Tragic heroes often embrace unconscious irony, leading to their downfall. In any literary work, it becomes fascinating when some of the characters are self-denial after engaging in different heinous actions unknowingly and later face the consequences after realizing the truth. Denotatively, unconscious irony is when various characters within the play have a wrong impression regarding a specific scenario, whereas the audience knows the truth and the actual misinterpretation (Haigh, “Haigh on Unconscious Irony” 950). The reader seems to know more than what the characters within the specific piece recognize. King Oedipus is a character in the text “Oedipus the King” who creates a view of unconscious irony among readers. He receives signals regarding his evil acts from the prophets but ignores them and continues to do what seems to be the best for him. He refutes any advice which goes against his wishes, considering that he wants to be told what he likes to hear and not the truth. Therefore, this study intends to explore unconscious irony in the play “Oedipus the King” by Sophocles, as it is evident in the main character Oedipus’s first speech, his interaction with Tiresias, and with Creon.
Oedipus’ opening speech critically develops an understanding of unconscious irony. In the dialogue, it is ironic considering that he intends to find the person behind Laius’s death, yet, he is the one that unknowingly killed him (Haigh, “Haigh on Unconscious Irony” 914). He declares that if there are individuals that intend to shield the murder, they will face the consequences and be ostracized. Oedipus acts as a judge by stating that the murder of Laius needs to be considered as an act of wretchedness and evil (Haigh, “Haigh on Unconscious Irony” 915). As a result, it becomes ironic for the audience to see King Oedipus lamenting regarding the death of his predecessor, whereas he is the one who caused his death. As Haigh mentions, Oedipus is blind to his destiny and fate because he does not consider that his actions and words are leading to his downfall (916). He is a tragic hero since he makes reckless mistakes, leading to his downfall at the end of the story. Thus, the opening speech exemplifies the idea of unconscious irony, whereby Oedipus the king takes tough measures against himself, unknowing that he is behind Laius, the king of Thebes’s death.
King Oedipus’ interaction with the blind prophet Tiresias, presents a sense of unconscious irony. Tiresias offers a critical clue that the individual who killed Laius is both the father and brother to his children and his wife’s son (Haigh, Haigh on Unconscious Irony” 916). The prophet gives another clue that the truth will bring pain rather than happiness to the king. Tiresias fears for his life and decides to say the truth, but Oedipus refutes the sentiments that he is the man behind Laius’ death, accusing the prophet of being corrupted by Creon (Haigh 920). The audience comprehends that Oedipus is blind to the clues which Tiresias gives to him regarding Laius’s death and his marriage with Jocasta. It is this blindness that the audience relates to unconscious irony. The occurrences surrounding Oedipus represent Aristotle’s definition of a tragic hero, considering that Oedipus’ downfall was tied more to his fate than his wickedness (Haigh, “Haigh on Oedipus the Murderer” 921). In other words, Oedipus fails because he does not want to accept the truth told by the Thebes prophets and not due to his poor governance. Connectedly, the interaction between the king and Tiresias presents an understanding of unconscious irony.
Oedipus’s interaction with Creon, his brother-in-law, exemplifies unconscious irony among the audience. Sophocles develops a scenario whereby Oedipus accuses Creon of killing King Laius (Haigh, “Haigh and Oedipus’s Interaction and Accusation” 923). He extends the personal differences between him and Creon to the point of doubting and guessing that he is the person behind Laius’ death. To the audience’s understanding, it is ironic when King Oedipus accuses his relative, Creon, to have murdered Laius, yet it is himself who caused this incident while quarreling on the streets (Haigh, “Oedipus’s Interaction and Accusation” 924). The reader becomes aware that Oedipus seems not to comprehend anything that happened around him but rather allows his instincts to misguide him. If Creon was sensitive to what people say, he could have questioned himself regarding the individual’s personality that he killed on the road. Oedipus acts as though he killed nobody in the recent past. As a king and a leader, he is supposed to depend on evidence and proof in this case. However, he speaks detrimental accusations regarding Creon without basing his arguments on facts (Haigh, “Oedipus’s Interaction and Accusation” 926). The audience conceptualizes the argument that King Oedipus is unaware of the surrounding, illustrating unconscious irony.
In conclusion, it is paramount noting that unconscious irony occurs when the character is aware of the various happenings around him. The audience seems to be more informed regarding the different happenings in the story than the main character. The King is unaware that he is behind Laius’s death even after being told the truth by Tiresias but rather accuses Creon of plotting to taint his name before people in public. Arguably, Oedipus represents a tragic hero as presented by Aristotle in the recognition and reversal concept, whereby the hero realizes his faults after falling, hence changing his plot. The epitome consequences of unconscious irony are regrets, which subsequently lead to suicide and other-related attempts to kill himself, as presented by King Oedipus. He accepts responsibility for his actions and subsequently plunges two gold pins into his eyes, deliriously asking for a sword to kill himself. Oedipus in the play “Oedipus the King” exemplifies unconscious irony. Above all, leaders need to be sensitive to their surroundings and listen to other people’s advice as it helps them develop and embrace success because they can curb different ordeals in time.
Works Cited
Haigh, Elam A. “Aristotle’s Concept of Tragedy: The Tragic Hero,” Literature An Introduction to Fiction, Poetry, Drama, and Writing: An Anthology, edited by Kennedy & Dana Gioia, 2013, pp. 905-921.
Haigh, Elam, A. “Recognition and Reversal” Literature An Introduction to Fiction, Poetry, Drama, and Writing: An Anthology, edited by Kennedy & Dana Gioia, 2013, pp. 923- 947.
Haigh, Elam A. “The Irony of Sophocles,” Literature An Introduction to Fiction, Poetry, Drama, and Writing: An Anthology, edited by Kennedy & Dana Gioia, 2013, pp. 948-951.