late as I am to post, I am not so, in terms of the ‘thought’ of what I’m writing. (BEWARE: this was written under circumstances of major stress, that’s why it might come a bit too acid.)
\
Part III (Thought). Group Project.
Alejandro's Part:
In consideration of the group grade I will not address particularities about the Aristotelian Analysis, for it is clear by now that we all know it. It escalates, reaches the climax and starts unraveling the gist towards the end in a slower, much slower pace. Medea, she is so great, for it represents not only women's struggle in the historical perspective, but rather and furthermore, the always combating human passions.
Passions, desires the gist of us all. In her aim there is no reason. Her reasoning, ever so bright, has been blinded by the red lights, fleshy, humanly tender and emotionally susceptible, of her womb insides. Her insights, are no to be undermined, nevertheless.
What Euripides tells in this story –story for the sake of thinking of thought and not of parts and €˜play'- is how a woman is, in terms of her position in society, analogous to the larger audience that is and was to attend the wine, and much more, festival of Dionysius. The Greek had, as much as we have today, a very clear power structure. Although it differs in terms of €˜to-whom-it-is erected', in terms of alleged responsible deities, it speaks, loud and clear, about what it is to be the underdog.
In every tragedy according to our friend, the teacher of my GREAT antecessor, the great characters are, for I cannot avoid them in thought, so full of attributes. Like Medea, who got the Golden Fleece and €˜bla, bla, bla', is so great as her downfall in terms of glory. The sort of consistent inconsistency and vice-versa, where the great will be the lower ones and the lower ones the great, eventually an according to the development of the action, empowers the playwright and his message. It makes of what is to be said, what is to be homage or criticized, susceptible to interpretations. And the interpretations are what will make a play great or awful, succeed or fail.
Analogous to all the rest of the parts of the Aristotelian analysis, thought in Medea, is the power of its elements, combined, and the ability, example of all great Tragedies, to take everything to its maximum. Take these elements of the play, character, plot, language, spectacle, €˜bla bla' to a point where it will altogether collide and collapse, relentlessly, so the result of interpretation IS THOUGHT.
Provoking and poking. Analogous to this analysis of thought in Medea, the script, there is one analysis of thought, in terms of transcendence, of Medea the €˜Greek' play –obviously, in this analysis.