The Shepherd has a part unlike any other in this play. All throughout the readings of Oedipus Rex, I
was contemplating the question we were all discussing: depending on the evil,
is it actually better to remain in ignorance than to know truth? However, there was a deeper question to
consider as well: If you know the truth, do you let others remain in ignorance
of it? And if so, does that make you the
villain in your story? In the play, the
Shepherd knows all along the horrors which are occurring, and the
evil deeds which could potentially happen.
In a round about way, he is actually responsible for them all. So what
should he have done? Was it wrong for
him to save the young child? What about
when he came with the word of the King’s death, and saw his slayer sitting on
the throne? Was it wrong for him to stay
silent then? I think even more critical
and difficult to ask than whether it’s better to personally remain ignorant is
the question of letting other’s remain in ignorance. When is it the right thing to leave things be
and let the people around you live their lives, not knowing the evil you do?
When are you manipulating fate by remaining silent, and does your silence
condemn or condone the actions of others?
P.S. Commented on Lauren's "Irony in Blindness."
Great minds think alike, Tinsley. I also wrote my blog on the shepherd. I also struggle with the question of is the shepherd a bad guy. I honestly think he is not, maybe a coward, but not a bad person. I also like that you address the when remaining silent do you condone the actions of others.
ReplyDelete