own part in shaping her fate, we cannot ignore the role played by Trigorin. From the outset, Trigorin is torn between Ark adina and Nina. He even realises to some extent where a relationship with Nina may lead: Trigorin: An idea for a plot for a short story. Its about a young girl, not unlike you, who has lived all her life beside a lake then a man comes along, catches sight of her, and in an idle moment, destroys her.

Therefore, when the blame is shifted on to Nina for the stupidity of her own actions, it must be remembered that Trigorin must take some of the blame. Ninas conversation with Trigorin in Act Two gives the reader an idea of what is to happen. In this way Chekhov builds dramatic irony in a similar fashion to Sophocles, the audiences realises that Ninas relationship with Trigorin will probably lead to her downfall but is powerless to stop the inevitability of her fate. Unlike Oedipus, Ninas fate in The Seagull is not totally disastrous.

Although Ninas fate has affected her as a person, it has not destroyed her in the same way as it did Oedipus. Here we see the conflicting reactions, Oedipus reacts to his fate by punishing himself and dragging himself down further into despair, refusing to believe that life goes on and asking to be banished from the city and his daughters: Cast me with all thy speed from out this land, where nevermore a man may speak to me! [3] In contrast, Nina, with her life in tatters, gives up her childish innocence and lust for fame and rebuilds her life on new foundations, to endure and have faith. As she says herself in the final scene: Ive been going for walks, walking and thinking, feeling myself grow stronger, spiritually, with every day that passes.

Although both characters find themselves in horrible predicaments, Oedipus allows his unfortunate fate to destroy him due to his desire to suffer to atone for his sin, whilst Nina, on the brink of destruction and madness, resolves to rebuild her life and to carry on regardless. She shows that unhappy fate can be endured and turned to advantage dependent upon a characters actions. Whilst the text shows two ways of dealing with realisation of fate, neither character chooses the easy way out, i.e. death. They do this for differing reasons. Oedipus has several reasons for wanting to live on.

He insists that he blinding himself makes the curse more terrible and he justifies his actions in three ways. Firstly, he wants to inflict physical suffering upon himself to atone for his sin, secondly, he cant bear to see the innocent faces of his children, and thirdly, he wants to be seen as a living example so that everyone will know what he has done and take heed of the Gods and their oracles. In each of these three explanations we admire Oedipus, and perhaps here are the seeds of restructuring his life. This is not examined in depth in Oedipus Rex and the play concludes with Oedipus a broken man. In conclusion, whilst it is debatable whether or not any fate is inevitable or simply made inevitable by a characters personality, it is certainly true to say that both Nina and Oedipus made their own fates worse by their own action, but also that Nina, to some extent, refined her own fate through her positive outlook.

However, it must be taken into account that other characters, and in the case of Oedipus the Gods, also played a key role. Bibliography: The Seagull- Chekhov Oedipus Rex Sophocles The Art of Poetry Aristotle Naturalism Zola York Notes on The Seagull [1] Aristotle wrote in his essay The Art of Poetry that the sense of tragedy is heightened when we feel a characters fate is inevitable. Had Oedipus remained at Corinth, perhaps the oracles prophecy would not have come to fruition. In short, Oedipus fate only became inevitable because the way he reacted to hearing that he should slay his father and kill his mother. In tearing himself away in ignorance he made the near impossible possible. Is it reasonable to say, therefore, that it was not the Gods that made Oedipus fate inevitable, but Oedipus own personality.

This raises an interesting question: is there such a thing as free will in Oedipus society or are all actions predetermined by a characters personality However, this hypothetical debate should not be pursued too far; Oedipus caused the prophesy concerning him to come true owing to his personality traits and these caused him to avoid what he saw as the inevitability of him committing sin. In short, it is Oedipus goodness, honesty, passion and integrity that made evil possible. [2] It can be said that the fates of both Nina and Oedipus were inevitable, but why is the word inevitable used It implies that neither character had any choice whatsoever in the matter and that whatever they did it was inevitable that certain things would happen to them. In the case of Oedipus, this sense of inevitability can be attributed to the Gods.

However, in the case of Nina, it is only that her youthful naivety makes her prone to react in a certain manner and it is this from which the sense of inevitability comes. In both plays one can see evidence of what is now known as naturalism at work. (Although, obviously, Sophocles would have been ignorant of the concept, the same theory can be applied to his art in Oedipus Rex.) Naturalism, as propounded by Zola, involved a scientific objectivity on the part of the writer, observing, in an experimental way, what would happen to their characters if placed in certain conditions. Although interesting, this is rather heartless as it leaves their characters entirely devoid of free will, driven wholly (and this is striking when one considers Nina) by animal instinct.

[3] This is only true in the work I have studied, Oedipus Rex. In further plays concerning the lives of Oedipus, also written by Sophocles as part of a trilogy, Oedipus rebuilds his broken life. In this manner a comparison could be drawn with Ninas attempt to rebuild her broken life. I chose not to do this for two reasons, firstly, my task is specific to the two books mentioned, Oedipus Rex and The Seagull and secondly, the Oedipus trilogy is only a trilogy in the barest sense of the word.

It is three plays chronologically following the life of Oedipus. During the progression of these plays we see little coherency, e.g. the character of Creon varies from an understanding friend to a raging angry tyrant. 3 cb.