proper ways
Michael Miller
Ms. Walters
AP Literature (3rd Period)
3 February 2014
Free Will and Fate: Hamlet vs. Oedipus
The Typical tragedians respected the conflict of both fate and free will. In just about every great tragedy there is the universal struggle between the human preference of accepting fate completely and the natural desire of wanting to control destiny. Both Sophocles and Shakespeare would agree that the forces of destiny and choice continue to strive for the control of human life. However, both of these playwrights support the perspective on the struggle born of his time and culture.
For the Greek Sophocles, fate actually overpowers human will; meaning the harder a man works to avoid his fate, the more destined his fate is to become. Sophocles' characters eventually surrender after their efforts of resistance and recognition to their own destinies; Sophocles' plays warn against the pride that deceives most people into thinking that we can change fate by using human intervention. For Shakespeare the choice between both good and evil represents man's basic problems; for him, humans will is very doubtful. Even though fate may win in the end, a man must fight till’ the death in order to remain the master of his own choices.
The contrast between the two points of view is a notable feature of any comparison between Sophocles' Oedipus Rex and Shakespeare's Hamlet, Prince of Denmark.
In his book The Poetics, Aristotle based the definition of tragedy on Oedipus Rex, making Sophocles' play, a standard of the genre. The idea that a hero must be a man of importance who is undone by any flaw in himself governs Oedipus, the play's protagonist. While Oedipus only supposedly controls his life, Hamlet's choices are direct which eventually destroy him. Oedipus, the perfect Greek tragic hero, can see nothing until he blinds himself, thus breaking free of the human pressure to understand the forces that should be obeyed. Introspection is only potential for
Ms. Walters
AP Literature (3rd Period)
3 February 2014
Free Will and Fate: Hamlet vs. Oedipus
The Typical tragedians respected the conflict of both fate and free will. In just about every great tragedy there is the universal struggle between the human preference of accepting fate completely and the natural desire of wanting to control destiny. Both Sophocles and Shakespeare would agree that the forces of destiny and choice continue to strive for the control of human life. However, both of these playwrights support the perspective on the struggle born of his time and culture.
For the Greek Sophocles, fate actually overpowers human will; meaning the harder a man works to avoid his fate, the more destined his fate is to become. Sophocles' characters eventually surrender after their efforts of resistance and recognition to their own destinies; Sophocles' plays warn against the pride that deceives most people into thinking that we can change fate by using human intervention. For Shakespeare the choice between both good and evil represents man's basic problems; for him, humans will is very doubtful. Even though fate may win in the end, a man must fight till’ the death in order to remain the master of his own choices.
The contrast between the two points of view is a notable feature of any comparison between Sophocles' Oedipus Rex and Shakespeare's Hamlet, Prince of Denmark.
In his book The Poetics, Aristotle based the definition of tragedy on Oedipus Rex, making Sophocles' play, a standard of the genre. The idea that a hero must be a man of importance who is undone by any flaw in himself governs Oedipus, the play's protagonist. While Oedipus only supposedly controls his life, Hamlet's choices are direct which eventually destroy him. Oedipus, the perfect Greek tragic hero, can see nothing until he blinds himself, thus breaking free of the human pressure to understand the forces that should be obeyed. Introspection is only potential for