The Unfortunate Oedipus

Oedipus The King is a tragic story for various reasons and it does not serve to teach a lesson. The main character, Oedipus, is fated to have a horrible life full of upsetting surprises. Initially Oedipus is set out to find the murderer of Laius, and he is willing to do whatever it takes to exile the killer. There is no reason that Oedipus should be punished, yet he is soon faced with a startling discovery. When Oedipus finds out that he has slept with his mother, and he killed his own father (Laius), he is heartbroken and destroyed. He knows that he must stay true to his promise and exile himself. Oedipus does not stop at exile; by his realization that he was blind to the atrocities of his life, he physically blinds himself.

There does not seem to be any apparent reason for Oedipus’s unfortunate destiny, and it therefore the story carries no moral. Had Oedipus’s life been full of wrongdoings or had he learned something from his bad fortune, the story would be educational. Instead, the reader can still enjoy the story, but cannot sense a moral. Even when Oedipus is true to his word, no good comes to him. Ever sense birth Oedipus was fated to a life of problems and he had no choice but to fall into the trap fate set in his path.

Ivan Ilych's Character

Leo Tolstoy sets up the story of The Death if Ivan Ilych in such a way that first the reader comes to an understanding of the society in which Ivan lives, second he/she develops a negative/neutral picture of the self-centered Ivan, and finally he/she empathizes with Ivan as he approaches death. When I read the first chapter of The Death of Ivan Ilych, there were many signs that his friends did what they did because they thought it was the proper action and that the society was based on promoting one’s own well-being and social status. When someone died it was not too traumatic on their friends because the friends were simply happy that they remained in good health. Even Ivan’s supposed best friend is upset that by going to Ivan’s funeral, his regular game of bridge is delayed. Also, at Ivan’s funeral, Praskovya is more upset about her current financial situation, rather than the death of her husband. As I learned more about Ivan though the story of his own life, I saw him in a negative light. He did not desire to do jobs that helped anyone or that followed his interests, rather he chose his career by what he thought the proper thing to do. All the choices in his life were made by consideration of what he should be doing not what he wanted of what was best for his family. He is neither compassionate towards others, nor a particularly good man in any sense. Yet, when he becomes sick it is easy to forget that Ivan got himself into his predicament by living a life empty of human compassion and full of false friendships. Ivan’s inner issues that he only begins to sort out in a time of desperation are self induced. Ivan resents the false nature of his friends and family concerning his illness. Everyone pretends that he will get better and that he is not nearly death daily. The reader feels bad for Ivan and also becomes frustrated with his family, but Ivan is only breaking through his falsity shell when he is faced with death. Had Ivan’s wife been the one sick, I believe that Ivan would show equally little compassion toward her that she shows toward him, and he would never undergo the realization brought on by his terminal illness that his life “had been most simple and most ordinary and therefore most terrible” (55).
404