28 Apr 2006
Essay, ENGL1002.
Fulltext follows, incorrect formatting. PDF version also available (proper formatting, footnotes, etc.).
Chapter 26 of Margaret Atwood’s The Penelopiad eloquently brings into focus a prevailing disparity between the values of an epic work borne out of oral tradition, and those of her twenty-first century critique of the same. Perhaps ironically, this chapter may be read as an assertion of the inadequacies of judgement aside from the context to which the alleged ‘crime’ belongs. Atwood’s portrayal of the Judge delineates with absolute clarity the detachment of classical and contemporary values, even illustrating a difference in the semantics of what is, today, an unambiguous term: “rape”.
The notion of ‘permission’ (i.e. consent) in the sense argued by the Attorney for the Defence is such that a third-party is granted control over every facet of the lives of their slaves.
Judge: (chuckles) Excuse me, Madam, but isn’t that what rape is? Without permission?
Attorney: Without permission of their master, Your Honour.
Bizarrely, the Judge plays along with this argument of words — eventually, leading to his/herThe Judge’s gender is undefined throughout dismissal of the case. Significantly, no judgement is made either for or against the defence. This is not, however, the only method used by Atwood to challenge the authority of a twenty-first century court of law. In the closing lines of this chapter, the responder is presented with a scene absurd in nature — certainly, a scene absurd from the perspective of the Judge — in which a “troop” of Erinyes appear, invoked by the incensed Maids’ demands for justice. The Judge is depicted ineffectually crying “Order! Order! This is a twenty-first-century court of justice! You there, get down from the ceiling!” — clearly, comment here is not only on the disparity of myth and reality, but also regarding the chronological state of this judging institution: it is rooted firmly in the twenty-first century, whilst the Odyssey is tied to a much earlier time; hence, no authority can hold.
Yet, for all this criticism of judgement, Atwood’s re-constructed appropriation of this mythAs was her brief: “[to retell] a myth in a contemporary and memorable way.” Atwood, Margaret. The Penelopiad. Melbourne, Australia: Text Publishing, 2005. (Verso soft title page) has all the appearances of being a rather judgemental work. She ridicules preconceived images of Penelope’s character as a woman whose sole function was as a motif of faithfulness and patience, and develops a figure whose character is unambiguously strong (if perhaps of an aqueous disposition), and sneers at the notion of divine intervention in a number of instances, substituting Penelope’s own cunning. These variations from the commonly known ‘myth’ The Odyssey should not, however, be construed as necessary challenges to it. Myth is borne from an oral tradition, enabling scope for re-telling and variation: that is what Atwood has done.
There is a clear distinction between “The Chorus Line” — which, it seems, follows more closely the original version of events (distinguished from it by the imprimatur granted the maids to voice their complaint) — and the core narrative in Atwood’s work, which overtly challenges the centripetal epic mode of The Odyssey. Yet, in this chapter, the two are seen to coalesce, and the very purpose of the narrative is unveiled in dramatic style. The Furies are invoked in a block of dialogue characterised by excessive exclamation and rhetoric, as the Maids issue imperative after imperative to this “troop of twelve Erinyes”.
The impassioned language of these lines nearly disguises the work’s raison d’être, embedded here:
“Dog his footsteps, on earth or in Hades, wherever he may take refuge, in songs and in plays, in tomes and in theses, in marginal notes and in appendices!”
This, it would seem, epitomises Atwood’s role as author of The Penelopiad: she is one of this “troop of twelve” (or the entire troop), and is, in her re-construction of myth outside of epic mode, dogging the footsteps of Odysseus in songs, plays, and other literary works.Note the various modes employed by the Chorus throughout The Penelopiad: song; dance; film (video); and verse, both whimsical and hauntingly spoken in chorus. Is this ‘judgement’ of Odysseus? Arguably not. Atwood’s principle concern is the elocution of the Maid’s story (in the Chorus aspect of her work), and also that of Penelope. The two are undoubtedly intertwined, yet that is of less concern than the reasons behind Atwood’s election to convey these stories over any others, and the form in which she conveys them.
In the original text, the Maid’s execution consumes a paragraph. The death of the maids is not even the fault of OdysseusFulkerson, Laurel. “Epic Ways of Killing a Woman: Gender and Transgression in Odyssey 22.465-72.” Classical Journal 97, no. 4 (April-May 2002): 335-50. — In which it is suggested, amongst other things, that Telemachus sought to conduct the execution differently as an expression of his ‘coming of age’ (defiance of his father’s authority).: Telemachus declares “I will not give a decent death” to women who, by his reckoning, have “heaped dishonour on my head and on my mother’s”. Half of Atwood’s work is built off a paragraph. She recursively (i.e. in her version of the myth) evokes Furies to speak on behalf of those whose cause she champions, all the while fulfilling this role. Why does the original work not devote Atwood’s concern and compassion to the plight of these twelve maids? Clearly, something has changed.
Atwood’s own context is radically different from that of classical Greece, and, despite claims to the contraryButler, Samuel. The Authoress of The Odyssey. 1897. — In which it is proposed Homer was a female bard. Possibly true, but not an indication of any degree of equality in expression… especially for female slaves., The Odyssey can hardly be regarded as a tome delivered from a context particularly empowering to women. Conversely, Atwood is writing from a period of comparative equality — there is, undoubtedly, bountiful evidence of feminist influence upon this work. Her role, therefore, is that of consociate between the two periods, as she continues to “dog [Odysseus'] footsteps” in a new time, from a new perspective — giving a voice to the Maids they were previously denied, but not pronouncing them wronged. Judgement, it seems, is left to the responder. Atwood is an aggressive prosecutor of mythological standing, but the reader is called upon to make their own judgements. This trial presents the responder with precisely that: an invitation to draw one’s own conclusions — recognised as subjective — from the evidence presented.
28 Apr 2006
Essay, CLCV1001.
Fulltext follows, incorrect formatting. PDF version also available (proper formatting, footnotes, etc.).
Recurring throughout myth (and tragedy) is the notion of divine intervention having significant bearing on the course of human direction, something that creates obvious and significant ramifications for any conception of individual responsibility — or, indeed, autonomy — with regard to `actions’ leading to future events. The significance of these actions is contingent on interpretation of human behaviour as either contained within the constrains of a predetermined existence, or subject to the workings of the gods: in the closing lines of King Oedipus (tr. E.F. Watling), the Chorus exhorts the audience “Behold, what a full tide of misfortune swept over his head.”Oedipus Rex, 1526. Misfortune, clearly, alludes to the impotency of humanity against greater forces.
This notion of power/powerlessness prevails strongly throughout Sophocles’ Theban Plays as ambiguity draws together the threads of `fate’, defeating human purpose and intentions. To assert the `defeat’ of purpose is, however, probably a less-than-accurate depiction of the circumstances in which Oedipus finds himself. There is a clarity of purpose in his mind that leads to his demise: it is, as Vernant writesVernant, J.P. tr. Lloyd, J. Myth and Tragedy in Ancient Greece. New York, NY: Zone Books. 1988. Page 116., that “Except for his own obstinate determination to unmask the guilty party, the lofty idea … of his duty, capacities, judgement (his g\={n}om\={e}), and his … desire [for the truth], there is nothing to oblige him to pursue the enquiry to its end.” (Emphasis mine)
Oedipus’ fate, it seems, subverts his intention. His `determination’ is for truth; his pursuit, justice. Yet, recursively, the object of these pursuits is none but himself. Sophocles’ narrative unveils slowly, and of those in the playing space Oedipus is far from the first to discover the truth. The audience learns of a shepherd requesting exile upon witnessing Oedipus’ ascension to the throneOedipus Rex, 758-62.; Jocasta believes before her husband/son does, knowing the truth of the circumstances related to themibid., 1061.; and, of course, the Oracle’s words go unheeded only by means of Jocasta’s misplaced cynicismibid., 709-24. — for all that, the audience’s response to the Oracle would be one of acknowledgement of that prophecy as foreshadowing an inevitable demise.
Oedipus does not survive his own predications that someone is at fault, that someone must be brought to justice. He is, it seems, the model king. The tragic play opens with him addressing those who come to him as “children” — clearly paternalistic, and, as has been noted, “unusual for rulers in Greek tragedy”Kitto, H.D.F. (ed. Hall, E). Oedipus the King. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1994. (First endnote on Oedipus the King, p.164).. Oedipus is established from the earliest possible stage (indeed, the opening words of the play) as a benevolent ruler, proven in the past as he matched wits with the Sphinx, successfully solving her riddle for Thebes. It should be considered a point of no slight importance that — whilst he could resolve that riddle — in the hands of prophecy and predetermined demise Oedipus has little in the way of explanation or understanding for much of the play. He is depicted as perhaps not powerless — he is empowered enough to engineer his own demise — but certainly as without full comprehension of his actions.
Vernant remarks that Oedipus’ assertion that he will reveal the criminal [\varepsilon\gamma\omega \phi\alpha\nu\omega ]Oedipus Rex, 131. contains a double meaning unintended by Oedipus but clear to the audience. Eg\={o} phan\={o} can be read either as “I will reveal the criminal” or “I will reveal myself as the criminal”: here, again, we see the duplicity of Oedipus’ character and his own uncertainty in direction and meaning. The dichotomy between human responsibility (here that of Oedipus as leader of a people assailed by some god) and divine omniscience is here clearer than ever: we see Oedipus in a position of power, yet he cannot foresee his own empowerment will lead to his demise.
Indeed, Oedipus’ empowerment is definitive of his initial circumstances: he had power, a wife, children, and a people whose regard of him should not be understated. Care is taken to address Oedipus as distinct from the gods early in the workibid., 31., so revered he was amongst his people… yet, by the closing lines of the play, the Chorus cites him as an example of “mortal man”ibid., 1527. From Vernant 119. to whose end we must look as an example. Divine intervention, it seems, can fell any mortal: this intervention is the peripeteia of Oedipus’ path through life.
So what of his supposed `responsibility’? May Oedipus be held accountable for the ultimate act of `human filthiness’ibid., 1406. he has committed, or is this the fault of divine intervention, and are the gods to be held to blame? Are the two even of mutual exclusion? It is clearly of divine connection, though the nature of this connection may be that of foreknowledge alone. What, then, are we to make of Oedipus’ just and compassionate character? Of all the aspects of the tragic mode, reversal and inversion are the most central of qualities — here, Oedipus falls. Yet, from the opening of Oedipus Rex, he has already committed his crimes. He is fundamentally at fault from the beginning of the work, though he bears all the markings of a great leader. Oedipus (unknowingly) awaits self-revelation of his crimes — as do those around him. The crimes are undeniably his, though they were antithetical to his intentions.
The divine, however, leads him to his fate. It was Oedipus’ consultation of an oracleibid., 788. that lead him to flee from his supposed `parents’ in Corinth, setting him on his path to destruction. Subsequent encounters with agents of the divine provide a catalyst the action of the play, as consultation turns to challenge, which turns to questioning, which turns to revelation. And, after this revelation, it was not autonomous action on the part of Oedipus to blind himself — he was directed by Apollo.
Yet, in all this, Oedipus acts of his own accord. Notably, in the first of his crimes — a fit of rage on the road from Corinth, in which he kills his biological father — there is no divine direction. Whilst his demise is predicted, Oedipus acts seemingly without reason to start a chain of crimes for which he will later be called to account. Indubitably, it is Oedipus who here commits these actions. The catalyst, however, is the suggestion of a stranger that his parents are not truly his own… and the consultation of a Delphic oracle.
A divine conspiracy remains a possibility. If nothing else, it is convenient explanation for irrational behaviours such as the fit of rage that grips Oedipus, his most overt departure from his otherwise-benevolent persona. Even this, however, is justified (after a fashion): it was Laius who struck him first. Whilst the scope of his revenge was perhaps broader than may reasonably be expected, it should be said that he may hardly be found entirely at fault here.
Oedipus is, therefore, blameless from the perspective of human lawVernant 121…. yet still guilty in the crimes he has committed against nature and the gods. Ironic, then, that the gods are to be viewed as his co-accused; complicit in his downfall. Immortality is an excuse Oedipus cannot wield — the Immortals’ sport does not extend into the human realm without damage, and the play is perhaps aetiological in this sense: explanation of the world’s ills can be traced back to divine intervention.
Far from absolving humanity, however, Sophocles instead embroils Oedipus, depicting him as actively obeying divine imperatives even where these exist contrary to logic and reason:Oedipus Rex., 1327-32
Chorus [speaks]. O, to destroy your sight! How could you bringYourself to do it? What god incited you?
Oedipus [sings]. It was Apollo, friends, Apollo.He decreed that I should suffer what I suffer;But the hand that struck, alas! was my own,And not another’s.
This passage is central to understanding the relationship between human responsibility and divine intervention: we witness Oedipus as acting — yes, the action is his — but without autonomy. Instead, he is directed by the god Apollo.
It would appear that there is little semblance of free-will here, yet human responsibility is still requisite. The divine exist to explain that which requires explanation, whilst humans exist to live uncertain lives, anchored only in death: this is the archetype of Oedipus to which we all conform and bear responsibility.
28 Apr 2006
Finally got everything back home tonight (thanks for help Selo!) which was good. Not that I’m going to be around long enough to even setup these mixers. Oh, yeah, I bought mixers. Haven’t had time to blog about that yet. (Does anyone else get the irony of blogging about not having enough time?) I’ll be away at Kyckstart for the weekend, which seemed like a good idea at the time (it’s just that I later realised that’s this weekend, EU Arts fac weekend away is next weekend, and I didn’t really have a holiday in “holidays” at all). Meanwhile, uni assessments hover over the horizon (I suppose), and parenthetical comments don’t particularly help.
I should sleep before midnight sometime, but any chance of reading for pleasure would be abandoned in such an action. I miss that. It is now an expectation that literature will be boring, the only entertainment arising from an idea, a muse that stems from analysis: the magic of narrative abandoned. There is an expected path for all things, and no beauty is seen in the language employed–readings assume an anticipated form, for they are readings, not things to be read. For those, there is little time. The light glows brightest just before it blows… Ondaatje? I checked. The chase was thrilling, finding language that was not wholly alien and concepts that were beautifully expressed. There is no middle-english rhetoric for emphasis. We mightn’t be the pinnacle of civilisation, but it’s easy for things to feel that way when juxtaposing certain texts (this is not a blanket statement).
This post is winding down towards sleep, just clearing ideas. Anzac ideas are still there… again, not a blanket statement (I can’t think lucidly enough at present to post about it, so it may slip from my consciousness for a while… later.). A sequence of ideas drawn from snippets of experience. Which is, really, all we have. Exposition will come at some point though we know not when. Is it futile to rush that experience of discovery? Probably. It will come as equal shock irrespective of age, perhaps, to learn that there is deviation from what one perceives as ‘real’, ‘normal’. It is all fascinating.
Balancing that discovery with the development of skills is something else altogether. Where is there time for passive application? <rant about time deleted>
Next week things will improve. Apparently uni students never develop normal sleeping patterns whilst still studying. Tempting not to bother trying ;-) <\/rant><rant about assessments deleted>
Now… I must pack and then sleep. Or sleep and pack tomorrow morning. I know other people have far greater commitments and are juggling far more at present, which is… simultaneously humbling and incomprehensible. It should be a good weekend. <\/rant>
27 Apr 2006
Now a photoset on Flickr, which seems to work well for this high-volume kinda stuff. I just bought me a Pro account (because I would have done the normal limit ten times over when I clicked “Upload” last night)… that’s two they’ve got out of me thus far. Flickr rocks.
As, incidentally, did our costumes:
And the lighting rig!
And the strange looks we attracted at about 1am…
(Yeah, that’s McDonalds).
For full/better costume coverage, see Gem’s blog (or “LiveJournal”, as they call them over there!)
25 Apr 2006
Costumes are ready. Boy are they ready. We went to a McDonalds wearing them on a whim just to see what the response would be (no alcohol was involved!).
Theme song is sorted. Over the top, perhaps, but why not? One of the perks to running A/V. Speaking of which, this is shaping up to be quite a lot of fun. I’ve recently acquired a couple of 1RU mixers for use here at home, Selo’s bringing his awesome-looking NAD amp and pre-amp (haven’t heard it yet) and some speakers, I’m taking my JVC and Acoustic Research monstrosities. Audio will be sufficiently loud.
We also have lots and lots of smoke and a handful of (cheesy, but infinitely more impressive in a room filled with fog) lights… but I’m hoping to get more if I can find anywhere OPEN tomorrow… I love a public holiday, but things should stay open, damn it. I am sufficiently indifferent about the ANZAC day thing in a broader context: marches are inane, and it is apparently one day of the year in which certain forms of gambling, etc., are decriminalised (for whatever reason) — it hardly promotes a positive culture of any kind. If we are to honour dead people there’s got to be a less pathetic way to do it then a bizarre combination of marches, alcohol and gambling.
<\/semi-political-rant>
Audio will be playing off various iPods (unavoidably so…), and various open-source software. Anyone who has done an event with me before knows I don’t travel particularly light in terms of the number of computers… but seeing as this is walking distance from home it may be an exception. Maybe ;-)
I still haven’t tracked down a mic yet, despite the indubitable usefulness of such contraptions. Similarly, a data projector eludes me, so no fun visualisations to be had projected through the air (courtesy of Dynebolic, I should think). Smoke + beams of light is awesome. No lasers. I’m hoping to get hold of a T-stand tomorrow so things will be off the ground and not rendered visually useless as people dance immediately in front of them, as is too often the case with parties where stuff has been setup at the last minute.
Anyway. Sleepy time. Probably will have lots of pictures (including full details of the elusive costumes) sometime in the next week… I’m going away this weekend, so hopefully before then!