Both Nina In ?The Seagull? And Oedipus In ?Oedipus Rex? Make Their Fates Even Worse Through Their Ow Essay, Research Paper
??????????? The
inevitability of fate is a key theme in Sophocles? ?Oedipus Rex? and in
Chekhov?s ?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,
spak?st thou no word our countrymen to help? And yet the riddle lay above the
ken?and 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 Teiresias? words early
in the play, Oedipus refuses to believe the truth that he is responsible for
Laios? 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
empathise 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 Nina?s 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 Nina?s fate. Nina?s
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
Trigorin?s subtle warnings. Her heedlessness stems from a determination to
follow her dreams whatever the consequences: ?Nina:?I?d willingly put up with poverty, disappointment,
I?d live in a garret, and eat nothing but rye bread.? I?d suffer terribly, I?d be so dissatisfied with myself, so aware
of my own short comings, but in return I?d 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?isn?t fame, it
isn?t glory, it?s none of those things I used to dream of, it?s 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, Nina?s obsession with fame is clear: ?Nina: And I wouldn?t mind changing places with you?to
see what it feels like being a famous, talented writer. ?What?s 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.? I?ve never given it much thought?it?s
something that you just don?t feel? Nina fails to take heed
to Trigorin?s 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 Nina?s 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 Nina?s own part in shaping her fate, we
cannot ignore the role played by Trigorin.?
From the outset, Trigorin is torn between Arkadina 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.? It?s 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. ??????????? Nina?s 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 Nina?s relationship with Trigorin will probably lead to
her downfall but is powerless to stop the inevitability of her fate. Unlike
Oedipus?, Nina?s fate in ?The Seagull? is not totally disastrous. Although
Nina?s 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: ?I?ve 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 can?t 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 God?s
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 debateable whether or not any
fate is inevitable or simply made inevitable by a character?s personality, it
is certainly true to say that both Nina and Oedipus made their own fate?s 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 God?s, 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 character?s fate is inevitable. Had Oedipus remained at Corinth,
perhaps the oracle?s 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 character?s 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 Nina?s 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.
3cb