Comparing an element of Oedipus with The Wild Duck . . .
Many areas of the two plays could be compared and contrasted but one which definitely stands out is in comparing the conflict—and thus the tone--of the two plays. In Oedipus we may assume that the protagonist either is a tragic hero or has the potential to become one through moral growth of some kind. He faces opposing forces—the gods, particularly—and fate. The chaos which develops in his experience is only partially his own doing, according to the Greek concept, since forces beyond his control leave Oedipus in a situation fated to happen. This is, perhaps, Greek self-justification! By passing off the reason for chaos to the willful decision of an objective force outside of the inner life and thought process of the hero, Oedipus gets to look the victim and avoids the level of blame for his situation which would otherwise make him completely responsible as the reason for his dilemma—and tragedy.
In Ibsen, however, the great conflict is not that of the hero/protagonist/heroic with an antogonistic exterior god but with modern society itself, which trivializes human experience, making the idea of anything or anyone actually standing out as heroic seem ludicrous. Throughout The Wild Duck the focus is on the minutae of daily experience, never on the large idea of the heroic. Daily living is not portrayed as noble or potentially so since Ibsen’s characters seem incredibly common and banal. For instance, Hedvig spends much time alone in the garret of the former old sea captain, where the wild duck resides and books and other stuff are collected. Her father never has time to tutor her (as promised) in his forced home school situation so she finds a world of her own making. This is not the world of Olympian gods. Rather, it is homespun and cluttered and she says, of the treasure trove in her retreat that there are “ . . . pictures of churches, and castles, and streets, and great white ships sailing on the sea” Nothing but fantasy and faded pictures fills the time of this older child. And even though puttering among her things helps give her something to do with herself, her lazy father wants her to abandon even this semi-intellectual pursuit and take up basket making for the sake of better tending the wild duck and caring for her weak eyes. Oddly, both plays are about vision-less-ness but one does so in the interest of defending the heroic while the other suggests that personal life and society itself is just plain dumb, the reason for no large vision about life.
Here is the stark contrast between the two plays. The heroic Oedipus is high minded even though he is deluded by his own hubris. In The Wild Duck, characters are common, blunt and self-serving for the most part. The trivia of daily living is all that matters in this modern version of reality, a celebration of the trite. Motivations in Ibsen seem to be about posturing oneself in a superficial, silly, mundane society. The heroic and high seriousness of Oedipus stands in complete contrast to Ibsen’s view. The Greek conflict is characterized as significant while the conflict in Ibsen is merely an empty charade called daily life.
