Comparing Oedipus And A Doll's House

769 Words2 Pages

In with the old and in with the new
Aristotle defines a tragic hero by a set of basic standards. The tragic hero must cause their own fate, though the fate may not be wholly deserved, and the tragic hero must be capable of learning from his mistakes. These principals stand unchanged throughout the course of time. Classical Greek Tragedy Oedipus the King and contemporary A Doll’s House exhibit perfectly tragic heroes. Not so simple housewife Nora Helmer and the great king Oedipus bind the fundamentals of Classic and contemporary literature by exemplifying Aristotle’s true definition of the tragic hero.
Hero must have discovered his fate by his own actions, not by things happening to him. Nora accepts responsibility for her actions, admitting her crimes in the first act. Although acted out in good intent, Nora undeniably brings about her own destruction. If her initial act of forgery does not seal her fate from the beginning, her hamartia of constant deceit prevents her from ever being able to redeem herself. Oedipus also
Nora acted stupidly and deceitfully. Her crimes surely do not go unpunished, but even still, does she truly deserve such a meteoric loss? Truth rings in her declaration: “I am not so silly as he thinks. […] I did it for love's sake,” (Ibsen, 413 ). Flawed though she may be, Nora acts only out of love and the ever so human self-preservation. Oedipus likewise suffers greatly for his flaw- arrogance. Oedipus strives only to live his life normally and avoid his sure doomed fate; destiny berates him to a state of awkward misery. "Dark, dark! The horror of darkness, like a shroud, Wraps me and bears me on through mist and cloud. Ah me, ah me! What spasms athwart me shoot, What pangs of agonizing memory?" Oedipus exclaims this chilling utterance in horror at his situation (Sophocles,1313-1315). Neglecting counsel repeatedly, while not wise, surely does not constitute such a fate as Oedipus

Open Document