Nora and Oedipus both hold qualities of Tragic Heroes. Both characters experience Hamartia leading them to Peripeteia and Anagnorisis. In Oedipus, Oedipus curses the man who killed the King to “drag out / his life in agony, step by painful step” and himself if the man was “an intimate of [his] house” (Sophocles, 1434). Because he was the one who killed the King, he cursed himself twice which shows a miss of judgment because he thought it was someone else, but it was not. Nora, from A Doll House, experiences Hamartia when she thought Trovald would be mad to find out she forged her signature to get money to care for him and keep him alive. She pays money behind his back because of how “painful and humiliating” she thinks it will be for him because he “has such strong opinions about [those] things” (Ibsen, 1721). …show more content…
At this point he realizes he recognizes the man as someone he killed years before, but when Jocasta says there “were finve in the party, a herald among them, / and a single wagon carrying Laius” (Sophocles, 1447) he turns away from the idea of it being him and continues to search for his own past leading him deeper and deeper into a hole. Nora’s reversal of fortune happens when Krogstad comes to confront her about helping him keep his job at the bank. Before he showed up she hid her secret perfectly well and gave him all the payments, but when Krogstad was faced with losing his job, he went to see Nora so she could “use [her] influence to prevent it” (Ibsen, 1727). She tells him she has “absolutely no influence” (Ibsen, 1727), so he pulls out the blackmail of telling the town of her
Ibsen and Sophocles are two distinct writers from different periods and culture. They both wrote plays and stories with strong protagonists who the readers don’t enjoy, but, whose fate is somewhat tragic in sense that elicits the reader’s sympathy for the sense of wasted potential and tragic loss. In sense, I agree with this statement because from both authors' books like Ibsen “Hedda Gabler” and Sophocles “Oedipus The King”; the readers did not like the main characters, but the reader does sympathize. The protagonists from both plays do portray themselves as people others don't like; but as the plays goes on; the protagonists begin to reveal themselves and their struggles. In which, the readers would sympathize. On Sophocles text
“Oedipus” written by Sophocles and “Odysseus” written by Homer both are Greek poets. Both stories share the same themes in ways where both of the epic heroes endure a conflict. The characters in these plays are attributed certain characteristics by the author. The characteristics suggested by the authors are intrinsic to the audience. They both have a complete and subjective understanding of work. Their characteristics are displayed through the characters actions, what the writer says about them, and what they portray on themselves. This will be the focus of the essay. Both Oedipus and Odysseus, spoken by others, they describe character traits.
Krogstad’s behavior and motives are based on the fact that he does not want to lose his job at the bank where Nora’s husband Torvald manages. In a desperate attempt to keep his job and spare his children from hardship, he uses Nora to influence her husband. Her attempts to save Krogstad’s job fail because Torvald is convinced that Krogstad is a liar and a cheat and he will not jeopardize his moral character or be swayed by his wife. He states, “Do you think I’m going to make myself look ridiculous in front of my whole staff, and let people think I can be pushed around by all sorts of outside influence?” (1624)
In A Doll House, Nora finds herself subordinate to her husband as well as the rules of society. Torvald forbids her from the consumption of macarons, bestows on her an allowance as if she were a child, persuades her to do as he wishes, dance like this, not like that, and she like a “good little lark” obeys his most every will. Her act of courage and independence, illegally taking out a loan to save his life, is seen as wrong in the eyes of society, while she sees it as necessary and forgivable; it is what a good wife should do for her husband.
In Oedipus Rex and A Doll House, there are inevitable elements that contribute to each play’s tragedy. I stand strong in my belief that fate is to blame for the tragic downfall in Oedipus’ life. Nora’s act of leaving her husband and three children is not a justifiable act. Sophocles demonstrates that fate is unavoidable, thus causing fate to victimize Oedipus to a tragic end. Ibsen suggests Nora is so childish that she can’t handle a problem between herself and Torvald, causing her to renounce her husband and their three young children. Nora’s behavior is deemed unjustifiable.
Every person has their own set of imperfections that can cause turmoil at some point in time. The one thing that does, however, fluctuate between each individual is the effect that their imperfection may have on them. One may go through their whole life without being greatly impacted by it, but, on the other hand, in extreme cases some people may be brought to their demise by the flaw. Each character in Antigone has tragic flaws that lead them into dire affairs.
When Krogstad threatens to expose the truth, Nora must use her craftiness to distract Torvald and sway him into letting Krogstad keep his job. Unfortunately, she is not able to change his mind, but she does succeed in diverting his suspicions of her motives. She praises him and lulls him into a false sense of security by telling him that "[n]o one has such good taste as [he has]" and then goes on to ask him if he could "take [her] in hand and decide what [she is] to go as" for the dance. She confesses to him that she "can't do anything without [him] to help [her]". These statements lead him to believe that he is the one to "rescue" her, when it is in fact Nora who is trying to rescue him from dishonour. Later on, when Krogstad puts a letter in Torvald's mail, explaining everything that Nora has done, Nora uses her charms once more. She pretends that she has forgotten the tarantella so that Torvald will spend all his time with her and think nothing of the mail that awaits him. Nora truly believes that by deceiving her husband, she is protecting him from worry. Because of Nora's deception, the person that Torvald believes her to be is quite different from the person she actually is. He believes that she is a "spendthrift," infatuated by expensive things when in reality, she saves her money to pay back Krogstad and buys cheap clothing and gifts. Torvald
Oedipus the King by Sophocles is about Oedipus, a man doomed by his fate. Like most tragedies, “Oedipus the King” contains a tragic hero, a heroic figure unable to escape his/her own doom. This tragic hero usually has a hamartia or a tragic flaw which causes his/hers’ downfall. The tragic flaw that Sophocles gives Oedipus is hubris (exaggerated pride or self-confidence), which is what caused Oedipus to walk right into the fate he sought to escape.
Reversal is key to both plays since by the end of both plays the social conditions of both Oedipus and Nora have changed completely. It is interesting to note that unlike a Shakespearean drama in which the tragic hero always dies, neither Oedipus nor Nora die.
After having used Krogstad to get what she needed, yet another issue arose. Krogstad turned on Nora once his position at the bank was on the line, and used her borrowing against her for his own good. “Niles Krogstad is also Mrs. Linde’s former crush, and he tries to redeem himself of his crimes of forgery by raising his children” (Rosefeldt).
The Henrik Ibsen’s story revealed to us the huge predicament that Nora faced and how her husband and the society are responsible for her trouble. The man is responsible since the woman testifies that she committed the crime of forgery because of the love she had for the husband; who is depicted as a dominant character over the wife (Act Three, pg. 3). The man is responsible since the woman testifies that she committed the crime of forgery because of the love she had for the husband; who is depicted as a dominant character over the wife (Act Three, pg. 3). Thus if the man could have given the wife the freedom and opportunity to interact with the outside world, she could have known what is morally and legally wrong. However, Nora spent most of
In Paper Towns, a boy named Quentin or “Q” is desperately in love with a girl. In Oedipus Rex, a man named Oedipus loved his kingdom so much, he would do anything to find the man who has cursed his land. Though they both struggle to find the truths they are looking for, the energy and passion is what makes these stories. What could two fictional characters, hundreds of years apart have in common? What are the obvious differences?
Now that Krogstad is fired from the bank, He is blackmailing Nora for her getting a loan through signing her dying father’s signature. When Torvald finds out about Nora’s crime, She expect sympathy from Torvald about her dilemma because he said to her that he fantasizes about risking his life to save Nora’s. “Do you know, Nora, I have often wished that you might be threatened by some great danger, so that I might risk my life’s blood, and everything, for your sake” (Ibsen, 833). Once given the opportunity, however; Torvald shows no intention of sacrificing his life or anything for Nora, thinking only about his appearances. His selfishness becomes
Furthermore, Ibsen uses the conversation between Nora and Krogstad to illuminate the theme of deceit. Deceit is the central theme of the play with the spiral of devious events undertaken by Nora becoming at catalyst for her awakening. The theme is prominently illuminated during the first conversation between Nora and Krogstad with it being revealed Krogstad lent Nora the money she sought to save Torvalds life, ‘you came to me to borrow two hundred and fifty pounds.’ This heightens the climax as the reveal of Nora’s loan juxtaposes Torvalds negative values on borrowing money, ‘No debts! Never borrow! A home that is founded on debts and borrowing can never be a place of freedom and beauty.’ However, even though Nora disobeyed Torvalds central rule of borrowing money, her act of deceit was committed for ‘moral’ reasons as she had to save his life provoking the audience to
When comparing Oedipus and Medea we see the battle of good versus evil, as there is in any story that has a heroic or non heroic figure in the, but this time it is a little bit different from a normal good versus evil story since they are of course both tragedies. The question, in these stories, is whether or not Oedipus or Medea display any heroic qualities during the tragic battles, and the answer is yes but also no. As we know, there are many differences between Medea and Oedipus, but they both end up destroying everything they love and cherish around them because of the choices that they have made with the poor judgment that they had while they were fueled by anger.