What is the difference in writing that makes one author/ playwright widely known and famous for hundreds of years, and one that just fades into obscurity? This is the difference between Sophocles, the great Greek playwright, and Arthur Miller who had some hits but never received much recognition for his plays. Sophocles was an ancient Greek tragedian who wrote over 120 plays. He participated in 30 competitions winning 18 and never placing lower than second. Miller came from a middle class family and had over 30 plays. He was nominated for an Oscar for The Crucible, but never won any awards for his work, some might say he is more known for being married to Marilyn Monroe than anything else. That is not very true, but it goes to show he never made it big. The differences between the two men’s writing can be seen in the plot, themes and characterization from Death of a Salesman and Oedipus Rex.
The general plot between the two plays is very similar. They both start with a male protagonist who is confused/ crazy. Both characters have a problem but keep telling themselves lies or just disregarding the truth so they don’t have to be the bad guy. In the end they both discover the truth which sends them over the edge and causes them to cause physical harm and therefore removing themselves from the situation. The general plot is similar, but it is the little differences that make Sophocles work live on. For example Sophocles uses dramatic irony from the beginning when the blind prophet says that it was Oedipus that killed King Laius “from this day address neither these men here nor me, since you are the unholy polluter of this land” (22). This allows the audience to see Oedipus slowly learn what they know and watch as he slowly accepts the truth. It leaves them in suspense when Oedipus learns what they already know because they don’t know what his reaction is when he goes postal. On the other hand Willy is already losing his mind from the beginning of the play. This takes away a lot of the character development that would allow the audience to really be drawn in and connect with his problems. Emotion also something that will make a play boom or bust, and especially at the end where both men realize the truth. Miller uses a short, vague ending that has very little emotion in it. Miller doesn’t even tell you that Willy dies but only uses stage directions “There is the sound of a car starting and moving away at full speed... as the car speed off the music crashes down in a frenzy... All stare down at the grave” (136). This ending is very undramatic, and rather boring considering that Willy tried to commit suicide before. It is just short and leaves people a little sad. Sophocles on the other hand uses a very long, descriptive, and emotional reaction. It doesn’t leave the audience what happened to Oedipus because it makes sure to show you in great detail. Once he learns the truth he goes into a fit of rage ready to kill his mother/wife when he see’s she killed herself he becomes very somber and then claws his eyes out with her brooches and asked to be exiled from the kingdom. It is emotionally charged and draws the audience/ readers in and then leaves them stunned at Oedipus reactions. This outburst of emotion is a very good conclusion to the story especially as the audience could watch the tension build and build.
Another important factor to the life span of a literary work is the lessons that can be learned from them. In Death of a Salesman, Miller theme was focused on the American Dream and how it's not how good you look and how much your liked, but instead how hard you work. This is a great lesson as there are numerous other works that has the same theme. The only thing is that it allows for a small group of people to really relate to it. Not all Americans will be able to connect to it as they are already happy with what they are doing, or are already well off. Internationally it won’t be a big hit because the American dream is most relatable for people living in the US or the immigrants that move there. Sophocles however uses a central theme that is universal and will always apply to any society and that is the rejecting the truth and the consequences that come with it. As the play progressed Oedipus was continually told and given more evidence that it was he who killed king Laius bringing the plague on the kingdom, and he kept denying it. It was because he kept denying it that made it worse and lead him to discover other facts that lead to the suicide of his mother/wife and him to claw out his eyes. Sophocles is so successful in part because his play’s apply to all people regardless of time and location where Miller’s themes are more specific to certain people in a specific place and time.
Lastly, as touched on before Sophocles developed his characters a lot more. As the play advanced you saw their complexity and got to know a little about how they thought which then allayed you to predict how they would react to a truth. While Miller had the characters already developed where Willy was already losing his mind and the resentment from Biff was from before the play started.This causes the audience to be less attached to the play. In conclusion Sophocles work as lasted for hundreds of year because he uses universal themes, more emotion and description and develops his characters more than Arthur Miller does. Miller by no means is a bad playwright, only his plays are not on the same level as the great playwright that Sophocles was.
1 comment:
I thought that your comparison of Miller and Sophocles was very intriguing because of how vastly different the time and circumstances at which they wrote were. To me, this comparison is reminiscent of debates over whether a certain athlete from a different generation, such as Michael Jordan, is better than a modern star. Unfortunately, it is seemingly impossible to objectively compare greats from different eras due to the vastly different circumstances that surrounded them while in their prime. My belief is that it not possible compare Mille and Sophocles with complete objectivity as Oedipus Rex was written for a completely different audience than the modern one while a significant portion of the book is not in its true form due to translation and being lost.
Despite this, I think that comparing these two playwrights is an extremely interesting comparison to be had. I agree with a majority of argument about these plays, however, I feel as if you didn’t give enough credit to The Death of a Salesman. The reason for this, I believe, is because we seemingly interpreted the book differently. When I read it, I did not see Miller’s moral being that hard work pays off. The reason for this is despite his incompetence, Willy works extremely hard. Working only on commision, Willy was willing to driving long distance to make sales, even though he frequently was never able to sell. Furthermore, I thought that the ending of The Death of a Salesman was very emotional. Instead of decreasing the weight of his death, I felt that the lack of dialogue only added to the drama of the traumatic ending.
Once again, I thought that this comparison was very interesting and that your writing skills helped you to make your argument. Even though I didn’t agree with all of it, your writing was very coherent and make sense. It is astonishing that Sophocles's work has remained popular for such a long time and I am interested as to how long The Death of a Salesman will stay relevant.
Post a Comment