Let us know what you have been reading lately, what you have finished up, any recommendations you have or want, etc. Also, use this thread for any questions that don’t need an entire post for themselves (see rule 4).

Hi, I'm hoping this is the right place to ask. I’m seeking advice on footnoting for ancient sources when referencing two works by the same author multiple times, specifically the Iliad and Odyssey. If I were only using one of them, I’d do “Ibid” or “op. cit.” but since I’m citing both texts, I don’t think I can do that (hopefully this makes sense).

I've tried looking online, but nothing's really come up. If anyone has any suggestions, I’d be very appreciative

Hello, everyone! I’m excited to share an essay I recently submitted for my online high school English course. This is the first graded assignment of the course, and I spent a full two weeks refining it. Honestly, I’m quite proud of the effort and thought I put into this work; while it might seem intense for a high-school assignment, I wanted to push my limits and produce something exceptional.

To give some context, I haven’t officially graduated high school yet. For many years, my ADHD made it difficult to apply consistent cognitive effort, which held me back academically. However, with recent treatment involving stimulant medication, I’ve experienced a surge in productivity and focus over the past month—more than I ever have in my 21 years prior to treatment. This essay reflects that shift, and I’m hopeful that my evaluator will see the effort and thought behind it. Still, I’d love feedback from those with academic backgrounds or expertise in literature and writing.

So here it is, an overly ambitious high school analysis on Hamlet and Oedipus Rex! I welcome any constructive criticism or insights from anyone willing to take a look.

Thank you so much in advance for your time and any feedback you might offer. It would mean a lot to me as I continue on this new journey.

The Limits of Reason: Modern Skepticism and Classical Fatalism in Hamlet and Oedipus Rex

According to Gorgias, the fifth-century philosopher, tragedy evokes fear, pity, and awe to  uncover hidden truths about human nature, offering profound insights into overwhelming  experiences (Critchley and Webster 21). This emotional resonance reflects the limitations of  human reason and the ethical dilemmas inherent in confronting an uncertain and disorderly  universe. Masterworks of dramatic literature, such as Shakespeare's Hamlet and Sophocles' Oedipus Rex, anchor themselves in this profound human struggle against forces beyond our  control. 

Both Hamlet and Oedipus Rex delve into the overarching philosophical dilemma of the  limitations of human reason, presenting protagonists who confront epistemological, individual,  and political crises. Hamlet embodies modern skepticism, attempting to assert individual agency  within the confines of his historical circumstances. In contrast, Oedipus exemplifies classical  fatalism, ultimately acknowledging the supremacy of divine forces that govern human fate. This  essay examines how Shakespeare's Hamlet and Sophocles' Oedipus Rex use their protagonists'  struggles with the limitations of human reason—manifested through modern skepticism and  classical fatalism—and expressed via linguistic equivocation and dramatic irony, to explore the  philosophical implications on knowledge and identity. By analyzing these elements, the essay  argues that the plays present divergent political outcomes and propose alternative models of  ethical leadership within their respective societies.

Building upon our examination of the interplay between emotional resonance and  philosophical inquiry in classical tragedy, it is essential to delineate the literary frameworks that  embody contrasting perspectives on the fundamental limitations of human knowledge: linguistic equivocation in Hamlet and dramatic irony in Oedipus Rex. These frameworks are not merely  artistic devices but serve as mechanisms through which the playwrights explore and illuminate  profound philosophical ideas. 

One such perspective, emerging with the advent of modernity, contends that there is no  absolute truth to anchor understanding—only layers of appearances susceptible to manipulation.  When language becomes the primary arbiter of truth, its inherent instability compromises our  grasp of reality. Here, equivocation functions as a mechanism that constrains human reason by  obscuring the distinction between semblance and actuality. This ambiguity challenges the  audience's ability to discern truth, reflecting the modern skepticism about the reliability of  knowledge and perception. 

Conversely, the predominant viewpoint preceding the Renaissance acknowledges the  insufficiency of human reason by recognizing our vulnerability in the face of incomprehensible  forces. Philosophers of classical antiquity assert the existence of external sources of truth that  reside beyond human understanding. To emphasize this collective vulnerability, they employ  dramatic irony by personifying these distant realms within theatrical productions, rendering them  accessible and intelligible. This technique allows the audience to witness the limitations of  human knowledge from an omniscient vantage point, affirming their shared fragility and  highlighting the tension between human ignorance and divine omniscience. 

By employing linguistic equivocation and dramatic irony, each playwright cultivates  distinct patterns of emotional and intellectual engagement with the audience, which are critical to understanding the plays' philosophical underpinnings. Their dramatizations serve as exemplary  models of these respective frameworks by effectively modulating the perceived distance between  the audience's vantage point and the performance– contracting it through equivocation and  expanding it through dramatic irony. 

In Hamlet, Shakespeare endows the central protagonist with an illusory reflective  capability, wherein Hamlet's words seemingly mirror his underlying doubts, intentions, and  emotions. This technique serves to merge Hamlet's inner world with the audience’s lived reality.  The strategic use of metatheatre, such as the play-within-a-play (Shakespeare 2.2.540-542),  epitomizes equivocation by merging reality and representation, actor and observer (Craig 103).  This multifaceted approach not only propels the narrative forward but also highlights the  recursive nexus of illusion that envelops the audience, who are simultaneously participants in  and observers of the pretense. By engaging the audience in upholding the same form of  deception, Shakespeare evokes a sense of weariness, suggesting that the external world is  equally unstable and ultimately unfounded. This prompts the audience to further contemplate the  reliability of perception and the nature of truth. 

Conversely, in Oedipus Rex, Sophocles employs dramatic irony to expand the intellectual  distance between the audience and the performance. The audience possesses foreknowledge of  Oedius's fate, which the protagonist himself lacks. This deliberate use of dramatic irony  intensifies the emotional impact, evoking feelings of pity and fear as they witness Oedipus's  relentless pursuit of truth leading to his own downfall. The audience experiences catharsis  alongside Oedipus during his momentous realization, without bearing culpability for his fate.  This dynamic underscores the classical perspective that truth exists beyond human manipulation,  and individuals are bound to their immutable positions within the cosmic order. The emotional responses elicited reinforce the themes of fate and human frailty, highlighting the limitations of  human reason when confronted with predetermined destiny. 

By understanding how linguistic equivocation and dramatic irony function within these  tragedies, and the philosophical perspectives they illuminate, we can better interpret the  protagonists' navigation of crises across epistemology, identity, and agency. This comprehension  lays the groundwork for a more detailed exploration in the subsequent sections, where we will  dissect the nuanced interplay of these frameworks and their profound impact on the tragic  journeys of Hamlet and Oedipus. 

Both protagonists confront profound epistemological challenges that clash with the  inherent limitations of human reason. Despite their shared engagement with issues of knowledge  and perception, the protagonists arrive at markedly divergent conclusions regarding the integrity  of knowledge, thereby shaping their respective philosophical trajectories.  

In Hamlet, linguistic equivocation fosters an environment permeated by ambiguity,  effectively blurring the boundaries between appearance and reality (Mack 297). This pervasive  uncertainty compels Hamlet into an internal struggle as he grapples with the reliability of  knowledge, particularly when it originates from supernatural sources. The ghost of his father  epitomizes this dilemma; its ambiguous nature forces Hamlet to question whether it is a truthful  apparition or a deceptive entity. He articulates this skepticism: “The spirit that I have seen / May  be the devil: and the devil hath power / To assume a pleasing shape” (Shakespeare 2.2.598-600).  This doubt exemplifies the epistemological crisis induced by linguistic equivocation—Hamlet  finds himself unable to trust his perceptions or the information presented to him. To navigate this  crisis, Hamlet resorts to human methods of verification, notably the artifice of theater. By staging  "The Mousetrap" (Shakespeare 2.2.540-542), he seeks to "catch the conscience of the king" (Shakespeare 2.2.617), utilizing performance as a tool to extract a concealed truth (Critchley and  Webster 23). However, this reliance on theatrical deception further entangles him in a web of  appearances, highlighting the problematic nature of discerning reality through layers of artifice.  The feedback loop of art imitating life serves as a microcosm of Hamlet's struggle to attain  certainty in an equivocal world; when the boundary between illusion and reality becomes  blurred, so too does the boundary between performance and identity, pretense and action. 

Conversely, in Oedipus Rex, the limitations of rationality manifest in the protagonist’s  external demise; his confidence in his own abilities and volitional pursuit of truth precipitate his  admission of a predetermined fate. Sophocles establishes this ironic interplay at the outset by  juxtaposing Oedipus’s political authority against the presence of an exalted blind prophet,  Teiresias. The confrontation between these two equally stubborn figures is punctuated by  Oedipus’s relentless effort to uncover the perpetrator of the plague and his subsequent denial of  his own involvement. Through his physical blindness– which symbolizes the capacity to  perceive divine truths beyond ordinary human sight– Teiresias possesses innate knowledge of  Oedipus's origins. 

Oedipus’s rational dismissal of the prophet’s allegations—due to their lack of tangible  evidence—underscores the limitations of human perception and the paradox of relying solely on  rational faculties to apprehend the truth. Oedipus’s reliance on language compromises the  investigation by engendering ambiguities that obscure the truth. The shifting grammatical  categories from "one man" to "one thing" and from singular to plural ("robber" to "robbers")  illustrate his capacity to evade the truth through intellectual manipulation (Sagel 219). However,  as his attempts to absolve himself only weaken his position, mirroring his futile efforts to escape  the prophecy imposed upon him, he ultimately recognizes the futility of reconciling human knowledge with divine omniscience. Upon realizing the truth of his origins and actions, Oedipus  concedes: "Lost! Ah lost! At last it's blazing clear. Light of my days, go dark. I want to gaze no  more" (Sophocles 1315-1317). His subsequent self-blinding is a symbolic act—marking his  transformation from ignorance to insight—that resolves his epistemological crisis within the  play’s ironic framework. 

As each protagonist grapples with the precariousness of human reason, they adopt  contrasting epistemological viewpoints that prefigure their reformulated conceptions of identity.  Hamlet’s skepticism about knowledge engenders his suspicion that his preexisting identity is  founded under false pretenses; his propensity to apprehend the reliability of his perceptions by  equivocating appearance and reality extends to an equivocation between external and internal  modes of expression. On the other hand, Oedipus’ deference to oracular pronouncements is  ironically catalyzed by his initial reliance on human faculties to forestall his inevitable demise.  Thus, the resolution of his identity crisis, characterized by his acceptance of his preordained  position in the cosmic order, necessitates his eventual acknowledgement of external truths. 

Appropriately, the progression from Hamlet's skepticism and Oedipus’s deference to their  respective identity crises is delineated by a corresponding philosophical contrast between self constitution and self-discovery. Both protagonists confront the prospect of transcendence by  grappling with the devastating implications that arise in each instance.  

Hamlet's allegiance to a stable identity erodes under the assault of his growing inward  skepticism. His gradual dissociation from the world and himself unfolds as he replaces his initial  belief in external knowledge with perpetual doubt. When Hamlet asserts that he “passes show”  (Shakespeare 1.2.85) during the play’s first act—expressing frustration over his father's  abbreviated mourning period—he maintains a clear distinction between genuine emotion and mere pretense. However, the pervasive ambiguity surrounding the ghost's appearance highlights  his surrender to his own fallible sensory perceptions. Consequently, Hamlet oscillates between  deductive reasoning, based on foundational assumptions, and inductive reasoning, derived from  personal observations. This oscillation mirrors his inability to decouple the ghost’s testimony  from the unreliability of his own perception. His journey toward identity disintegration is deeply  intertwined with his erratic use of these reasoning methods, confounded by the destabilizing  influence of the play's linguistic equivocation. Through this, Shakespeare illuminates the modern  skeptical perspective that questions the possibility of absolute truth.  

The philosophical significance of Hamlet’s ensuing identity crisis is revealed through a  series of equivocations that operate on a constantly evolving scale. The pantomime reenactment  of King Hamlet's murder fails to provoke Claudius, whereas the dialogical version elicits his  subtle admission of guilt. (Craig 80). This contrast underscores the emotional potency of  performances delivered by actors who convincingly integrate words with actions, regardless of  their truthfulness. Hamlet himself understands this troubling discrepancy when he instructs the  players to "suit the action to the word, the word to the action" (Shakespeare 3.2.18-19), positing  that reality and performance are inseparable. This newfound equivocation arises from his  difficulty in discerning reality from appearance, leading him to suspect that his own thoughts and  feelings are subject to theatrical manipulation.

Hamlet’s exploration of the shifting meaning of performance-related language reinforces  the self-doubt established by his engagement with theatrical mediums. He advises his mother to  "assume a virtue, if you have it not" (Shakespeare 3.4.168), suggesting that habit—a repeated,  performative action—can transform into a genuine characteristic. As a result, the destabilizing  effects of linguistic equivocation on Hamlet's interpersonal interactions desensitize him to the emotional consequences of becoming estranged from his identity by adopting an "antic  disposition” (Shakespeare 1.5.170-172). His framework of equivocation between performance  and reality creates a corresponding relationship between his genuine emotional experiences and  his feigned madness. This leaves both the audience and Hamlet himself questioning where his  true self lies.  

Hamlet’s growing recognition that all social roles are performative leads to his rejection  of predefined roles, viewing them as hollow imitations rather than authentic expressions of self.  His interactions with other self-conscious characters become increasingly strained due to his  disillusionment with identity. This culminates in his active detachment of performative roles  from any fixed essence. For instance, he exaggerates the characteristics of Osric and Laertes— the sycophant and the grieving brother—to distance himself from socially acceptable identities  such as avenger, royal heir, or mourner, which are embodied by his peers (Shakespeare 5.2.81- 204). By witnessing ubiquitous displays of insincere emotion, Hamlet invokes the unfalsifiability  of his self-fashioned transformation from aggrieved prince to histrionic madman. To Hamlet, the  insincere condolences and sacraments accompanying his father's mourning no longer merely  violate honorable social rituals; they destroy the importance assigned to familial bonds (Zamir  109). This realization gives him a warrant to forsake political action by reducing all human  endeavors to a shared mortality.  

Conversely, in Oedipus Rex, dramatic irony not only externalizes Oedipus's  epistemological challenges but also shapes his journey of self-discovery that ultimately leads to  the acceptance of external truths. Oedipus's identity is initially defined by his intellectual  prowess and adaptability—attributes that enabled him to solve the Sphinx's riddle and ascend to  the throne of Thebes. The riddle itself, involving the changing locomotion of humans throughout life, symbolizes human adaptation to nature's constraints through intellect. Ironically, while  Oedipus excels in deciphering this enigma, he remains ignorant of his own origins.  

His gradual self-discovery, tainted by parricide and incest, is mediated by the ironic  collocation of his past and his present (Sagel 220). Sophocles traces his prolific success as  Theban ruler to his inception as a helpless infant with a predestined fate. The significance of his  name, "Oedipus," meaning both "swollen foot" and "I know the foot," encapsulates this duality  of competence and ignorance. His pierced feet, a consequence of his parents' attempt to escape  the prophecy, symbolize the indelible marks of his past that he fails to recognize. This physical  impairment metaphorically represents his deviation from the natural order, as he does not  conform to the typical bipedal pattern of adulthood due to his injured feet.  

Moreover, this troubling duality is reflected in Oedipus’s interactions with the chorus as he attempts to navigate the emerging political crisis in light of his personal misfortune. His  declaration, "My spirit groans for the city and myself and you at once" (Sophocles 64), is literally  true; he embodies every constituent of Thebes because of his intertwined familial roles. His ease  in collapsing natural distinctions manifests in both the private and public domains of his life— becoming both son and husband, brother and father, leader and citizen—thereby intensifying the  ironic revelation of his unwitting crimes. It is only when Oedipus accepts the mortal limitations  imposed by his birth that he can restore order to Thebes.  

Together, Shakespeare and Sophocles illustrate the threat posed by unfettered individual  agency to political stability within the context of their contrasting philosophical viewpoints. As  the embodiment of the modern skeptical perspective, Hamlet forcefully wields his intellect to  dislodge his identity from the arbitrary behavioral norms endemic to his historical circumstances.  However, his refusal to anchor himself to any external truth—and his preference to spontaneously revise his identity—weakens his motivation to redeem the political corruption that  surrounds him. In stark contrast, Oedipus's transformation reflects the classical acknowledgment  of external truths by demonstrating the perils of striving for perfection. His realization that his  self-image was overextended into multiple contradictory roles highlights the futility of  leveraging intellect or effective leadership to transcend mortal constraints. It is at this moment  that his fixed position within the cosmic order crystallizes, empowering him to effect meaningful  political change by embracing his role as a sacrificial victim. 

Having established the philosophical relevance of Hamlet's and Oedipus's confrontations  with knowledge and identity, it is clear that their internal struggles profoundly influence their  outer engagement with the political structures that determine the fates of Denmark and Thebes.  Their contrasting approaches to leadership and ethics are informed by their respective  epistemological and metaphysical orientations—Hamlet's skepticism and self-constructed  identity, versus Oedipus's deference to external truths and acceptance of a fixed identity. This  divergence encompasses the full extent of enduring insights that their narratives impart,  revealing how their inner turmoil translates into their actions as leaders and their impact on the  political landscapes they inhabit. 

Hamlet's involvement in political affairs falters because, although he wishes to take  practical action, he feels unable to assert his own autonomy effectively (Cantor 51). His deep  disenchantment with collective human endeavors leads him to view political structures as  insignificant within a cosmos he perceives as lacking inherent meaning. Specifically, the  legitimacy of the avenger role—which resonates most strongly with Hamlet among the various  identities embodied by his peers—hinges on the crucial relationship between the avenger and the  avenged. This relationship becomes nullified as Hamlet’s disillusionment leads him to devalue the very foundation upon which acts of vengeance are justified. For instance, Hamlet’s  characterization of the world as “weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable” (Shakespeare 1.2.133)  forebodes his profound loss of motivation to undertake the decisive actions expected of a prince  and avenger. This pervasive disillusionment signifies his retreat from active political  participation. Consequently, his irrevocably fractured mental state becomes inextricably linked to  the eventual disintegration of the Danish political order. His ominous premonition that  “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark” (Shakespeare 1.4.90) ultimately materializes as he  relinquishes the last remnants of his political resistance to Claudius’s corrupt regime. 

Hamlet’s nihilistic dejection in the face of uncertainty—leading to his abdication of  political responsibility—finalizes the transformation of his philosophical outlook across each of  the three critical dimensions: initial skepticism, intermediate disillusionment, and ultimate  resignation to fatalism. As Hamlet becomes increasingly disoriented by the political implications  of his radical skepticism, he abandons his aspiration to maintain authenticity and individual  agency. This shift is exemplified by his capitulation to forces beyond his comprehension,  prompting his declaration, “There's a divinity that shapes our ends, / Rough-hew them how we  will” (Shakespeare 5.2.10-11). This statement marks a departure from his earlier vehement  distrust of supernatural influences, thereby reinforcing the reciprocal dissolution of individual  autonomy and political stability inherent in the modern skeptical perspective. 

Furthermore, Hamlet’s specific capitulation to the impending invasion by Fortinbras  signifies his acknowledgment that his desire to extricate himself from the constraints of his  historical and political context was ultimately untenable. His ironic endorsement of Fortinbras— a figure who embodies the very revenge ethic Hamlet seeks to subvert—exemplifies the  destructive consequences of his nihilistic disengagement from state affairs (Bloom 106). By approving Fortinbras as the imminent successor to the Danish throne, Hamlet facilitates the  perpetuation of the corrupt political order he sought to dismantle as a way of signaling his  submission to fate—culminating in the tragic demise of both himself and his broader political  environment. 

Conversely, Oedipus’s philosophical transformation fundamentally reconfigures his  perception of political power, enabling him to restore order to Thebes through self-sacrifice and  exile, albeit at the expense of his personal agency. Notably, Oedipus’s virtuous public service  during his reign epitomizes ideal leadership, as it is directed toward the pursuit of knowledge and  understanding. However, his renunciation of human faculties—manifested in his self-blinding— and his recognition of mortal limitations, arising from the realization that he occupies  paradoxical roles, undermine the foundations of his anthropocentric political regime. As Oedipus  himself declares, “It was Apollo, friends, Apollo, That brought this bitter bitterness, my sorrows  to completion” (Sophocles 1329-1330). This deference to Apollo dispels his previous conviction  that he could evade his destiny, thereby suggesting that human political endeavors are equally  subject to divine sanction. 

Oedipus’s political resignation, subsequent to his submission to the divine forces  governing his existence, ultimately restores order to his city. His evolution from actively  attempting to avert the impending plague—which inadvertently precipitated its occurrence—to  his voluntary abdication of political leadership, which leads to its eradication, unfolds with an  ironic symmetry to the resolution of his epistemological and identity crises. By embracing his  role as the city’s ritual scapegoat, rather than maintaining his overarching responsibility as a  citizen and leader, he satisfies the requirement of acknowledging one’s place within the cosmic  order rather than asserting dominance over it.

Consequently, Oedipus's actions strengthen communal bonds and highlight shared  vulnerability. Entrusting Creon with the care of his daughters, he assumes the responsibilities of  fatherhood instead of perpetuating the familial curse that instigated the plague. He asserts,  “Creon, since you are the only father left for these two girls, do not allow them to wander like  beggars, poor and husbandless” (Sophocles 1433-1434) Furthermore, by engaging with the  chorus in a lyrical dialogue, he expresses his anguish and acknowledges his reliance on others:  “My friends, you still attend me, steadfast... In darkness though I am, I yet recognize your voice;  I know it clearly” (Sophocles 1435-1437). This interaction reinforces the communal bonds that  will ultimately restore balance to the city in the wake of his exile, signifying an evolution from  isolated authority to integrated community member. 

Overall, the culmination of the protagonists’ respective journeys illuminates the political  ramifications embedded within their philosophical orientations. Shakespeare illustrates the  hazards of excessive skepticism by linking the modern intellectual ideal to the debilitating  paralysis it induces in his portrayal of Hamlet. Specifically, Hamlet’s exceptional intellect, which  surpasses his historical milieu, ultimately undoes itself by enabling him to perceive his own  limitations, thereby initiating a self-destructive trajectory marked by pervasive doubt.  Conversely, Sophocles imparts the redemptive power of ultimately yielding to irrational forces  through his contrasting narrative. By paradoxically positioning Oedipus as both the source and  the redeemer of the political crisis afflicting his city, Sophocles subverts conventional  associations between prevailing political paradigms and their corresponding societal outcomes.  Oedipus’s initial governance, driven by intellectual prowess and unwavering dedication to his  people, leads to the city’s devastation. However, by irrationally punishing himself—both physically and socially—for crimes he unknowingly committed, he ultimately restores harmony  to Thebes. 

Through their respective dramatizations of foundational philosophical paradigms– modern skepticism in Shakespeare’s Hamlet and classical fatalism in Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex– both playwrights engage with the enduring Western intellectual dilemma: the human propensity  to assert control over external circumstances through reason and innovation, juxtaposed against  the inherent limitations of such control. By intertwining these inquiries with the literary devices  of equivocation and dramatic irony, Shakespeare and Sophocles infuse their narratives with  profound lessons that resonate within broader philosophical discourses. At the core of their  dramatic architectures, Hamlet and Oedipus emerge as paradigmatic figures embodying  divergent resolutions to a shared existential quandary. Shakespeare posits that human faculties,  while striving towards truth, remain fundamentally fallible, thereby highlighting the  precariousness of reason in navigating a chaotic universe. In contrast, Sophocles invokes the  supremacy of external truths, asserting that certain realities lie beyond human comprehension  and control. 

Reflecting the modern inclination to deconstruct the notion of absolute truth, Hamlet weaves a complex tapestry of equivocations that mark each phase of the protagonist’s  intellectual journey. Hamlet’s initial reliance on his cognitive abilities, though commendable,  gradually succumbs to pervasive uncertainty. This trajectory is fueled by his pursuit of a holistic  existence– intellectually, socially, and politically– rooted in an idealistic conception of humanity,  which ultimately degenerates into nihilism (Cantor 90). This descent leads to psychological  paralysis and contributes to the ensuing political turmoil, emblematic of the destabilizing effects  of extreme skepticism. 

Conversely, Oedipus Rex emphasizes the value of maintaining foundational beliefs that  transcend purely rational justification. Sophocles navigates the complex interplay between  intention and consequence through the ironic portrayal of Oedipus’ dual political roles: he is both  the redeemer and the inadvertent catalyst of Thebes’ suffering. This dichotomy illustrates the  paradox of his leadership—his commendable qualities as a ruler are overshadowed by his  inadvertent role in precipitating the city’s plague. Ironically, it is Oedipus's seemingly irrational  self-punishment and deference to divine authority that ultimately restore order to Thebes.  Through this juxtaposition, Sophocles illustrates how actions that defy rational justification  within human understanding can lead to redemption when they are aligned with the divine order. 

The divergent models of leadership embodied by each protagonist reverberate in  contemporary political discourse. The most pertinent existential risks to humanity—ranging from  technological advancements to environmental crises—inhabit the frontier of innovation and  challenge our preconceptions of perceived limitations. Drawing insights from Hamlet and  Oedipus Rex, we are reminded of the imperative to balance progress with stability. On one hand,  skepticism and deconstruction have propelled civilization to new heights, fostering critical  inquiry and intellectual growth. On the other hand, they risk incurring the heavy burden of  psychological and political fragmentation, as evidenced by Hamlet’s nihilistic paralysis and the  ensuing disintegration of the Danish political order. Without a firm adherence to guiding  principles—whether they be religious, ritualistic, or otherwise—modern societies face the threat  of imminent collapse, mirroring Hamlet’s ultimate fate. Ultimately, both plays serve as  cautionary tales: political and existential cohesion may necessitate a submission to truths beyond  human reason to prevent descending into chaos and nihilism.

Some context:

So… currently I work as a lecturer and researcher at an MA program in Literature and Culture in Colombia. I do not hold a PhD and the reason why I got such position is because I did excel at my MA (I got the equivalent of a ‘summa cum laude’ grade and a laureate thesis) and due to the fact that I “inherited” a previous lecturer’s research program who left to another institution in Spain (I worked as his research assistant for two years).

I enjoy the work and the pay is decent for Colombia’s standards, also if taking into account the workload. Basically, I just have to teach one subject per semester and supervise four student’s research.

The natural next step is to pursue a PhD. Ideally, I want it to be a funded and there are basically three options.

1. Pursue a PhD in the U.S.: What I like about it is how getting a stipend is pretty straightforward and of course there is some weight in the fact that the universities from the U.S. carry a lot of prestige internationally (I am very critical about this, but its the way things work). That would imply that I have to leave my current position and move abroad, which is not ideal. Also, there are much more funding options.
2. Pursue a degree from a Spanish University: My previous MA supervisor (who is fantastic, brilliant and the most generous academic you can think of) could also be my supervisor for the PhD. Also, the fees in Spain are very cheap (a few hundred euros per year) and I could also do most of the work remotely while meeting sporadically with my supervisor. And, finally, I could basically do all of my research while in being in Colombia and ust get some fundings to travel now and then between the two countries. I know this sounds very good, I’m not very fond of pursuing a degree remotely.
3. Pursue a degree in Colombia: Here there is basically only one program that aligns with my interests (Universidad de los Andes’ PhD in Literature). It is a very well known university in the country and many of its undergrad students do quite well afterwards, but many tend to move abroad to pursue the postgrad studies (there is the perception that having a degree from a first world country is more prestigious). The PhD there is not funded, but I can get a scholarship in order to be free while I maintain my work at the MA. So, it does not give me a stipend, but I could still maintain decent finances as long as I do not have to pay for the fees.

My questions are… What would you choose and why? Which option would open more doors for me in the future from an international perspective? Being able to gain experience as a lecturer while doing the PhD or aiming for a “prestigious university” somewhere in the U.S. and sacrifice such experience? Currently I am more inclined for the third option that I’ve mentioned in the list.

Thank you very much for anyone who took the time to read this.

hi! i’m an undergrad who is planning on writing a literary criticism essay for one of the events at my university. i would love to learn how i could make a good and insightful one :) any general or specific tips, advice, frameworks, etc. on how i should go about it? are there also some specific essays/critics you’d recommend that could help? thank you!

Hi everyone. As an undergraduate, I've been learning a lot about postcolonialism and been really interested in the overall field, since I'm from Singapore. I've been given an opportunity to teach some postcolonial concepts to students, but I just can't seem to nail Bhaba's "unhomeliness."

I usually do cursory research for direct sources about these concepts, but I can't seem to find anything Bhaba wrote about unhomeliness. Am I looking in the wrong places? Is it buried a book I haven't found? Is it even his concept? Admittedly, "unhomeliness" is something I picked up in my notes from a class with no direct reference, so maybe the term just doesn't actually exist?

If someone could point me to a primary source about the concept, or maybe something related to it, I would be most appreciative. Thank you!

I’m reading the Scotichronicon and am having trouble understand if the phrase “gild their own spurs” is a metaphor or not. For context, the Scottish army is asking their leader if they can “…make a trial of the English in front of the battle line in order to gild their own spurs.” I’ve been racking my brain trying to figure this one out all day. This is for a research project but it’s not a homework question or anything.

Hello! I’m coming up towards the end of my undergrad psychology degree and am wondering if I should study English lit next year, I don’t think this will help my career in any way as I’m wanting to work within psychology however I have taken an interest in literature and writing and also loved English when I did it in school and it’s something I’d love to have more expertise in. So I’m wondering if anyone has any insight to if I should do the degree or just put loads of effort into self study !! Thanks so much !

Recently heard about Nietzsche copying out Emerson by hand and also Robert Macfarlane doing the same with Cormac McCarthy. Want to read up a bit more on how extensively they did this (every day as a habit, or every now and then when the whim took them during reading?). Interested in other authors’ use of copywork too

I was recently revisiting Our Town by Thornton Wilder as a theatre major, but this is not homework related. I just noticed something kind of puzzling and my professor and I are curious as to why we haven’t found anything about anyone else mentioning it, so we’re both wondering if we are missing a piece of the puzzle.

In Our Town the play starts off with Emily and George at about 16 per the stage directions on May 7th, 1901. However Emily’s 12th birthday per Act III is on February 11th, 1899. This would make her born in 1887 and only 14 in Act I. This is notable as she should be 18 in 1904 because the Stage Manager tells us Emily and George get married right after commencement.

Is this just an playwright error, or is there more to this?

Hello all, I'm working on a short story right now and would love some recommendations for some short stories/films/books - whatever really. Particularly in the world of horror/thriller.

I'm focusing on paranoia in the sense of a main character who thinks everyone is plotting against her, essentially. So anything like this would be great. The paranoia is a result of childhood trauma that the main character cannot face. She dreams of the things that happened to her as a child (CSA), but will not face the fact that they are nightmares based on her reality.

So, basically, any recs based around paranoia, childhood SA, motherhood, therapy, coping mechanisms. Hopefully you get the gist.

Some things that have inspire me already:

- Marnie (1964) dir. by Alfred Hitchcock

- The Yellow Wallpaper – Charlotte Perkins Gillman  

- The Jacket (2005) dir. by John Maybury

- The Tell-Tale Heart - Edgar Allan Poe

Thank you :)

I'm in a theory of rhetoric class and for our final project we're supposed to do some kind of scholarly research paper and our professor wants us to define our theory, our methodology, and our methods in terms of what we're studying (ex. what theory are we using, what methodology are we using, what methods are we using). It's an English class so a lot of us are doing literary criticism of a specific text... where in the hierarchy of theory, methodology, and method does literary criticism fall? Our professor insists methodology and methods are different and I've seen certain VARIETIES of literary criticism (such as New Criticism or New Historicism) described as methodologies, but does that mean literary criticism is then a theory since it is the overarching category above such varieties? And what does overall literary theory fall under?

For reference, I told him I was going to use queer theory in my paper, but he wanted me to be more specific (ex. Anzaldúan queer theory would be a more suitable theoretical basis). I know this is kind of homework help but it's also research help... I'm a grad student trying to get my work accepted into conferences yall

Basically title. Off the top of my head I can think of some Flannery O’Connor stories. Looking for more obscure things though.

Hello everyone! I am applying for PhD programs next year and I am trying to narrow down my college list, but it is a lot of work! Does anyone know of any college English departments that accept the study of speculative fiction and its intersection with culture, colonialism, history, etc? Would this be best as English or Comp Lit PhD?

For my research specifically, I want to study transnational and ethnic speculative fiction and how these novels decolonize the space of literature and education through alternate histories. I think there is a lot to be learned from these novels - a prime example is R. F. Kuang’s The Poppy Wars which was inspired by historical events like the second Sino-Japanese War and the Nanjing Massacre. These were not topics I learned about in American K-12 school, which was surprising. I do not even remembering being taught about China’s roll in WW2. By looking to speculative fiction, we can learn not only history but also learn about diverse identities and experiences.

Also, I am in the process of writing my masters thesis and article/book recs would be appreciated! My masters thesis is how can the legitimization of Indigenous science and inclusion of Indigenous futurism in mainstream media deconstruct Eurocentric colonial systems and beliefs. Right now, my reading list consists of Grace Dillon, Daniel Heath Justice, Miriam Brown Spiers, and Patrick Wolfe.

Hi, I'm looking for works (fiction and non-fiction) that deal with an aesthetic of ugliness.

I'm thinking of works like Sontag's “Notes on camp”, Umberto Eco's On ugliness and Fisher's The weird and eerie. Of fiction, I need American writers, better if they are from the 20th century. I have in mind the grotesque in Winesburg, Ohio, for example.

If you know any articles that work with concepts such as the grotesque, the weird, the aberrant, or whatever category that implies some sort of disgustment level within American literature that would be very helpful.

Thank you.

I want to inform on some good sources and approaches in order to try and analyse book to film adaptation for a uni assignment. I have it in my mind that narratology and semiotics go hand in hand, but I am afraid I will sound unprepared and not very academic if forget to read something important, that is I don't want to miss out on something.

This is probably a silly question, but I always find myself hesitating about the most natural approach. I have to write an assignment on a 10p short story. Do I have to describe it from start to finish in one paragraph between the introduction and analysis? I have done assignments in the past where I have naturally done both - summarised and not summarised. What's the general rule for this situation? The problem usually arises because the summary quickly fills half or a third of the word limit.

In the case where it is not necessary, how do you deal with jumping from the introduction to your argument without this intermediate passage of pure recollection of the story?

Thank you very much.

I did my undergrad and masters completely in English...I didn't take any courses that demonstrate another language's capability. However, I want to apply for a PhD in Comparative Literature, with Marathi, and Konkani - one is my native language and I have been studying the other since I was a child in school for 10 years. Would such linguistic experience qualify me for serious consideration to Comparative Lit programs? Or is college level experience in intended languages mandatory?

Additionally, my undergrad and masters are in related fields, but not in literature or comparative lit. I hope that having an undergrad degree in Comparative lit, or at least literature, is not necessary for applying to a PhD in Comp lit?

Currently streamlining my master's thesis into a potential writing sample for my grad shcool applications in English and I'm confused about a lot of things.

1. Can it have a title and consequent subtitles?
2. Can it have citation-work (my thesis talks about a lot of obscure texts, say what if the AO hasn't read that text and gets confused when I cite from it/ mention it?)
3. Can people here who have successfully gotten into PhD programs in English (or other fields in the Humanities) please share their writing samples and SOPs, if possible? It's really hard to find good samples apart from YouTube.

Thanks!

Hi everyone,

I was wondering if there are any 'modern English' translations of Tasso's Jerusalem Delivered. The English translation I am using is Fairfax's 1600 translation, and its more antiquated language is making it very difficult to follow and understand the plot. When I try to Google this myself, a lot of the responses I get are just about Fairfax being the first English translation.

Thank you!

Hello! I am currently analyzing Mary Wroth's sonnet 19 "Come darkest night," but am just having trouble figuring out if it follows Petrarchan or Shakespearean sonnet structure. In my opinion, it looks Shakespearean, but I ask because in all of the scholarship surrounding the sequence, they keep mentioning that she is rejecting Petrarchan tradition. What about it is Petrarchan? Thank you!!!

In the sense that a reader is continually "hearing" in their head their own voice saying "I did x, y, z," as it's narrated in the book.

I'm uncertain if this falls in the realm of semiotics, or meta-fiction.

Edit: Just to add an example of the type of things I'm thinking of: In Lolita, Humbert Humbert writes "Imagine me; I shall not exist if you do not imagine me." How this works as far affirming the narrators existence through the imagination of the reader.

Let us know what you have been reading lately, what you have finished up, any recommendations you have or want, etc. Also, use this thread for any questions that don’t need an entire post for themselves (see rule 4).

I’m trying to read The devil in the shape of a woman and I’m having trouble remembering how to annotate historical text. It follows many witch trials that took place in New England. I tried going on YouTube but wasn’t able to find anything good.

I'm attempting to take some courses in literature at schools in cali because I largely studied another topic during my undergrad years. I've already taken a few community college and state uni courses, but they've had a terrible track record of either reducing the work down to multiple choice quizzes to check if you've done the work or, if there are professors, they try to push you into committing to their specific view point. It's been very unhelpful and I'm just wondering if anyone can help sort me out a bit so that maybe I can finally get a legitimate education in lit. I know this might be a bit vague, but I guess I don't know exactly how much to explain, so just throwing this out there and I'll answer any questions if needed.

Does anyone have recommendations for essential literature extension courses and universities/resources in cali that are on par with taking a course as an English major in undergrad?

A couple of years ago I came across an article by a scholar who was studying, from a cog sci point of view, how people get absorbed in the books they are reading. The article was relatively popularizing (I think it was in something like the alumni magazine of the school where she was teaching), but I remember looking up some of her work and it looked more like science publications than humanities ones.

Anyway, this scholar had a name for her field of study -- she called it something like "absorption studies" or "immersion studies", except it wasn't either of those, but something similar. She and some other researcher seemed to be (according to her, at least) the main practitioners of this studies field.

Unfortunately, I guess I didn't save these articles, and now I can't find them again. Anyone know what / whom I'm talking about?

I hope someone can advise and thank you if so.

I had to take a break from academia after my PhD. But I would like to get back into the swing of things. Are there any resources on writing good journal articles and then what would be the process on submitting the articles e.g preparing an article then submitting it at an appropriate journal?

Exactly what the title says, are there any good essays that do an analysis of Palestinian poetry from one or multiple perspectives?

Thank you.

Hi all,

I’m a PhD student who started in Comparative Literature last year. I’ve always loved literature—close reading, teaching, analyzing texts—and for the longest time, I dreamed of becoming a professor. However, my impression—and what others have said to me directly, as well as comments I’ve read here on Reddit—is that the field of Comparative Literature is in decline. This feels like more than a rough patch. This seems to be part of a broader trend affecting all of the humanities, but especially this field.

I’m at a crossroads: On one hand, I fear that if I quit, I’ll always regret it and wonder if I could have achieved my dream. On the other, I fear pushing through, filling the next few years with anxiety, competition, and stress—not only for a field that might be disappearing, but at the expense of other important experiences in my life. I doubt myself a lot, and the impostor syndrome (if that’s what it is) feels crippling most of the time. I want to start a family soon, and I worry that the stress of the PhD will ruin the experience of motherhood and take away precious time from loved ones.

I’ve spoken to professors who’ve been kind and encouraging, but I’ve also encountered those who outright told me they think it’s not worth it. So, I’m reaching out to this community for more perspectives—both from people inside academia and those who have left or never entered it. What are your thoughts on the current state of Comparative Literature and the humanities?

Do you think the field is in decline, or are there still reasons to be hopeful?

Do you think it’s worth pursuing this PhD?

Financially, I’m in a good enough position—my partner earns well, so I don’t need to worry about finding a job just to make ends meet. I don’t need this, but I have wanted it for a long time. But I also want to be happy and stop having so many doubts all the time. This constant indecision has been causing an incessant spiral of anxiety. I don’t want to unnecessarily take myself out of the running for a job—being a professor—that I’ve always wanted. But I don’t want to completely waste my youth for something useless, either. :(

Any insights or advice would be greatly appreciated as I try to make a more informed decision.

Thank you for reading and TIA for any input you may have. :( <3

The other night I met a friend for drinks after work. He introduced me to a new co-worker of his. We started talking about books that we liked because my friend knew we both liked Blood Meridian. That then spiraled into us talking about TV shows we enjoy and him and I trying to sell my friend on watching Deadwood and Succession. When all was said and done the co-work said something along the lines "I'm glad to meet a fellow ○○ian." I had never heard this term before and I asked him what it was. He said it was a term for dramas that focus on morally ambigious or morally wrong protangonists, characters, and worlds. No white hats or black hats but a sea of grey. It was a term I had never heard before. I've been trying to recall it ever since but due to being more than a few drinks in at that point I can't remember the term now.

I don't remember the exact definiation that he gave me. It was about works with symapethic protagonists who are morally wrong or evil and works that are replete with characters like that. It could be a term refering to the works themself or to that type or work or even could be refering to people that enjoy that type of work. It was something like "Faustian" (I know it's not that) but had a similar feel of a name with "ian" being added to it.

I apologize if this is vague or hard to answer or even the wrong place to be asking at all.