Oedipus Rex

[Lazer Yoshi]

Me and my class have been studying this Greek myth for a while, and I'm really enjoying it. It may be pretty dark, but the story is interesting. I've always liked Greek Drama and Mythology, seeing as it has been an inspiration for some things. Discuss?

[AsianGuy1137]

It's almost reminiscent of how Luke made out with his sister in Star Wars, but with less epic lightsaber fights and space explosions. On a less trollful note, I do admire the trilogy, but I feel like Oedipus Rex was too forced together and not as smooth as Antigone. For Greek Drama in general, the various retellings of the myth of Prometheus has always raised some interesting philosophical questions for me; you might wanna check out the Aesop version if you're interested.

[Lazer Yoshi]

Sounds pretty interesting. And we've been studying Antigone as well. In fact, our final is actually on it.
Anywho, Oedipus did feel a little weird, but this is a drama from a really long time ago. I'm not sure if there was a standard then.

[AsianGuy1137]

Considering that the Greeks didn't need much of an excuse to run around naked and chase little boys, I suppose that's a reasonable conclusion. Although I do feel that it's much more interesting and psychologically-provocative than most modern dramas which have become a cliched way of saying over-hyped chick flick with mediocre plotlines.

[Lazer Yoshi]

Well, plenty is going to change within art and literature over thousands of years. I do have to agree that written dramas seem to be more intriguing than movies, but it's all opinion.

[Bob the Rainicorn]

Antigone is awesome, Oedipus just made me horny.

[Dr. Cakey]

This is something that bugs me, so I'll take the opportunity to get it off my chest: the idea that old stuff is inherently better. I'm imagining a shadowy cadre of English professors in a dimly lit room, calculating Quality Quotients for every story in existence. Then a conversation like this happens:

"I've finished crunching the numbers for Oedipus Rex."

"Ah. What's the score?"

"2123.45984."

"Is there something wrong with that?"

"It's just...[i]Thor[/i]."

"What about Thor?"

"I must be remembering this wrong...but...wasn't the Thor movie rated 2125.93377?"

"O-ho, my boy, you made a slight error in your calculations. You forgot to add the Antiquity Bonus!"

"The what?"

"The Antiquity Bonus, man! Every story gains points based on how close it is to the time of Shakespeare. Oedipus Rex is much older than Shakespeare, so it will only gain...let me see here...1458 points."

"Ah, now that makes sense. A true classic!"

*awaiting difficult discussion*

[Lazer Yoshi]

It does seem that older literature sometimes gets more attention and credit than deserved. People like to be elitists, sadly.

[AsianGuy1137]

[quote name='Dr. Cakey-chan' timestamp='1324224845' post='5714977']
This is something that bugs me, so I'll take the opportunity to get it off my chest: the idea that old stuff is inherently better. I'm imagining a shadowy cadre of English professors in a dimly lit room, calculating Quality Quotients for every story in existence. Then a conversation like this happens:

"I've finished crunching the numbers for Oedipus Rex."

"Ah. What's the score?"

"2123.45984."

"Is there something wrong with that?"

"It's just...[i]Thor[/i]."

"What about Thor?"

"I must be remembering this wrong...but...wasn't the Thor movie rated 2125.93377?"

"O-ho, my boy, you made a slight error in your calculations. You forgot to add the Antiquity Bonus!"

"The what?"

"The Antiquity Bonus, man! Every story gains points based on how close it is to the time of Shakespeare. Oedipus Rex is much older than Shakespeare, so it will only gain...let me see here...1458 points."

"Ah, now that makes sense. A true classic!"

*awaiting difficult discussion*[/quote]
You, sir, are a genius. Although to be fair, they had less literate people and therefore were less prone to mass reviews from the audiences back then that were well versed in the modern techniques of literary criticism (which might I add approaches the limit of complete bullsh-?). So long as they could captivate the attention of the audience, which consisted mostly of simple farmers, artisans, laborers, etc... with nothing better to do than watch the grass grow, than they were good old classics.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Welp, looks like everybody here missed the point.

[AsianGuy1137]

Welp, looks like you win the award for vaguest fail-troll award.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

I'm pretty sure saying that everybody missed the point of the book is a clear statement.

[AsianGuy1137]

I'm pretty sure me pointing out that you missed the point of this thread is a clear statement too. But on the off chance my completely unsupported priori argument is too sophisticated for you, maybe I could try explaining it with the simple deconstructionist methodology. First of all, we all shared our personal perspectives on the book based on our own impressions of it. To say we missed the point, you'd have to either directly point out any leaps of reason or fallacies in our arguments, which you have failed thus far to do, or reduce your statement to a baseless assertion that directly assumes that any opinion shared is inherently flawed bordering on an ad reductio absurdum fallacy on your part. Now please, explain to me clearly in simple words which you stance you'd prefer to take.