signify and signifier

Semiotics is study of signs and symbols. Signs and symbols develop to words and ideas. A word or an idea can be signified from signs and symbols. Although there is distictions between signify and signifier, they are interplay. Signify is a verb that to mean from a signifier. For example, when we see the word "sister", we image it as a symbol (signifier), then we signify (mean) it a member of our family.

Semiotic theory

This was my first introduction to semiotic theory.
At fist it just seemed like a bunch of nonsense, but as I kept on reading it my view was completely changed. Constructing a formal process of studying our understanding of the world through signs seems essential. Without the signifier we wouldn’t be able to communicate, express and formulate ideas in a comprehensive manner. Humans have created a number theory (mathematics) and group theory (physics) to express simple observations and to further construct them into ideas. For example in creating the laws of thermodynamics, humans made an observation that there is something constant in the universe and using a signifier they labeled it energy, they also noticed that there was something that was constantly increasing and called is enthalpy (disorder). With time people applied a different system of signs (numbers) to these ideas, which later became known as the universal laws of thermodynamics. These laws can be expressed quantitatively and qualitatively, and can also be experimentally tested. The signified for enthalpy and energy is infinite, without this fact we wouldn’t have the technology and many other things we consider essential to life today. So, the semiotic theory, explanation of the process by which meaning arises during our perception of the world seems to me like a very important and useful tool to study.

Reading Oedipus.

“Oedipus the king” is such an interesting play that has many twist and hidden clues that all connect by the end of the reading. It’s hard to think that Oedipus would try to find the real killer, knowing the truth; perhaps he tries to escape that reality and blinds himself from the realism of the situation. The great setting and Greek believes just gives the play an extra mystical interest, that highlights the plot and characters. Perhaps for me the most interesting part of the play, was actually the foreshowing riddles exposed by Tiresias. Tiresias is determent, and is not willing to let the great kind hold his thoughts back, he knows the truth, and perhaps conveys a ironic perspective that was probably intended by the writer. This character is blind but clear in his ideas, in the other hand we have Oedipus a king completely blessed with all his senses, but with an imaginary wall blocking the truth behind the murder and consequently the cure for the plague.

Oedipus The King

I really gained a better understanding of the tragedy by the descriptions given in the BIL. Oedipus' slow decent from grace of once being the savior of Thebes by solving the Sphinx's riddle while escaping what he presumed was his horrible fate in Corinth. Even the choice of context Sophocles gave Oedipus when he was cursing the murderer of Laius, the cause of the plague in Thebes, was so tragically ironic because it proved to the reader how unaware he was of his own crimes, killing his father and marrying his mother. Still, he did face his punishment honorably, even after blinding himself. This seemed almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy in some ways. Oedipus hoped to escape his fate only to dive right into it.

While reading Oedipus the thing that stood out to me the most was how it was filled with much irony. One example being the the mention of eyesight and blindness. Oedipus argues with Tiresias when he is told the he himself is the murderer. Oedipus right away goes to insult Tiresias of being blind and Tiresias responds with the fact that Oedipus soon will be dealing with that same disadvantage. Towards the end of the play when Oedipus learns of what he has done and punishes himself, the first thing he does is poke out his eyes. This play is filled with much intense and drama, that once you pick it up and start reading it, it is very hard to put down.

elements of Oedipus the King

Oedipus the king begins with prologue. It tells us the time and scene. There is no expostion and plot provided in advance. A single scene continously go through beginning to end. The conflict rises from oral actions instead of physical actions. An oracle brought back the memory of the kings' conflict. The chorus seems is Oedipus inner foil and also bring the drama rising to climax and falling to resolution.

Blindness in Oedipus the King

I believe that the reoccurring notion of blindness plays an important role throughout the play. Tiresias is the 'seer' that is blind, yet knows the truth. Oedipus can see and does not know the truth till the end of the tragedy. However those that can see, namely Oedipus at the beginning of the tragedy don't really see all that is going on, and the truth behind his life. Tiresias responds to Oedipus' reproach by saying "So, you mock my blindness? let me tell you this. You with your precious eyes you're blind to the corruption of your life, to the house you live in, those you live with (468-473)." It was not till the end of the play that Oedipus literally blinds himself, does he realize the truth. Of all the intricate layers of meaning and lessons that this play conjures, I think that the lesson that nothing is always what it seems, appears to be the most important one.

Oedipus the King

Oeidipus the King is such an ironic mind twisting play. Sophocles is known for his sophisticated tragedies. Being very unaware of Sophocles works, Oeidipus the King displays a very mere, ironic and tragic story. King Oeidipus is the hero of Thebes from his answering to the riddle of the Sphinx. He now commits that he must save Thebes again by finding the cause of the plague in order to save his people. His heroicy only leads to his fate. They story is built around the notion that plague was caused by the death of the king Laius. Oedipus is in deep search for the killer of the king, but little does he know that he is the murderer. Oedipus is blind and very stubborn into actually beleiving that he is the killer. Tiresius the prophet, and the messenger try to notify Oepidipus that he is the murdere. Tension builds as we reach the end of the play. What was so comical while reading the story was the chorus. Every time the chorus had its part during the story, it made me feel like something was going to be revealed and that something drastic is going to happy. I view the chorus like as the accompanying music in horror flicks.

Oedipus the King

I like reading where there is meaning behind what the characters involved say or do. It isn't exactly straightforward, you have to think, almost be a detective (that is where the fun begins). But this implies that you have a certain level of knowledge about the topic or from what you are seeing or reading or hearing you can infer the rest.Although the play was, explained, translated, I've read it before, and it was much easier than expected, it was still difficult for me along with most of the writings or plays from these times. I think that there is so much more meaning that can be inferred from the things that happen. I just feel like I'm lost. When i read the Aeneid i had a very similar problem so i purchased the cliff notes. I know its considered cheating by some but i just don't get why it has to be soo complicated. There is too much intrigue in these plays and at some point some readers like myself loose interest because you just want it to solve out. I'm sorry to say that tragedy is definitely not my cup of tea and i will accept what the experts have to say about what the things in it mean and are.

Oedipus

The story of Oedipus is filled with dramatic irony. We know that the man who has killed the former king Laius was in fact King Oedipus, but he doesn't know that. As a man with a bad temper he slays Laius, his real father, while trying to get away from his adoptive parents because he believes it is that father he is going to kill. Throught the story I also noticed the element of foreshadowing. Oedipus constantly refers to his eyesight. When he is speaking to the priest he says "I would be blind to misery not to pity my people kneeling at my feet". Also later on in the play Tiresias, the oracle says to him "You with your precious eyes, you're blind to the corruption of your life. The referencing to the eyes and Oedipus being blind to his problems is a constant reoccurance. In the end he does gouge out his eyes.

Something I noticed while reading Oedipus Rex was the amount of interpretation left open, even for a drama. In Trifles the characters were, more or less, set out; we were told by the writer where they stand, how they move, etc, but in Oedipus the characters can have any tone of voice, any type of body language, in other words, the actors and directors of a stage performance of this play can bend it to their own creativity, the only thing binding them is the dialogue and plot.

The point of the play which seemed to suggest the Oedipus Complex was not the plot, but the line that says (i cannot find the exact line) that amny men have dreamed of sleeping with their mothers, which, I believe, told Freud that this was not an isolated case but rather a common fantasy that was less repressed, and therefore less subconscious, than it is now. I do agree with Ioannis that the case Oedipus himself does not seem to be a true Oedipus Complex but rather an unfortunate coincidence.

A Second Option for Oedipus

After reading Oedipus the King, I believe that the original definition of the "Oedipus Complex" misconstrues Oedipus' present actions. It is a fact that we find out that Oedipus does indeed kill his father and marry his mother, but according to Freud those intentions are universal to all men. I believe the Oedipus should also be famous for pursuing ill truth when he slowly finds validity in the prophecy. He could have lived the rest of his life peacefully ruling over two vast countries. Of course the repercussions of this option is living in full ignorance. Which raises an interesting question; should one live a jubilant life of contentment and ignorance or a life of misery and truth? Also this may not necessarily apply but consider the cliche: Ignorance is bliss

Oedipus the King

The play lacks description of setting and character's emotions. It is not easy to see the reactions of the characters therefore we do not feel sorry for them. Many people today will not easily relate to most of the characters so it is hard to understand why they react the way they do. In some ways it was Oedipus' pride and arrogance that leads to his downfall. Also I think it was mostly his fate and tragic events in his life that leads to his downfall. Even though he was arrogant he was a good father, husband and ruler of his people. They looked up to him at hard times so in some ways he did not deserve this tragic fate.

Oedipus

This play was an all around circle of tragedies. It started off with a little infant baby who got blessed with a curse to kill his father when he got older. Greeks loved drama and Oedipus was filled with drama.
It was harder in the past to portray plays with meaning and sentimental values because the audience wouldn't be able to see facial expressions or small movements that have enormous meanings. After Line 1655 when Oedipus reaches toward Creon and Creon pulls away, if the movement was made big enough no one would ever know that Creon pulled away and didn't want to be touched. Creon is technically Oedipus' uncle not his brother in law.
Oedipus sounds like a crazed mad man. One minute he wants to leave his children so they have a happy, cheerful life but when Creon tells him that he has to go he doesn't want to leave and puts a big scene screaming " No. No. NO!"
Then the chorus comes in calmly and says to the audience no man is happy till they are dead and without pain.
I thought it was interesting the part in which the chorus played in the play. You would think the "background" characters would have little parts. They may have the least to say but may have the most meaning in what they say.

Oedipus vs. the Oedipus complex?

For all the pleasures and terrors of Fagles’ translation of Oedipus the King, there would seem to be a slight disjuncture between the action of Sophocles’ tragedy and Freud’s formulation of the Oedipus complex in The Interpretation of Dreams. At least in the portion excerpted in our textbook, Freud clearly posits the (male) child’s sexual desire for its mother and jealousy of its father as the nucleus of the psychic “complex” later resolved, or not, over the course of adolescence and adulthood. Yet if Oedipus really manifested this “complex” in Sophocles’ play consistent with Freud’s theorizing, would he not instead have desired Merope and hated Polybus, his adoptive parents in Corinth and the only parents he had known since infancy? To understand Oedipus’ actions in adulthood as an accurate fulfillment or working-through of Freud’s complex, we would have to imagine that his desire-jealousy for his birth parents, Laius and Jocasta, had already fully taken root by the time they abandoned him at what the play suggests was a very early age, at most a few months old. Is it plausible that, as Freud’s complex would have it, Oedipus’ desire-jealousy survived whole, undimmed and decisive throughout the years he was being reared by Polybus and Merope and growing into manhood? Oddly enough, the Oedipus complex seems to apply to the plotting of Oedipus the King mainly as a richly suggestive back-projection from Freud’s Vienna onto an abstracted classical past, rather than by actual adherence to its operations as Freud posits them.

Breaking Oedipus down

Beginning with the brief narration about Sophocles, it tells how he crafted a form of Greek theater that has lasted till today. His concept, referred to as drama, is actually applied to several T.V. shows (and movies) today. Sophocles placed strong emphasis on character and had a basic idea, much like a moral, that was consistent in his works.

In an amateur, simplistic way of explaining Sophocles' underlying theme in his plays, is the phrase: "crime does not pay." This maxim, completely trite in a kind of way that makes one cringe when spoken , is a dead ringer for a play like this. My proof supporting this matter in Oedipus Rex is pretty darn simple. Oedipus, destined to kill his father and marry his mother is told his prophecy before it's set in stone. His hot-hotheadedness led him to be ignorant of the warnings Tiresias gave him which fulfilled the prophecies. That tragic flaw of his brought about a series of rampant attacks that, ultimately, ended with Oedipus permanently blinding himself.

"The only way we learn is when we carry our mistakes with us."

“Oedipus the King”

In the play "Oedipus the King," it begins with a tragic occurrence as well as ends with one. The play centers around a horrible plaque that has struck the city of Thebes. Throughout the play Oedipus tries to save the city and his people by searching for the cause of the plaque. I found this play to be an interesting piece of work, even though the reader is really able to figure out what will happen at the end. The play also revolves around prophecies, for example, Oedipus was abandoned by his mother and father. This was because a prophecy warned that Oedipus would kill his father and marry his mother. It is ironic how Oedipus left Corinth to avoid this tragic occurrence, however in his trail he killed a man not realizing that it was his father.

Triffles

The males in the play were clearly on the mans side of the story no matter how much of a feeling they had that it was he that he was in the wrong in the way that he treated his wife. They didn't even really like him for the same reasons that they subconsciously know he probably had problems with his wife. You realize this whenever they come to a point that demonstrates his flaws in character. For example when Mr. Hale is describing the day that he found Mr.Wright and makes a point to tell them how all Mr. Wright wanted was some peace and quiet, and how he didn't care much for what his wife wanted, the attorney quickly stops him in an attempt to not tarnish him or something to that extent.Then when the men are looking around they look at all the small flaws as the woman's fault, in an attempt to sort of find a way to blame her or place it on her why this whole situation looked so bad. When the women try to put their two cents into faulting Mr.Wright, the attorney once again cuts them short. He doesn't want to hear how it could have been his own fault that he was murdered. Maybe this will help him stay on Mr.Wrights side for defense purposes or maybe he just doesn't feel it's ever a mans fault, women are there to just fill in the gaps of men's time, and they are flawless.
The women in this play know what goes on in a household. They think about how with no children, how could this house be in such disarray. They think back to whom Mrs. Wright was, and they never refer to her as such because in their minds she was suppose to have continued being that person they knew, Minnie Foster. But they know they understand and they can see beyond what the men see.All the details, from the sewing to the bird that they find, let them know what they suspected all along about that house.They know how she changed, what could have driven her to it. Mrs. Peters makes it easier to understand what it was by comparing it to loosing a baby like she did.The way the play mentions their shivers and so forth at the thought of Mr. Wright, even for the male characters just lets us know how bad and scary he was. The women all though the sheriffs wife thinks the law is the law she knows that there has to be some punishment for what was done to this woman. Her soul was taken from her. She was killed, but left to live. Although killing someone is a crime, what she did is somewhat justified and they are not going to help the attorney in a clear cut way. They even outright lie when they are asked about the cat, that is when you know that they are on her side of the story.
But what could have driven her to marry such a man? He must have had some good to him, or did he just take her as his wife?

Trifles

"Trifles" was better as a play rather than a short story. I was able to put myself right into the conversation and see exactly what was going on. The two men were upstairs investigating while the women were downstairs looking over the house. The reason the women were able to draw better conclusions about what happened is because they could identify with Mrs. Wright. They knew of a woman's trifles and how being the perfect wife and not getting much in return could make you angry. You could get the feel of how life for women was in those times. The women could sympathize with Mrs. Wright so much that they actually protected their fellow woman by not revealing hard evidence to find her guilty. The play was very effective in portraying the bond that woman had to have in those times when faced by oppression.

Trifles

It is easy for me to say that I prefer "Trifles," the short story over the play. It flows more easily and allows for continuous reading. There is also more description given in the narration than is strictly through verbalization. "Mrs. Hale, still leaning against the door, had that sinking feeling of the mother whose child is about to speak a piece." This illustration was in the short story version and couldn't have been depicted through actions or narration in a play. But it's little pieces like this that give the reader insight on reality of the story.
The storyline itself had much impact although it only took place in one scene. Though many questions remain unanswered, the reader can make quite a few inferences from the hints given by the author. Minnie Foster was described to "wear pretty clothes and be lively," prior to being married to Mr. Wright. And then there was such an dull, dark feeling given to the talk of their marriage. Mr. Wright seems creepy and cold, and you get the sense that he wasn't the best husband in the world. I feel like Minnie had her livelihood taken from her at some point. It obviously eventually drove her to a point of murder, but with the background given you don't really blame her. You can't help but sympathize, rather than looking down at her for it.

Trifles

After reading the play, you sort of end up just like when you started, confused. The setting is clear since the whole play takes part at John’s house. You can approach this play in several way, there is the feminist aspect, which is prominent, thought out script of the different female characters in the story. We encounter two housewives which lives surround their families, and a clear idea on what their designated roll is within their marriage. In the other hand we have our County Attorney, who is a man determent to find a motive behind Mr. Wright death. His perseverance might have a purpose, which is not really sure, but he is clear in his goal, finding the murder and solving the mystery case. Trifles is a interesting play, but it does leave you with many holes and questions.

Trifles

In "Trifles", Glaspell provides characters who serve as what she would have us believe to be the epitomized representatives of their genders. Within the setting of the play and the conext in which the actions take place, Mr. Hale, Mr. Peters, and the County Attorney are used to expemplify maleness- strong, confident, and honorable. The women, Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters, by contrast, serve as the stereotypical woman- docile, unassuming, and domestic.
To these stereotypical characters however, Glaspell adds another element. The men, although they seem to be the dominant and wiser sex, are in a way, rather stupid. They simply cannot figure out the motive for Mrs. Wright's crime. The women meanwhile, while underestimated and considered simple by the men (who, for some reason, seem to think that all the women are capable of doing is sewing), are of course, posess knowledge and insight that the men do not (the reason why Mrs. Wright killed her husband) and, protecting their own kind, fail to share this information with their husbands.
In Glaspell's oversimplified world, gender roles are clearly delineated. Not only are the character's meant to exemplify their gender, but none of them seem to have personalities beyond that gender. The three men don't seem to differ very much from one another, they all seem to have the same exact "masculine" personality. The women as well, are exactly alike. All either one of them can talk about are domestic issues. Within a gender, none of the character's really have any personality of their own. Even Mrs. Wright, although she is not an active character in the play, when referenced, seems to be exactly like the other two women. In prison, all she can think to ask for is her apron.
It seems that Glaspell could have written the play with only one character of each gender. Having more than one man and more than one woman seems superfluous. The characters are supposed to represent the gender roles designated for them by the time and place in which they live. So, the men are overtly the wise, superior type, and the women seem dumb, when in reality, implies Glaspell, it's the opposite. OK, we get it.
Glaspell seems to want to prove that while society values the male, it's really the female that is superior. In the story, the women symbolize the entire female population, and the men the male population. The wives posess knowledge the men do not and will not share it with them. Due to lack of evidence, Mrs. Wright will ultimately go free. Woman is ultimately superior to man. Thanks to Susan Glaspell for providing an oversimplified version of everything and clarifying that point... Seems like a pretty cheap shot to me.

Roland Barthes (due 10/1)

My first exposure to semiotics was Barthes’ The Photographic Message, which served as an immense literary challenge, as initially, his verbose work was intimidating and enigmatic. However, upon mastering the work, one is able to understand Barthes’ brilliant formulas and theories for studying text. For example, his theory of identifying the signified, connotation and denotation of all elements of the text allows the audience to perform a critical examination of texts, such as political photos or cartoons and advertisements. Barthes and other semiologists have expanded the way in which people study and interpret texts.

Trifles

I found the plot to be very smart for this one act play since it all took place in one area and had no real action but was able to keep my interest by the different conversations in the story and the mystery of Mr. Wright's death. I had not really put into perspective that the women were supposed to be seen as silly or inept in the story since they were able to piece together the motive for the murder, but I'm hoping that to improve my analysis of the other stories we'll be reading as the class progresses.

“Oedipus the King”

One fascinating element of this ironic tale is the role of prophecy. While the prophecies themselves were consistently correct, they are distorted throughout the story because people become uncomfortable with their content. For instance, the shepherd choosing not to kill Oedipus and Oedipus running away to avoid killing his father and having an affair with his mother. However, unfortunately, the story is based on pieces of a tale that do not fully develop until the story’s tragic end. This idea seems to be represented by Tiresias, the blind prophet, a man capable of seeing into the depths of the future, but unable to see that which is directly in front of him.

I found "Trifles" written by Susan Glaspell to be quite entertaining. It was funny the things that Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale would find to talk about. They are in this house where a man was murdered and they sit and discuss Mrs. Wright's fruit and quilt. The weirdest thing was by them sitting there and just being nosy they found the clue's that the sheriff and county attorney would need for the case. Meanwhile the county attorney with all his sarcasms and such status didn't find anything to help him solve the murder. It just goes to show women back in the day were alot smarter than the men put them out to be.

Clues from author's intent

Every murder has its motives. Assumed motives only can be proved by adequated evidences. Trifle the murder story although gives assumed motives but no assured evidences. This story satirizes Men's carelessness and self-righteous reasoning that blinds their eyes and minds. On the contrary, women's opposite provides more and more clues and reasonable evidences. However, they seem assume John's wife strangled her husband because to revenge her husband wrung her canary's neck, there's no evidence to prove John killed the bird for what motives. Story itself although provided some details about John and her wife's conducts, relationship, and ect., they are all weak to suggest the murder motives. Therefore, i rely on author's intent as her purpose on this story to find its real clues. Clearly, the investigators don't help but instead sneer the women's careful seeking for evidence. Thus, i depend on the women's assumptions also it's author wanted us to depend on.

“to make her feel more natural” in prison

As with Gilman’s “Yellow Wallpaper,” a certain didactic intention gives much of Glaspell’s Trifles a forced, over-insistent quality. In her eagerness that we clearly perceive Mrs. Wright’s oppression, but also owing to the compressed scale of the one-act form, the contrasts between bluff, patronizing menfolk and timorous, knowing ladies can at times appear starkly overdrawn. Yet if some of Glaspell’s symbolism points too obviously—e.g., the fruit preserves burst from the pressure of domestic hell, whose gooey contents repulse the anal attorney—other touches work more subtly. Just after Mrs. Hale, the farmer’s wife, has evoked the young Minnie Foster, a ghost of possibility that vanished into “Mrs. Wright,” the sheriff’s wife notes that the woman asked from her jail cell for her apron. “I suppose just to make her feel more natural,” Mrs. Peters offers as explanation, suggesting a seamless identification between woman and garment, emblem and instrument of her gender-assigned lot: domestic toil. At the same time, the plaintive psychological note—the scared suspect clutching at some homely token—carries a thematic chill. Having exchanged one cell for another, the prisoner, resigned, seeks to adapt and comply, to “feel more natural,” by wearing her familiar prisoner’s uniform.

The story "trifles" is about two women who talk about Mrs. Wright, a woman who killed her husband. I think that the story shows how women during that time were considered silly and that they don't know any better. But the women pretty much figure out what her motive for murder is. Her husband took away something that meant something to her, and that's why she killed him. The men still didn't understand why she did it. They had no understanding of how she felt.

Trifles

In the play "Trifles" by Susan Glaspell, Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale really caught my attention. On the other hand, i really found the men to be ignorant, blind, and self-absorbed. They think that they are so thorough in their investigation and so powerful because of their jobs and their status, but in the mean time, they did a terrible job of searching the house. I was somewhat dissappointed with Mrs. Peters toward the end of the play because she seemed to take the mens side when she she said "the law has got to punish crime". In a society like they live, women must stick together and stand up for one another, but i was really pleased to see her not turn over the canary in the end. i felt that there was alot of symbolism in this play, no first names for the women, symobolizing their role and duties to their husbands, the dead canary, symbolic of the "death of Mrs. Wright". She died internally, and the last bit of her happiness died as well when her husband killed the one thing she enjoyed. I loved the irony at the end that is discovered...Mr. Wright died the same way he killed the canary...what comes around goes around. I found their names to be rather ironic...even though "wright" is spelt differently, Mr. Wright was not a right match for his wife, but was "mrs. Wright" so right of a match for her husband either?

Trifles

Trifles is a play where the setting plays a major role. The way the kitchen is messy and chores half done the characters realize that something was not right. There also is a lot of symbolism in this play. The canarie and the cage symbolized Mrs. Wright and how she felt being with John Wright. The patch of quilt that was badly done might show the point of break down for Mrs. Wright.
The pretty box in which she kept the bird shows that she cherrished it. I do think that she killed her husband because he might have been the one that broke open the cage and snapped the bird's neck and Mrs. Wright did the same to him. The women understood what she might have felt and what she might have went through so they decided to hide these details from the men.