Post by zimmyhoo on Dec 11, 2013 17:11:01 GMT
There was a little disagreement which I'd totally love to hear the debate over - such a good topic - but in the wrong place. Come over here, will you?
In the tragedies of Sophocles, the struggle is not between character and character, but between individual desire and fate. In Greek drama, fate alone triumphs, whether the characters accept or resist it. Acceptance turns one into an instrument of inexplicable purpose, and to do this, one must surrender one's will to improve upon the natural order of fate. Resistance, however, forces one to develop a code of distinction (good—bad, right—wrong) to gauge one's success. Invariably, the tragic hero will be deceived by their morality because of its orderliness, which fails to capture important details of its contants. Oedipus, for instance, despite solving the riddle of the Sphinx about »human nature«, cannot know his own mistakes — he wants to marry a beautiful woman, and chooses his own mother (unknowingly); he wants to assert his dominance and defend his right of way, but thereby kills his own father (unknowingly). Creon, imagining the ideal state, abuses his political power to enforce his personal will, revealing the flaw in his thinking. Neither the acceptance nor the resistance of fate lead to the improvement of the characters' situation. There is no right thing to do, since neither desire nor fate can be relinquished until one's inevitable death. This is all too familiar, and it seems to me that the fascination of tragedies (and comedies) comes not from the story, which matters very little in literature (Queneau proves this), but from the viewpoint of the audience, which mimics the impartial stance of fate for the duration of the play, and allows them to design the world around the characters. This imaginative game of self-reflection and self-indulgence is stimulated less by the story, and much more by the oddities it features — the unclear semblance of a world around the characters. An example of such an oddity would be the ghost's armour in Hamlet.
I'll go on later if you wish. I ask that you do not patronize me, though.
Just a little point. I feel you are treating our prophecy as if it was some kind of pokemon. Try to see the role of fate in our visions, because it is a bit disrespectful to talk about our vision of the storyline as "mundane acts of cruelty". We talk about threads that draw Annie and Kat to opposite directions, both rising in power, both surpassing their limits, both victims of ruses that eventually turn out to demise of the villains who planned them; but also, eventually, leading Kat and Annie against each other in their hubris as they aim to the glory of what they love (rather than who they love), the excess growth of their sides being incompatible with each other, leading to mutual hatred of the side where the other one resides. And this leads to violence. There will be blood, because they are setting to crashing courses. That is no freaking pokemon. That is fate.
Just a little point. I feel you are treating our prophecy as if it was some kind of pokemon. Try to see the role of fate in our visions, because it is a bit disrespectful to talk about our vision of the storyline as "mundane acts of cruelty". We talk about threads that draw Annie and Kat to opposite directions, both rising in power, both surpassing their limits, both victims of ruses that eventually turn out to demise of the villains who planned them; but also, eventually, leading Kat and Annie against each other in their hubris as they aim to the glory of what they love (rather than who they love), the excess growth of their sides being incompatible with each other, leading to mutual hatred of the side where the other one resides. And this leads to violence. There will be blood, because they are setting to crashing courses. That is no freaking pokemon. That is fate.In a work of art, the role of fate is assumed by the author first, and then the readers are allowed to share this viewpoint — like at the end of the Lusiads, where Vasco da Gama gets to see the Universal Machine. (Why this happens to Vasco da Gama of all people, I don't know.) The power of the readers to influence fate, however, is limited to constructing where the text omits something. That's still much more freedom than the characters get.
It is not your imagination, but the unnecessary clash of friends over flawed categories, that I don't see as beautiful. To actually address the comic I should be discussing, the division between the Court and the Forest is artificial and was created by something that doesn't even exist when it's not being paid attention to.
Thank you zimmyzims. You managed to encapsulate several of my general objections to korba's characterization in a specific analysis of this story. Though I'm not entirely sure that I get the pokemon metaphor.
In addition, in reference to korba's post, I recognize that fate is ultimately what the heroes struggle against. Yet sometimes through that they end up struggling against each other. I overstated it as being "the definition of classical tragedy," but I feel like it's still an important element in the struggle against fate.You're right: the conflict between characters is indeed an expression of fate (as is everything else they do), yet conflict need not lead to mutual destruction. Comedy involves exactly the same struggle, where those characters resistant to fate develop an orderly set of morals. In Much Ado About Nothing, Benedick and Beatrice also struggle against fate, and their idealism fails to save them, but the difference lies in the characters' judgment of the outcome.
Bonne chance with your Chinese, by the way.
It may be because I know very close to nothing about pokemon, so the metaphor may just be a complete miss. What I meant is that mundane acts of cruelty in a fight between characters and not fate makes me think of these animations where two or more characters are set to battle each other for no reason. And what I know of pokemon, which equals pretty much what I have read fromthis webcomic/blog (that I find funny although I often am very sure I have no idea what they are talking about), it is all about that: characters arbitrarily put to battle each other.The characters in Pokemon all fight because they want to be the very best, like no one ever was. That's as good or arbitrary a reason to fight as any other.
If you meant to say that I Tackled anyone's opinion purely to flaunt my Ultra Balls; that's not what I'm after.
That's what I wrote as well; fate alone triumphs. We're also not disagreeing on what may happen:
The names of Annie and Kat themselves seem to be opposed to each other. Attic Greek »ana« means »upward« or »land-inward«, as in »Anabasis«; »kata« means »downward« or »land-outward« (but it can also mean »according to« as in »the Gospel according to John«, for example). I'm not criticizing that you see this possibility, but rather the notion of viewing the end of such friendships — or the resistance to such a break-up — as tragically beautiful, or justified through art, because the beauty lies in something else.
This may be overused, but doesn't beauty lie in the eye of the beholder? Do you really denounce someone's subjective view on beauty or did I misunderstand you terribly?
...challenge being announced...?
No!! Not my precious theorypost! Have mercy!
Okay guys, go wild. Just leave Daedalus's post alone, eh?
Dec 10, 2013 18:56:13 GMT @korba said:
Mundane acts of cruelty do not become beautiful by declaring them a story. Nor do I like »heartwrenching«, sentimental books. The story of Lolita, for instance, is emphatically not beautiful, nor are Humbert's florid, weasely descriptions and Romantic attempts to style himself a tragic hero. Not bearing any understanding of Greek tragedy, he assumes Fate to be a counterpart to the hero, dispensing punishment and reward on a whim. Therefore the inscrutable oddities of the world around him remain inaccessible to him: he fits them into his categorical idealism and does not explore their nature, which is really quite independent of him and his alleged story.In the tragedies of Sophocles, the struggle is not between character and character, but between individual desire and fate. In Greek drama, fate alone triumphs, whether the characters accept or resist it. Acceptance turns one into an instrument of inexplicable purpose, and to do this, one must surrender one's will to improve upon the natural order of fate. Resistance, however, forces one to develop a code of distinction (good—bad, right—wrong) to gauge one's success. Invariably, the tragic hero will be deceived by their morality because of its orderliness, which fails to capture important details of its contants. Oedipus, for instance, despite solving the riddle of the Sphinx about »human nature«, cannot know his own mistakes — he wants to marry a beautiful woman, and chooses his own mother (unknowingly); he wants to assert his dominance and defend his right of way, but thereby kills his own father (unknowingly). Creon, imagining the ideal state, abuses his political power to enforce his personal will, revealing the flaw in his thinking. Neither the acceptance nor the resistance of fate lead to the improvement of the characters' situation. There is no right thing to do, since neither desire nor fate can be relinquished until one's inevitable death. This is all too familiar, and it seems to me that the fascination of tragedies (and comedies) comes not from the story, which matters very little in literature (Queneau proves this), but from the viewpoint of the audience, which mimics the impartial stance of fate for the duration of the play, and allows them to design the world around the characters. This imaginative game of self-reflection and self-indulgence is stimulated less by the story, and much more by the oddities it features — the unclear semblance of a world around the characters. An example of such an oddity would be the ghost's armour in Hamlet.
I'll go on later if you wish. I ask that you do not patronize me, though.
Dec 11, 2013 14:57:12 GMT @korba said:
It is not your imagination, but the unnecessary clash of friends over flawed categories, that I don't see as beautiful. To actually address the comic I should be discussing, the division between the Court and the Forest is artificial and was created by something that doesn't even exist when it's not being paid attention to.
In addition, in reference to korba's post, I recognize that fate is ultimately what the heroes struggle against. Yet sometimes through that they end up struggling against each other. I overstated it as being "the definition of classical tragedy," but I feel like it's still an important element in the struggle against fate.
Bonne chance with your Chinese, by the way.
If you meant to say that I Tackled anyone's opinion purely to flaunt my Ultra Balls; that's not what I'm after.
I still want to add that the thing about fate is, you can struggle, but as long as it is a fate, you will always lose.
Of course, it can be something completely different, but as things stand, this is a very real possibility.
...challenge being announced...?
Okay guys, go wild. Just leave Daedalus's post alone, eh?
