"L'enfer c'est les autres"--JP Sartre
This year, students will explore the theme of otherness. What defines the mainstream and how does this mainstream dictate to others? What does it mean to be marginalized? How has the mainstream impacted the world of ideas across the centuries?
Yes ok, but still, other than that little segment about the androgynous mind, it doesn't seem that way. I have no doubt that by the end of the book, my opinion will change, but so far it hasn't. Of course, it doesn't help that the female contingent of the class seems to be harboring anti-male sentiment, which is fine, I would just appreciate a little more, um, of an attempt toward understanding the male psyche as well as objectivity. In Medea for example, I understand quite well that in today's society it is completely unacceptable for a man to just walk out on a woman like that, but the opposite is also true (woman walking out on a man), and do not tell me it doesn't happen, because I know it does. At the time that this was written though, it was perfectly acceptable for a man to do this so it really isn't accurate to judge him by a society's standards other than those of his own society by calling him a douchebag or an asshole. Here's to keeping it brief, the level-headed Andrew J. Kaston, Esquire
Also, it is pure instinct to, when an aggressor (Medea) is aggressive, for the aggressed to either flee or stand their ground and make themselves look bigger than the aggressor. The first of those two is not aloud by his society so he's left with the latter.
A very wise man once said: "A Room of One's Own is about class struggle. Since Woolf says a woman needs a room of one's own and money the lower classes can't afford property or individual rooms, and they have no money THUS capitalism oppresses women BOOM" quote end quote. This wise man is the son of our English teacher for those who couldn't guess.
I have finally been able to post something! Here are my questions: Can Medea's actions be justified and could we ever fell any catharsis in the end for her? Is the fact that she murders kings, queens and her on sons, something that we can excuse for a certain over reaction of love? Society today would never understand such actions, why should we? There they are. Feel free to do as you wish.
The emotions Medea is feeling due to her rejection remain the same for people today and are therefore "normal" and understandable. However, the fact that Medea would murder her own children shows that she does not have that "normal" maternal instinct and is therefore "abnormal" (as we said in class). This is where I can no longer sympathize for Medea or excuse her actions. Her plan for revenge, to me, is simply disturbing. Usually, when a person is rejected by someone they love, their revenge would be "an eye for an eye". Therefore, I believe that Medea could have gone off with Aegeus and her two sons without having killed anyone and still have gotten her revenge (since it shows Jason she will do just fine without him). Just that, would have been revenge enough so the fact that she chooses to murder is simply unnecessary and cannot be excused. Of course, we can always go back to how Medea was struck by the arrow of Aphrodite and argue that Medea has no control over her actions and that she would never have succumbed to murder if it weren't for Aphrodite. In this sense, we can easily argue both sides.
Little comment, society today would understand her actions, as proven by our own understanding of them; however, just because we understand does not mean we condone such actions. Also, Medea actions are unjustifiable on a logical plain, as Christelle did quite nicely. I personally do have to disagree with the last part on Aphrodite. Yes she was struck by Aphrodite's arrow, but that cannot excuse her. That's as if today, a faithful catholic man were to kill his neighbor on account of God having told him to. That man goes to jail no questions asked. Yes that sort of thing has happened in history (e.g. Joan of Arc). No that does not mean that it's right.
wait wait wait, Andrew, we are talking about a book here: in the fictional world the authors decide whether divine intervention exists in the frame of the story, thus if Euripides stated that Medea was struck by the arrow of Aphrodite then we must view this as necessarily true in the frame of this fictional world. However, in the real world there is NO concrete evidence whatsoever that there is a God above us mortals, and therefore your pretext that "Yes she was struck by Aphrodite's arrow, but that cannot excuse her. That's as if today, a faithful catholic man were to kill his neighbor on account of God having told him to. That man goes to jail no questions asked. Yes that sort of thing has happened in history (e.g. Joan of Arc)" has no foundation. Think of Homer's The Iliad: Helene of Troy, who was married to king Menelaus at the time brother of Agamemnon, was struck by Aphrodite's arrow and consequently fell in love and ran away with Paris, the king of Troy's son. This ultimately led to the famous, bloody Trojan War. But, do you truly believe Helene was the one and only cause for the war?? Blinded by a love which she didn't even CHOOSE on her own, she committed a foolish act that brought on the death of many. Therefore, she caused many deaths just like Medea, regardless of whether or not it came from her own hands. Yet, we don't honestly really blame Helene for her role in this particular story because we know it's not her fault: it was a culmination of many factors that led to the war, such as one man's desire to have something belonging to another, the power of divine intervention, and an enormous amount of hubris among the men of both sides of the war....in this case, you can in no way excuse Menelaus for starting the war by wanting both his pride and wife back, if you can't excuse Medea for doing the EXACT same thing. So, who are you going to blame? Remember,if you blame Helene for causing the war and praise Menelaus, then you are ultimately contradicting yourself by blaming Medea as she somewhat symbolizes the former, but if you blame Agamemnon and Menelaus for starting the Trojan War because they CHOSE to use violence to justify the wrong that was done to them, then you have somewhat of a basis to blame Medea who CHOSE violence as well. HOWEVER, in both cases the women were touched by divine intervention (which I agree does not excuse the crimes they chose to commit but still allows the reader to sympathize with the character) whereas the men were not.
[continuation]We clearly see a pattern among these ancient greek tragedies and we can't help but wonder if all these women are being affected by the power of the gods in order for there to finally be some kind of equality between men and women? I mean, women are by definition more nurturing and emotion-based than are men, therefore women tend to emotionally overreact much more than men do in the sense that they yell, scream, insult, and threaten irrationally with the use of words more so than actions to obtain what they want whereas men do the contrary, and in both The Iliad and Medea the two main women ultimately commit acts AFTER they have been influenced by the gods, thus getting closer to the characteristics of the opposite sex. Can't you help but wonder why Homer and Euripides needed to state that their main women character's had been touched by divine intervention? What would be the point of us knowing if there was no secret meaning or purpose behind this fact? Are the authors actually mocking the women for their weakness and emotions by showing us that it is only after the intervention from the god's that they ultimately have the courage to change their lives around and go after their desires like men were able to do (Helene by escaping her dull, uneventful life as Menelaus' wife and Medea by being able to escape from home for the first time in her life and finally discover more to the world)? Or are the authors defending the women, ultimately trying to prove the injustices between both sexes, criticize man's use of action and violence to obtain what they desire, and expose the corruption among the Gods who seem to be the women's puppeteers? In doing so they ultimately show the bestial and perverted side to "love" and human beings in general seeing as love comes from the latin word 'libido' which means desire and what separates man from animal is the existence of morality in the former which ultimately allows mankind to not act upon natural instincts or desires before evaluating their morals. I might be waaaaay off topic right now, but I just find it so interesting and strange that ancient greek authors found it necessary to state that women had been affected by the Gods' powers.
Furthermore, I can't help but wonder how the God's powers, in these tragedies, really work? if Medea was struck by Aphrodite's arrow which led her to suddenly love Jason, what says that she should love her own children with Jason as her love for the latter is already "unnatural" due to the influence of divinity? Her emotion of "love" has been corrupted, tampered with by Aphrodite, we must wonder whether or not Medea now has any control over this overwhelming emotion? She seems to have lost all "free-will", thus ultimately leading her to sink to the state of animal which could somewhat justify her need to kill innocent individuals as her natural instinct of "survival". In our day and age, love is defined as an intense feeling of deep affection that one may feel towards others (notice the use of the plural term) whether that be family, friends, etc. However, when we think of Aphrodite's arrow, we immediately know that this is not love in the sense of deep affection one feels towards others but more so a deep romantic attachment one may feel for another (notice the use of the singular term). Thus, there are clearly different kinds of "love" that can be found on different levels. Not knowing the power of Aphrodite's arrow, one cannot infer anything at all really. When Helene of Troy was touched by the arrow, she fell involve with Paris; but, what happened to the love she felt for her husband Menelaus before this divine intervention? How did it disappear? Clearly her emotion of "love" was corrupted and the love she once had for her husband was somehow erased. Does this not also apply to Medea as well? Is it possible that she got hit so hard &blinded by this new feeling of love she had towards Jason that the love she might have had for her family was erased? This could be a bit of a stretch that could ultimately prove Medea's somewhat innocence in the killing of her own brother, however, my point is that there are so many factors to be viewed in questioning the justification of the eponymous character's actions, that one is unable to definitely condone or accuse her for everything she has done following the intervention from the God's. Therefore, I agree with what you said, Andrew, in your first paragraph about understanding Medea's actions but not condoning them, however, I also believe that if we truly did understand her actions, we wouldn't then go on accusing her as it wouldn't make any sense. How does this relate to this "logical plain" you mention?! There clearly is no real logic here as we readers are oblivious to many details such as the ones stated above. If we do try to analyze Medea's actions logically then because she made the CHOICE to do so, most of us do end up blaming her for killing her own brother and children, as Christelle said, but NOT for killing Jason's new wife (at least we don't put so much emphasis on the latter). The problem is, we don't know how Aphrodite's arrow really affected Medea: could it have made it impossible for her to love anyone but Jason? And, if she really loved Jason then how could she ever want to cause him harm even if he treated her badly? There are clearly conflicting opinions and contradictions but if the first question's answer was "yes" then an obvious argument in defending Medea would be the corruption of her emotions and her ensuing indifference towards her own brother and children (once again, this in no way condones Medea for killing them, but it does let the reader feel some kind of sympathy for her). On the other hand, if one argues that Aphrodite's arrow only impacted her feelings and emotions in regards to Jason, leaving the rest intact, isn't it possible that once the latter left her, the emotional distress she felt could have impacted Aphrodite's power causing it to have the reverse effect and therefore make her feel hatred? There clearly is no right or wrong way to argument Medea’s actions then, right?
I most definitely agree with Alessia, what Medea is doing certainly isn't right by any moral standards, however we can understand why she does it. In that time, yes, people would've thought that she was overreacting by crying and screaming in the beginning of the play. However, the reader and spectator will still feel sympathy for her because of the way she explains her situation: it was normal for women to be divorced by their husbands but not also at the same time be exiled from the country. She uses her talent in rhetoric to put the chorus and also perhaps the spectators, on her side. Her actions to follow are unjustifiable; but since we know why she did them we have some sense of sympathy for her. It's like for Cholly when he rapes Pecola, his actions were disgusting and unnatural, but we knew that the reason why he did it: it was the only way he knew how to show love, it was the only thing he had to give her. For Medea, her wounds are so deep and so great, that she will not heal so quickly from such a betrayal, and her way of coping is revenge (yes, revenge is never the answer, but it really does feel great), obviously this isn't an excuse for her actions and obviously Medea and Cholly's situations are not the same, but they both committed such crimes out of a perverted love.
After having read the ending, I have confirmed my feelings for Medea. She is completely out of touch with her emotions and love, all she seeks is blood thirsty revenge. In the end, Jason while he sees Medea's plans unfold in front of him, he mentions that Medea through this endeavor has also wounded herself. But Medea concludes her actions with a sentiment that her children's lives and the lives of all now dead thanks to her sorcery are worth the price of inflicting pain upon Jason. I also think its really weird and inhumane on all levels that the passage opens with mythical creatures pulling a chariot with Medea's two dead sons on it. I mean seriously, that is totally unrealistic, but have we seen this kind of creativity. Not in the sense of physical presence of creatures but definitely in the mind of characters such as Medea an Jason. I believe it is as unrealistic to have a blood thirsty, murderess mind like Medea, or one like Jason's to leave his wife and children so easily as if they never meant a thing. To add Jason curses himself to have ever married Medea, but he is the one responsible for her reactions throughout the tale. He is a coward in all terms to have triggered this and blame this on his wife's madness, which is a partial aspect but the true tipping was the moment he left her. But there is a part I really dislike about Medea and that is in the end, when she basically rubs in the face of Jason her future plans: she's going to marry Aegeus and live a life a riches and glory. Riches, the reason Jason left her in the first place and glory something that doesn't belong to her after her actions as a murderess wife. I believe the correct term for this is “overkill”, after killing so many people just to get back at someone for leaving her, she has to kill her sons, three kings, queens and princesses, manipulate everyone and in the end to inflict what Jason inflicted on her, leave Medea for riches.
I'll concede, but still, other than that little segment about the androgynous mind, it doesn't seem that way. I have no doubt that by the end of the book, my opinion will change, but so far it hasn't. Of course, it doesn't help that the female contingent of the class seems to be harboring anti-male sentiment, which is fine, I would just appreciate a little more, of a..., of an attempt toward understanding the male psyche as well as objectivity. In Medea for example, I understand perfectly well that in today's society it is completely unacceptable for a man to just walk out on a woman like that, but the opposite is also true (woman walking out on a man), and do not tell me it doesn't happen, because I know it does(little fun fact, in both those cases, an estimated 75-80% of divorces swing in the woman's favor). At the time that this was written though, it was perfectly acceptable for a man to do this so it really isn't accurate to judge him by a society's standards other than those of his own society by describing him with vulgarity. Here's to keeping it brief, the level-headed Andrew J. Kaston, Esquire
P.S. It is pure instinct, pure animal instinct to, when an aggressor (Medea) is aggressive, for the aggressed to either flee or stand their ground and make themselves look bigger than the aggressor. The first of those two is not aloud by his society so he's left with the latter.
A very wise man once said: "A Room of One's Own is about class struggle. Since Woolf says a woman needs a room of one's own and money the lower classes can't afford property or individual rooms, and they have no money THUS capitalism oppresses women BOOM" quote end quote. This wise man is Colin Myles Henry Reilly.
The above was a reposting of previous posts without the vulgarities found in our classroom discussion. It's now rated G.
Also, just have to disagree with Oliver, she is completely in touch with her emotions, too much so, so as to bring her to the excesses she experiences.
Yes ok, but still, other than that little segment about the androgynous mind, it doesn't seem that way. I have no doubt that by the end of the book, my opinion will change, but so far it hasn't.
ReplyDeleteOf course, it doesn't help that the female contingent of the class seems to be harboring anti-male sentiment, which is fine, I would just appreciate a little more, um, of an attempt toward understanding the male psyche as well as objectivity. In Medea for example, I understand quite well that in today's society it is completely unacceptable for a man to just walk out on a woman like that, but the opposite is also true (woman walking out on a man), and do not tell me it doesn't happen, because I know it does. At the time that this was written though, it was perfectly acceptable for a man to do this so it really isn't accurate to judge him by a society's standards other than those of his own society by calling him a douchebag or an asshole.
Here's to keeping it brief,
the level-headed Andrew J. Kaston, Esquire
Also, it is pure instinct to, when an aggressor (Medea) is aggressive, for the aggressed to either flee or stand their ground and make themselves look bigger than the aggressor. The first of those two is not aloud by his society so he's left with the latter.
ReplyDeleteA very wise man once said: "A Room of One's Own is about class struggle. Since Woolf says a woman needs a room of one's own and money the lower classes can't afford property or individual rooms, and they have no money
THUS capitalism oppresses women
BOOM" quote end quote. This wise man is the son of our English teacher for those who couldn't guess.
I have finally been able to post something! Here are my questions:
ReplyDeleteCan Medea's actions be justified and could we ever fell any catharsis in the end for her? Is the fact that she murders kings, queens and her on sons, something that we can excuse for a certain over reaction of love? Society today would never understand such actions, why should we?
There they are. Feel free to do as you wish.
Thanks for the comments and questions, gents. Dear esquire, let's do without the expletives, please...
ReplyDeleteThe emotions Medea is feeling due to her rejection remain the same for people today and are therefore "normal" and understandable. However, the fact that Medea would murder her own children shows that she does not have that "normal" maternal instinct and is therefore "abnormal" (as we said in class). This is where I can no longer sympathize for Medea or excuse her actions. Her plan for revenge, to me, is simply disturbing. Usually, when a person is rejected by someone they love, their revenge would be "an eye for an eye". Therefore, I believe that Medea could have gone off with Aegeus and her two sons without having killed anyone and still have gotten her revenge (since it shows Jason she will do just fine without him). Just that, would have been revenge enough so the fact that she chooses to murder is simply unnecessary and cannot be excused.
ReplyDeleteOf course, we can always go back to how Medea was struck by the arrow of Aphrodite and argue that Medea has no control over her actions and that she would never have succumbed to murder if it weren't for Aphrodite. In this sense, we can easily argue both sides.
Little comment, society today would understand her actions, as proven by our own understanding of them; however, just because we understand does not mean we condone such actions.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Medea actions are unjustifiable on a logical plain, as Christelle did quite nicely. I personally do have to disagree with the last part on Aphrodite. Yes she was struck by Aphrodite's arrow, but that cannot excuse her. That's as if today, a faithful catholic man were to kill his neighbor on account of God having told him to. That man goes to jail no questions asked. Yes that sort of thing has happened in history (e.g. Joan of Arc). No that does not mean that it's right.
wait wait wait, Andrew, we are talking about a book here: in the fictional world the authors decide whether divine intervention exists in the frame of the story, thus if Euripides stated that Medea was struck by the arrow of Aphrodite then we must view this as necessarily true in the frame of this fictional world. However, in the real world there is NO concrete evidence whatsoever that there is a God above us mortals, and therefore your pretext that "Yes she was struck by Aphrodite's arrow, but that cannot excuse her. That's as if today, a faithful catholic man were to kill his neighbor on account of God having told him to. That man goes to jail no questions asked. Yes that sort of thing has happened in history (e.g. Joan of Arc)" has no foundation. Think of Homer's The Iliad: Helene of Troy, who was married to king Menelaus at the time brother of Agamemnon, was struck by Aphrodite's arrow and consequently fell in love and ran away with Paris, the king of Troy's son. This ultimately led to the famous, bloody Trojan War. But, do you truly believe Helene was the one and only cause for the war?? Blinded by a love which she didn't even CHOOSE on her own, she committed a foolish act that brought on the death of many. Therefore, she caused many deaths just like Medea, regardless of whether or not it came from her own hands. Yet, we don't honestly really blame Helene for her role in this particular story because we know it's not her fault: it was a culmination of many factors that led to the war, such as one man's desire to have something belonging to another, the power of divine intervention, and an enormous amount of hubris among the men of both sides of the war....in this case, you can in no way excuse Menelaus for starting the war by wanting both his pride and wife back, if you can't excuse Medea for doing the EXACT same thing. So, who are you going to blame? Remember,if you blame Helene for causing the war and praise Menelaus, then you are ultimately contradicting yourself by blaming Medea as she somewhat symbolizes the former, but if you blame Agamemnon and Menelaus for starting the Trojan War because they CHOSE to use violence to justify the wrong that was done to them, then you have somewhat of a basis to blame Medea who CHOSE violence as well. HOWEVER, in both cases the women were touched by divine intervention (which I agree does not excuse the crimes they chose to commit but still allows the reader to sympathize with the character) whereas the men were not.
ReplyDelete[continuation]We clearly see a pattern among these ancient greek tragedies and we can't help but wonder if all these women are being affected by the power of the gods in order for there to finally be some kind of equality between men and women? I mean, women are by definition more nurturing and emotion-based than are men, therefore women tend to emotionally overreact much more than men do in the sense that they yell, scream, insult, and threaten irrationally with the use of words more so than actions to obtain what they want whereas men do the contrary, and in both The Iliad and Medea the two main women ultimately commit acts AFTER they have been influenced by the gods, thus getting closer to the characteristics of the opposite sex. Can't you help but wonder why Homer and Euripides needed to state that their main women character's had been touched by divine intervention? What would be the point of us knowing if there was no secret meaning or purpose behind this fact? Are the authors actually mocking the women for their weakness and emotions by showing us that it is only after the intervention from the god's that they ultimately have the courage to change their lives around and go after their desires like men were able to do (Helene by escaping her dull, uneventful life as Menelaus' wife and Medea by being able to escape from home for the first time in her life and finally discover more to the world)? Or are the authors defending the women, ultimately trying to prove the injustices between both sexes, criticize man's use of action and violence to obtain what they desire, and expose the corruption among the Gods who seem to be the women's puppeteers? In doing so they ultimately show the bestial and perverted side to "love" and human beings in general seeing as love comes from the latin word 'libido' which means desire and what separates man from animal is the existence of morality in the former which ultimately allows mankind to not act upon natural instincts or desires before evaluating their morals.
ReplyDeleteI might be waaaaay off topic right now, but I just find it so interesting and strange that ancient greek authors found it necessary to state that women had been affected by the Gods' powers.
Furthermore, I can't help but wonder how the God's powers, in these tragedies, really work? if Medea was struck by Aphrodite's arrow which led her to suddenly love Jason, what says that she should love her own children with Jason as her love for the latter is already "unnatural" due to the influence of divinity? Her emotion of "love" has been corrupted, tampered with by Aphrodite, we must wonder whether or not Medea now has any control over this overwhelming emotion? She seems to have lost all "free-will", thus ultimately leading her to sink to the state of animal which could somewhat justify her need to kill innocent individuals as her natural instinct of "survival".
ReplyDeleteIn our day and age, love is defined as an intense feeling of deep affection that one may feel towards others (notice the use of the plural term) whether that be family, friends, etc. However, when we think of Aphrodite's arrow, we immediately know that this is not love in the sense of deep affection one feels towards others but more so a deep romantic attachment one may feel for another (notice the use of the singular term). Thus, there are clearly different kinds of "love" that can be found on different levels. Not knowing the power of Aphrodite's arrow, one cannot infer anything at all really. When Helene of Troy was touched by the arrow, she fell involve with Paris; but, what happened to the love she felt for her husband Menelaus before this divine intervention? How did it disappear? Clearly her emotion of "love" was corrupted and the love she once had for her husband was somehow erased. Does this not also apply to Medea as well? Is it possible that she got hit so hard &blinded by this new feeling of love she had towards Jason that the love she might have had for her family was erased? This could be a bit of a stretch that could ultimately prove Medea's somewhat innocence in the killing of her own brother, however, my point is that there are so many factors to be viewed in questioning the justification of the eponymous character's actions, that one is unable to definitely condone or accuse her for everything she has done following the intervention from the God's. Therefore, I agree with what you said, Andrew, in your first paragraph about understanding Medea's actions but not condoning them, however, I also believe that if we truly did understand her actions, we wouldn't then go on accusing her as it wouldn't make any sense. How does this relate to this "logical plain" you mention?! There clearly is no real logic here as we readers are oblivious to many details such as the ones stated above. If we do try to analyze Medea's actions logically then because she made the CHOICE to do so, most of us do end up blaming her for killing her own brother and children, as Christelle said, but NOT for killing Jason's new wife (at least we don't put so much emphasis on the latter). The problem is, we don't know how Aphrodite's arrow really affected Medea: could it have made it impossible for her to love anyone but Jason? And, if she really loved Jason then how could she ever want to cause him harm even if he treated her badly? There are clearly conflicting opinions and contradictions but if the first question's answer was "yes" then an obvious argument in defending Medea would be the corruption of her emotions and her ensuing indifference towards her own brother and children (once again, this in no way condones Medea for killing them, but it does let the reader feel some kind of sympathy for her). On the other hand, if one argues that Aphrodite's arrow only impacted her feelings and emotions in regards to Jason, leaving the rest intact, isn't it possible that once the latter left her, the emotional distress she felt could have impacted Aphrodite's power causing it to have the reverse effect and therefore make her feel hatred? There clearly is no right or wrong way to argument Medea’s actions then, right?
I most definitely agree with Alessia, what Medea is doing certainly isn't right by any moral standards, however we can understand why she does it. In that time, yes, people would've thought that she was overreacting by crying and screaming in the beginning of the play. However, the reader and spectator will still feel sympathy for her because of the way she explains her situation: it was normal for women to be divorced by their husbands but not also at the same time be exiled from the country. She uses her talent in rhetoric to put the chorus and also perhaps the spectators, on her side. Her actions to follow are unjustifiable; but since we know why she did them we have some sense of sympathy for her. It's like for Cholly when he rapes Pecola, his actions were disgusting and unnatural, but we knew that the reason why he did it: it was the only way he knew how to show love, it was the only thing he had to give her. For Medea, her wounds are so deep and so great, that she will not heal so quickly from such a betrayal, and her way of coping is revenge (yes, revenge is never the answer, but it really does feel great), obviously this isn't an excuse for her actions and obviously Medea and Cholly's situations are not the same, but they both committed such crimes out of a perverted love.
ReplyDeleteAfter having read the ending, I have confirmed my feelings for Medea. She is completely out of touch with her emotions and love, all she seeks is blood thirsty revenge. In the end, Jason while he sees Medea's plans unfold in front of him, he mentions that Medea through this endeavor has also wounded herself. But Medea concludes her actions with a sentiment that her children's lives and the lives of all now dead thanks to her sorcery are worth the price of inflicting pain upon Jason.
ReplyDeleteI also think its really weird and inhumane on all levels that the passage opens with mythical creatures pulling a chariot with Medea's two dead sons on it. I mean seriously, that is totally unrealistic, but have we seen this kind of creativity. Not in the sense of physical presence of creatures but definitely in the mind of characters such as Medea an Jason. I believe it is as unrealistic to have a blood thirsty, murderess mind like Medea, or one like Jason's to leave his wife and children so easily as if they never meant a thing.
To add Jason curses himself to have ever married Medea, but he is the one responsible for her reactions throughout the tale. He is a coward in all terms to have triggered this and blame this on his wife's madness, which is a partial aspect but the true tipping was the moment he left her.
But there is a part I really dislike about Medea and that is in the end, when she basically rubs in the face of Jason her future plans: she's going to marry Aegeus and live a life a riches and glory. Riches, the reason Jason left her in the first place and glory something that doesn't belong to her after her actions as a murderess wife. I believe the correct term for this is “overkill”, after killing so many people just to get back at someone for leaving her, she has to kill her sons, three kings, queens and princesses, manipulate everyone and in the end to inflict what Jason inflicted on her, leave Medea for riches.
I'll concede, but still, other than that little segment about the androgynous mind, it doesn't seem that way. I have no doubt that by the end of the book, my opinion will change, but so far it hasn't.
ReplyDeleteOf course, it doesn't help that the female contingent of the class seems to be harboring anti-male sentiment, which is fine, I would just appreciate a little more, of a..., of an attempt toward understanding the male psyche as well as objectivity. In Medea for example, I understand perfectly well that in today's society it is completely unacceptable for a man to just walk out on a woman like that, but the opposite is also true (woman walking out on a man), and do not tell me it doesn't happen, because I know it does(little fun fact, in both those cases, an estimated 75-80% of divorces swing in the woman's favor). At the time that this was written though, it was perfectly acceptable for a man to do this so it really isn't accurate to judge him by a society's standards other than those of his own society by describing him with vulgarity.
Here's to keeping it brief,
the level-headed Andrew J. Kaston, Esquire
P.S.
It is pure instinct, pure animal instinct to, when an aggressor (Medea) is aggressive, for the aggressed to either flee or stand their ground and make themselves look bigger than the aggressor. The first of those two is not aloud by his society so he's left with the latter.
A very wise man once said: "A Room of One's Own is about class struggle. Since Woolf says a woman needs a room of one's own and money the lower classes can't afford property or individual rooms, and they have no money
THUS capitalism oppresses women
BOOM" quote end quote. This wise man is Colin Myles Henry Reilly.
The above was a reposting of previous posts without the vulgarities found in our classroom discussion. It's now rated G.
Also, just have to disagree with Oliver, she is completely in touch with her emotions, too much so, so as to bring her to the excesses she experiences.
ReplyDelete