Upon further analyzation, this book seems to be chock full of conflict, not just with one feud but many. First, there's the undeniably obvious tension between the old and new gods. We can see this in the way they "pick" a certain human to stand behind or stand against, just like they did in Orestes's case. The Furies, who are considered apart of the old gods, are still bitter about the switch to Zeus's reign. Because of the change of rule, they are now seen as outcasts in the eyes of the young gods and causing Apollo's favored Orestes mischief is their way of going down swinging. These powers represent two opposing sides. Apollo is everything male, civilized, and logical, whereas the Furies are everything female, ancient, and savage. This book is special in the fact that it portrays a world in which both human and god alike are at a place where either old or new ways must be chosen.
The second conflict is between different types of morality. Maybe perhaps both sides are right in a sense? Maybe the truth lies somewhere between Orestes and the Furies? After all, in that certain time, vengeance wasn't taken as a crime. It was even expected, so in Orestes's defense, he was just righting a wrong. But I can also side with the Furies (even though they probably did have hidden motives). He did slaughter the woman who brought him into life, and that just seems a little too ghastly for me. By the end of the book, I walked away having learned that sometimes people have their own moral code and that doesn't make them any more right or wrong.
Here's something to chew on though:
There's a longstanding pattern in this family that definitely shows why revenge is never the answer. I can honestly see why "an eye for an eye" is not effective. Bloodshed will continue even after Orestes kills his mother, which makes me want to dig deeper into this story line. Does the cycle ever end for this family?
I commented on posts by Jacob Clabo and Haylee Lynd.
Hi Rachael! Your post was very interesting to read! I defintely see the different sides of conflict in this play. What is Ancient Greece without its conflicts? You mentioned the battle between old and new; this is a conflict that I didn't see right away, but I can ceratinly see it now. I think there is always a struggle when a new way of thinking or governing comes around. Change is a difficult thing and it is not always easy to see whether new is better. In Orestes' case, maybe it was better.
ReplyDeleteI think one of the main morals of the story of Agamemnon's family is that sometimes there is no satisfactory ending. Sometimes the worst case scenario, in this instance a never-ending cycle of kill and be killed, is the outcome that materializes from the choices that are made. An eye for an eye is never really effective, that much is true, but I can't help but feel like the gods based their own allegiances and alliances on that mentality. That would mean that humans and other creatures of various kinds would do the same because the gods are the models and influencers of the world around them. The clash of old and new moralities is definitely one that I myself noticed, but I think that Athena quelled the conflict good enough for everyone to walk away not feeling slighted.
ReplyDelete