Oedipus Rex Essay
Oedipus Rex, The outsider. How do the statements of fate, free will, religion and death differ or coincide in these two opposite works of literature?Two totally different works, one written by a Greek philosopher in the ancient Greece, the other written in 1940 by a French writer. In most aspects the ideas and facts that affect our lives in these two stories are separated by two societies, two ways of thinking but in the end there is a contrast between the idea in Oedipus Rex and the main character in the outsider, Mersault, as well as similarities in the idea of fate, free will and religion with the society we live in now a days.
I will emphasize this comparison with the outsider’s second part, where Mersault already knows his fate and obliged by his human nature, he starts to think and hope for a way to escape his death. For the first time in his life he separates the idea he always lived with of living the now not caring for his past or future, he fantasizes a guillotine that wont work and comes up with new ways of execution where there can actually be a way to be saved.
At the time where Oedipus is close to finding the truth about the prophecy him and Jocasta will blind themselves to the facts and find comfort in a servant’s version of the story; Laius was killed by “Strangers”, note that it is plural. Oedipus on the other side knows he committed the murder himself with no help whatsoever.
Mersault cannot accept he is dead already, with every ray of sunshine he is grateful for another 24 hours of life. The idea of being beaten by a machine is just not within his reach. He is well aware of HIS truth, the truth that he will eventually die in front of a crowd but even so, the Mersault we knew, the one who showed apathy towards life is transformed into a new Mersault who does not want to die, who wants and convinces himself that there are methods he, for not studying in detail previous executions, ignores. Oedipus and Jocasta cannot face the probability of the servant being wrong, for it will mean the impossibility of their love and more important the idea of not being able to control their own life. What I mean with this is that this would only mean that no matter what you do, your destiny is already there for you, there is nothing you can do to change it. The way they both blind themselves opens a path for Jocasta and Oedipus to reveal the prophecies they were once told, that Oedipus will kill his father and sleep with his mother and that Jocasta’s son would kill his own father also Oedipus’ swollen feet connected to Jocasta binding her own child’s ankles. Although in the play this is only to emphasize the irony in which the characters are involved in, it is also to emphasize Jocastas and Oedipus way of trying to ignore the truth and not to face the consequences. Oedipus is condemned by his fate, not by his actions because he always tried to do good and lived according to what he believed was right, Mersault is condemned not by fate, but by his intelligence.
Previously I mentioned the limits of free will, free will as an idea we want to believe but in the end, just an idea because fate and destiny is all we have and cannot change it. A great symbol in Oedipus is the place where the three roads meet; the three way crossroads where Oedipus started to create and assure the prophecies. Crossroads is where a choice has to be made to take the way that leads to the desired place, in Oedipus’ case this idea does not fit, he has the choices there for him yet these are denied form him due to the power of the prophecies over free will and freedom. The outsider has a similar case, at the beach where Raymond takes his gun out, and Merasult knows that is can easily kill someone, even knowing this he tells Raymond he can take care of it, later on between the heat and the reflection of light form the arab’s blade, he accidentally shoots him, killing him, but it does not end here, this is what decides his fate if he had only taken that only shot, his sentence might have been different but he doesn’t just stop, in fact he fires three more times to the lying body of the arab, assuring completely his own death. This can be related in great amount with religion. Concerning Oedipus we can associate religion with fate and destiny and the ideology in ancient Greek times. Mans choice and power does not, never and by any way over lap that of the Gods, Oedipus’ actions had already been written and all the prophecies he once heard and did not want to believe were all true, though there was no way in which he would have noticed and decide to change his future, it is true, he tried but unsuccessfully. In the outsider, in Mersaults possible last day, which was every day he would see the sun, he receives a visit from the chaplain which he had refused to see three times previously. This time it is not his choice to do this, he is asked if he believes in God, of course he says that he doesn’t which is true. He is later asked if he thought there wasn’t life after death and again he replies negatively. The chaplain pities him while Mersault is only aware of how annoying the chaplain was. By the end of their conversation Merault attacks the chaplain to an extent where the guards have to intervene; to them he is nothing more than a cold blooded murderer. It is a strange association with religion that it is just after he attacked the chaplain that Mersault feels ready to face death and does not worry, he understands Maman, the fact that he did not understand why she had a relationship in a time close to her death, and he now accepts the end of his life.
There are various number of similitudes between these two novels, in different aspects but we can find similitudes as well as differences among them. From a play that assures the absence of free will and the absolute power of the gods to an existecialist novel about society and what is thought to be morally correct and the duty of following these, otherwise finding yourself facing death and being excluded from this same society.
I will emphasize this comparison with the outsider’s second part, where Mersault already knows his fate and obliged by his human nature, he starts to think and hope for a way to escape his death. For the first time in his life he separates the idea he always lived with of living the now not caring for his past or future, he fantasizes a guillotine that wont work and comes up with new ways of execution where there can actually be a way to be saved.
At the time where Oedipus is close to finding the truth about the prophecy him and Jocasta will blind themselves to the facts and find comfort in a servant’s version of the story; Laius was killed by “Strangers”, note that it is plural. Oedipus on the other side knows he committed the murder himself with no help whatsoever.
Mersault cannot accept he is dead already, with every ray of sunshine he is grateful for another 24 hours of life. The idea of being beaten by a machine is just not within his reach. He is well aware of HIS truth, the truth that he will eventually die in front of a crowd but even so, the Mersault we knew, the one who showed apathy towards life is transformed into a new Mersault who does not want to die, who wants and convinces himself that there are methods he, for not studying in detail previous executions, ignores. Oedipus and Jocasta cannot face the probability of the servant being wrong, for it will mean the impossibility of their love and more important the idea of not being able to control their own life. What I mean with this is that this would only mean that no matter what you do, your destiny is already there for you, there is nothing you can do to change it. The way they both blind themselves opens a path for Jocasta and Oedipus to reveal the prophecies they were once told, that Oedipus will kill his father and sleep with his mother and that Jocasta’s son would kill his own father also Oedipus’ swollen feet connected to Jocasta binding her own child’s ankles. Although in the play this is only to emphasize the irony in which the characters are involved in, it is also to emphasize Jocastas and Oedipus way of trying to ignore the truth and not to face the consequences. Oedipus is condemned by his fate, not by his actions because he always tried to do good and lived according to what he believed was right, Mersault is condemned not by fate, but by his intelligence.
Previously I mentioned the limits of free will, free will as an idea we want to believe but in the end, just an idea because fate and destiny is all we have and cannot change it. A great symbol in Oedipus is the place where the three roads meet; the three way crossroads where Oedipus started to create and assure the prophecies. Crossroads is where a choice has to be made to take the way that leads to the desired place, in Oedipus’ case this idea does not fit, he has the choices there for him yet these are denied form him due to the power of the prophecies over free will and freedom. The outsider has a similar case, at the beach where Raymond takes his gun out, and Merasult knows that is can easily kill someone, even knowing this he tells Raymond he can take care of it, later on between the heat and the reflection of light form the arab’s blade, he accidentally shoots him, killing him, but it does not end here, this is what decides his fate if he had only taken that only shot, his sentence might have been different but he doesn’t just stop, in fact he fires three more times to the lying body of the arab, assuring completely his own death. This can be related in great amount with religion. Concerning Oedipus we can associate religion with fate and destiny and the ideology in ancient Greek times. Mans choice and power does not, never and by any way over lap that of the Gods, Oedipus’ actions had already been written and all the prophecies he once heard and did not want to believe were all true, though there was no way in which he would have noticed and decide to change his future, it is true, he tried but unsuccessfully. In the outsider, in Mersaults possible last day, which was every day he would see the sun, he receives a visit from the chaplain which he had refused to see three times previously. This time it is not his choice to do this, he is asked if he believes in God, of course he says that he doesn’t which is true. He is later asked if he thought there wasn’t life after death and again he replies negatively. The chaplain pities him while Mersault is only aware of how annoying the chaplain was. By the end of their conversation Merault attacks the chaplain to an extent where the guards have to intervene; to them he is nothing more than a cold blooded murderer. It is a strange association with religion that it is just after he attacked the chaplain that Mersault feels ready to face death and does not worry, he understands Maman, the fact that he did not understand why she had a relationship in a time close to her death, and he now accepts the end of his life.
There are various number of similitudes between these two novels, in different aspects but we can find similitudes as well as differences among them. From a play that assures the absence of free will and the absolute power of the gods to an existecialist novel about society and what is thought to be morally correct and the duty of following these, otherwise finding yourself facing death and being excluded from this same society.
- CAUTION! Free essay samples & essay examples are 100% plagiarized!!!
At EssayLib.com - professional essay writing service - you can buy custom essays on any topics and disciplines, 100% written from scratch. EssayLib.com employs top-rated Ph.D. and Master's experts only to write superior-quality custom essays, term papers, research papers, thesis & dissertations at affordable rates. EssayLib.com knows HOW effectively to help high school, college & university students with writing the highest grade custom papers online.
