"Doom is compelling, it leads and we follow--"

From all the books I have read for high school until now, I would rate this one as a "meh" one. Not my favorite one but definitely not the worst. The only thing that bothered me is the fact that so much background information is required to fully understand the plot.

Mommy issues are real.

This was fighting for women rights.

Nu m-a încântat așa de mult.


"BĂTRÎNUL: Copilul meu, norocul ți-e potrivnic: tu n-ai nici un prieten. E rar prilejul de-a găsi pe cineva care să-mpartă nu doar binele cu noi, ci, la nevoie, răul."

"ELEKTRA: Acestea toate sînt nimic, nu-s ale noastre decît pentru scurtă vreme. Doar caracterul este trainic, bogăția nu. Doar caracterul pururi dăinuie și biruie nenorocirile. Belșugul, dacă e nedrept și-n mîinile unor mișei, își ia din case zborul; numai cîteva clipe strălucește."

You may find a fascinating case study in artistic approach when you compare the Libation Bearers of Aeschylus and the Electra plays of Sophocles and Euripides. The three great Greek tragedians all wrote a play about the same story: Orestes’s and Electra’s revenge on their mother Clytemnestra for the murder of their father Agamemnon. The format and general outline is the same in all three plays; yet the effect is unique to the playwright.
tt
Aeschylus’s play is resonant with mythical symbolism. This is exemplified in the recognition scene between Electra and Orestes: Electra recognizes Orestes from a lock of hair he leaves on Agamemnon’s tomb. It seems unlikely to us that a person would be able to recognize a long-lost relative from a single lock of hair; but leaving hair on a tomb was a ritualistic act, only performed by people close to the deceased—such as a son. Aeschylus’s worldview is also fundamentally irrational. Orestes is duty-bound to punish his mother; yet doing so invokes the punishment of the Furies, who pursue him for his evil deed. Somehow, the killing of Clytemnestra is simultaneously good and evil, honorable and shameful, in the eyes of the gods.
tt
Euripides’s version can be seen as the rational and realistic version of Aeschylus’s play. Euripides invites this reading himself, when he parodies the recognition scene between Electra and Orestes: the suggestion that Electra could recognize her brother from a single strand of hair makes her laugh with contempt. Additionally, in Euripides, as in Aeschylus, the killing of Clytemnestra is morally ambiguous; but this ambiguity results not from the will of the gods, but from the emotional complexity of the characters.
tt
Sophocles’s version differs from both Aeschylus's and Euripides's in matter and form. For one, the particulars of the plot are all different. But the most striking difference is Sophocles’s treatment of morality. In his play, the killing of Clytemnestra is triumphant, glorious. It evokes neither pity from the characters nor the wrath of the gods. It seems that Sophocles had a more clear-cut conception of right and wrong; this, in fact, is what makes his portrayal of Antigone so compelling—she is noble and right, and her enemies are ignoble and wrong.

I really have no conclusion to draw from this discussion, other than the obvious: there isn’t just one way to produce great art.

feminism loss but i do love when women get to kill

not sure how to review this one despite having written an essay about it. how about: i am still an original oresteia stan through and through, but i love what euripides does with electra's character here. like sophocles, he lets her rage; unlike sophocles, he lets her take decisive action in her mother's murder, to a degree that is actually kind of horrifying (goading the brother she hasn't seen in years into murder by questioning his manhood? that's fucking cold). this entire play is pretty cold--euripides comes at the myth with a cynicism that blows away the other playwrights who have touched electra's story. this orestes and electra are a far cry from the pious grieving children of Libation Bearers--orestes kills aegisthus during a sacrifice, for fuck's sake--and the digs at aeschylus's scenes aren't subtle. that said, these characterizations are still deeply compelling: in their grief, in orestes' waver, in electra's fury, they ring as real people. and despite the pessimism of this play, it's powerful as hell.

also GOD i love clytemnestra in this play. i love how much depth and sympathy euripides gives her; i love that she's given nuance before she even comes on stage (described in one line as savage but protective of her daughter); i love that she's able to defend and represent herself in a speech that could be the precursor to emilia's speech in othello. electra says a lot of deeply misogynistic things in this play, and both she and her mother are punished for transgressing their social roles (this was the topic of my essay and the reason my original review was just the first line of this one). but euripides almost disproves his own misogyny by painting each of these women as a real, multilayered, morally gray person. clytemnestra's defense of her actions makes sense; so does electra's deeply wounded rage. and god, i love the moment of horror electra and orestes have after the murder. nobody's winning here, and nobody's right.

also also. i know i just said i love clytemnestra and i do but ELECTRA GETTING TO PHYSICALLY HELP ORESTES KILL THEIR MOTHER. WITH HER HAND ON THE SWORD. I LOVE WHEN WOMEN DO WRONGS!!!

translations read: paul roche, emily wilson
--> the latter translation is kind of unintentionally hysterical. i'm sorry. i know it comes out of a book where the goal is to translate as closely to verbatim as possible, so it can be used as a greek learning text, but tell me how i'm supposed to not laugh at "I will arrange the murder of my mother." // "That's great!"

notable lines:
"He hopes, but helplessly; an exile's weak." (Wilson, line 352)
"ELECTRA: Let me die, so long as I kill my mother." (Roche)
"OLD MAN: She'll come right to your door, right to your house.
ELECTRA: From here, it's just a little step to Hades." (Wilson, lines 661-2)
"ORESTES: I am only the pawn of fate and heaven." (Roche) (ouch, talk about an orestes theme)
"ELECTRA: Look, I'll put the cloth around her, // our unkind kin, the enemy we loved." (Wilson, 1230-1)

and, of course, the thesis:
"A single ancestral curse has ruined you both." (Roche)

I really enjoyed Medea, she's one of my favorite heroines ever; Vindictive, unapologetic, clever and passionate but not wise, very feminine but darkly so, she's the force of animus that destroys Jason, a temptress and a witch who goes to the ultimate extreme and murders her own children to get back at an unfaithful husband. That is to say: not your typical run of the mill woman. She's so dangerous and scary that ultimately she seems supernatural to me (she IS a witch) and although I understand her feelings I can't identify with her but merely gape at her in awe and be stupified. I adore her but she's not quite so down to earth as to be human - she does fly away on a dragon chariot of some sort at the end of the play, so dramatic -
Then there is Electra; The Mother-Killer. Sounds quite as horrendous and thank all the gods Euripides doesn't feel compelled to sugar coat any of the grisly details.
I started reading this in hopes of getting to experience something akin to Medea. But in Electra I found none. She is ridiculously akin to a teenager (which she is); prone to mood swings, self inflicting harm for attention and playing the victim (which she more or less is) and despite wanting to appear miserable and pitiable she is suffering quite no more than a loss of wealth and status. I did find someone I root for however: Clytemnestra. She's the more human rendition of Medea, less viscious, less showy, more capable of reason and remorse. She did what her impulse drove her to do but she understands her actions and its consequences and is now living with it and trying to make things work. quite frankly I don't blame her for murdering Agamemnon. It's interesting the machinations of classical Greek society and the involvement of the gods in the deciding of things. Euripides treats the subject matter of revenge and justice in a way that reveals the complications and the misleading nature of such system and puts the blame on the gods - Here Apollo - for giving unwise commands and for being untrustworthy. In the end is justice really served after Clytemnestra and Aegisthus are tricked and butchered? Euripides takes precious time to establish that both of them, though traitors and murderers are not 'villains' and even provokes the reader to sympathize with Clytemnestra. This is in contrast with Electra's character who doesn't wish to account for the mutual guilt her parents share and has an absolutist approach, expecting her mother to have remained bound by her failed marriage and pointing out undeserved accusations to her mother, a behavior that I can't help but believe stems from her dissatisfaction with her own fall from grace and resulting resentment rather than absolute support of her father.
It's a very interesting book and Euripides is becoming one of my favorite playwrights. He employs parody, sarcasm, pokes subtle fun at different literary traditions and take a a stance that is both clever and unconventional.

بیشتر به هذیان می‌مانست و با منطق و طرز فکر امروز هیچ‌جوره نتوانستم توجیه و تفسیرش کنم. شاید به همین خاطر در انتهای کتاب نقدی را هم ترجمه کرده‌اند که مخاطب را اندکی راهنمایی کند، هرچند باز هم بیشتر پر از اما و اگر بود تا پاسخ
راستی کتاب‌ها و داستان‌ها تاریخ انقضا ندارند؟ همواره باید ستودشان حتی اگر امروز جز شناخت مردم کهن فایده‌ و زیبایی درشان دیده نشود؟ نمی‌دانم

Relectura para tenerla fresca. Eurípides no decepciona

Adoring Sophocle's Electra, which I read in college, I decided to read the version of Euripedes, who critics claim writes far more cynically (about gods and humankind), to see how he handled the drama. Euripide's version was exalted, dark, and tragic, much like the version by Sophocles, but the characters and their motives were strikingly distinct. Euripides has the more somber and realistic vision of the two dramatists.
The character Electra as imagined by Euripides sank beneath hardship, self-pity and the need to dramatize to all about her how deeply she suffered. She made note of her father, but that was not the great injustice in her mind. Rather, she dwells on how poorly she had been treated. Electra, as realized by Sophocles, had been redeemed by love for her brother Orestes, and love for her murdered father. She had love as a resource after she had wreaked her terrible and mysterious revenge upon her mother. In contrast, the Electra of Euripides was exhausted and once those she hated had been dispatched, she had nothing to turn to and became reduced to a shell of a human being. There is something in me that prefers the vision of Euripides, whose dramatic decisions indicate that vengeance cannot satisfy any appetite nor leave love behind its wake as a resource. Her rage against her mother accomplishes nothing other than to reduce Electra to nothing. Orestes, according to Euripides, is a coward, unlike the determined and self-confident Orestes produced by Sophocles. I praised how Euripides showed him hesitating before killing his mother. The scene was rendered as putrid and revolting, rather than a scene of just death, anguish, and retribution. One feels contaminated by their murder of their mother Clytemnestra. Euripides produced a play of unremitting tragedy, whereas Sophocles, a true devout believer, offers hope and love in the end.
I recommend highly that both versions be read together in order to taste the contrasts and tensions which continue to make ancient Greek culture so vital.

پلیدی در برابر پلیدی!؟

"آیا تنگدستی اندازه‌ای بهتر است؟ نه!
.
.
.
تنگدستی وبینوایی به آدمی می آموزد از سر نیاز
پلید وبدکار باشد."

من از ستیز در میدان کردار آمده‌ام، نه جولان‌گاه کلمات.

حکایت خاندان آترئوس یکی از جذاب‌ترین حکایات تاریخ است. نفرینی که تا قیام قیامت گریبان نسل در نسل این خاندان را می‌گیرد و ول‌کن ماجرا نیست. داستان انتقام گرفتن الکترا از مادرش که با هم‌کاری برادرش اورستس صورت می‌گیرد از مشهورترین داستان‌های مربوط به این خاندان است و شاعران زیادی درمورد این داستان نمایش‌نامه نوشته‌اند. تا به امروز می‌توانم بگویم ضعیف‌ترین نسخه‌ از این داستان، همین روایت اوریپید است که به گرد پای روایت آیسخولوس(نیازآوران) و سوفوکل (الکترا) نمی‌رسد و حتی - می‌دانم که روزی از این گفته پشیمان می‌شوم - روایت سارتر از این داستان (مگس‌ها) را بیشتر دوست داشتم. البته این اثر هم نکات بسیار قابل توجهی داشت. نقد اوریپید نسبت به نیازآوران آیسخولوس از مشخصه‌های بارز آن است. مثلاً آن بخشی که الکترا اذعان می‌دارد که نمی‌تواند از روی مو یک فرد متوجه هویت او شود، نقدی به گره‌گشایی آیسخولوسی می‌کند. یکی دیگر از مسائل متن، عقل‌گرایی اوریپیدی‌ است که نیچه مفصلاً در زایش تراژدی به این بحث پرداخته و اوریپید را بخاطر این رفتارش سرزنش کرده است. در این نمایش، اوریپید برخلاف آیسخولوس نیروی خدایان را پس می‌زند و سعی می‌کند تمام بار نمایش را روی دوش انسانیان بگذارد. در این متن اثری از آپولون نیست و در نهایت هم هنگامی که اسمی از او به میان می‌آید به جهت سرزنش کردنش می‌باشد و حتی اورستس با کلمات تندی از او یاد می‌کند که این عمل در آن دوران به نوعی کفرگویی محض بوده است. کلوتایمنسترا و آیگیستوس در این اثر به آن بدی همیشه نیستند و ممکن است مخاطب با آن‌ها حتی هم‌دلی کند و برای‌شان دل بسوزاند. تجربه‌ی عجیبی بود. اوریپید همیشه آدم را متحیر می‌کند، حتی با یک روایت ضعیف