I have been tracking the truth in Oedipus and Wild Duck.
In Oedipus, it seems like the revelation of the truth is seen as a good thing, and the right thing to do. Oedipus knows that finding out the truth could destroy him, but he is determined to find it out anyway. Once he does, he blinds himself and the play ends with him preparing for exile. This mindset that finding out what it true and good is more important than a single person's happiness makes it seem like the truth should always be revealed. Even though the truth led to destruction, this destruction was not really a bad thing (because it led to the restoration of Thebes).
In Wild Duck, however, the revelation of the truth is a bad thing. Gregers is determined to show Hjalmar the truth about his wife and his family because he believes that it will make him a stronger man (similar to the message in Oedipus), but in the end it just ends up destroying his family and leaving him in a state of despair over his dead daughter. This broken family contrasts with the content family we see in the first few acts to show us that we can live happily while believing lies, or we can live miserably when we know the truth. In this situation, it is reasonable to infer that Ibsen believes that it is not always necessary to be completely truthful. He shows that in reality, a lie is sometimes the better option because it keeps things from getting too crazy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment