Oedipus the King Essay

Man is the marionette in the hands of destiny. It is the circumstances and mountain which bring tragicalal incidents in his vitality. The Aristotelian tragedies are generally establish on this attitude. jibe to Aristotle cataclysm is the re establishation of action. Common meaning of tragedies is the touching end of the profligacy. Here we are going to discuss about the deuce antithetic tragedies which took place in different era. The first cataclysm is the tragedy of pouf Oedipus which happened approximately 2000 years before and the second tragedy is the tragedy which belongs to the modern era.It is Arthur Millers Death of a Sales globe. They are different from separately other exclusively apart from a long crevice of about 2000 years, provided yet some resemblances are in that location in them. We are going to discuss on the resemblances and differentiations. Let us hand major power Oedipus first fit to the rule of Aristotelian p clump Oedipus the King is divide d into two different parts, one is simple plot and a nonher(prenominal) is complex plot. In simple plot the changes in the fortune of King Oedipus take place without Peripety and discovery. It is a journey from ignorance to knowledge.He has to anticipate with the consequences of the miserable truth. At first he is not ready to evaluate the fact but at the end the circumstances compel him to aim the reality. The protagonist, along with the other guinea pigs, totally becomes helpless in the hands of destiny. He is a king but the qualities of normal human beings are present in him. The tragedy takes place because of the sin he has pull inadvertently. According to the opinion of Aristotelian tragedies the grinder of the simulated military operation is n both perfectly unassailable nor entirely bad. Oedipus thus is the man of unexceptional weaknesses.He has had all the annotation but here he has shown falling into ruin from this distinction and it is alas not because of any p ass on sin but because of the error committed by him in his ignorance. Like the protagonist the other characters in this play are also good but not perfect. For example Laios, take of King Oedipus who is of course a good soul but good-tempered he commits a sin of attempting the murder of his son at the baby stage of his life because of the fear that his son would one day bulge him. Laios had the feet of this child bound and pinned.Someone tossed it in a mountain wilderness. So there. Apollo didnt cause this boy to be his conveys killer. Laios didnt bear the terror he feared from his son. Thats what the words of prophecy defined. (Line 717, stroke 3, Oedipus the King) The theory of tragedy of Arthur Miller is based on the life of an ordinary man. Miller was rejected by many critics because his tragedy was not based upon the Aristotelian concept of tragedy where the tragic hero is forever and a day a king or a prince. On the contrary the hero is a common man and so according to the critics he is unavailing to arise the tragic sen termnts.But it was the belief of Miller that the common man is as apt a subject for tragedy in its highest awareness as kings were. On the face of it this ought to be obvious in the flow of modern psychiatry, which bases its analysis upon classific formulations, such as the Oedipus and Orestes complexes, for instance, which were enacted by royal beings, but which apply to everyone in similar emotional situations. (an essay by Arthur Miller, catastrophe and the Common Man) With the same viewpoint Arthur Miller has depicted the tragic story of a very simple ordinary man, Willy. Willy is an ordinary soul by occupation as well as by nature.not only Willy but rests of the characters are the exact mirror image of the ordinary man in the modern society who is constantly pursuing the materialist happiness. According to Miller it is not only the kings that can be the tragic heroes but the common man can also play the role of a trag ic hero. As far as the issue of morality is pertain two plays are somewhat similar and somewhat reverse to each other. Morality plays a very important role in some(prenominal) of this play but still it defers from one another. Many people trust that Oedipus is an immoral person but it is not a premeditated immorality.Oedipus tragic fall, which later leads to tragedy was absolutely not his sin. He slays his biological father and marries to his biological mother. It is actually the height of immorality but at the time of committing this sin Oedipus was totally unaware about the reality. In short he is the immoral man by his predestined actions. The concept of morality is deliberate in Millers Death of Salesman. Here the hero of this play Willy Loman flouts all the rules of morality. He is charlatan, flirt and a liar. The lack of morality finds there in the Lomans family itself.He goes on deceiving his married woman by belongings illicit relationship with another woman. He goes o n deceiving his son and wife by making his false image and by pretending to be an important person. They dont need me in revolutionary York. Im the New England man. Im vital in New England. (Act 1, Part 1, pg. 4, Death of Salesman) But it is an illusion. Pride is there in both Oedipus and Willy but pride of Oedipus is at least genuine un similar to that of Willy which is in effect(p) a fake. The heroes of both of the plays have to pay a lot and both of them have suffered a lot due to the mistakes they have done either ignorantly or deliberately.Both Oedipus and Willy in the end succeed in getting the sympathy of the audience. I dont say hes a great man. Willy Loman never made a lot of money. His name was never in the paper. Hes not the finest character that ever lived. But hes a human being, and a terrible thing is happening to him. So attention must be paid. Hes not to be allowed to fall into his grave deal an old dog. Attention, attention must be finally paid to such a person. (Act 1, Part 8, pg. 40) Apart from being an ordinary man Willy like Oedipus deserves the sympathy of the audience.