"I'm Sorry, That Sucks"

“Not every problem I confide in you needs to be fixed. Sometimes I just want to hear, ‘i'm sorry, that sucks.’”

Boys, have you heard this before? Probably from a girl right? And regardless of whether or not you are capable of fixing the problem the fact of the matter is you are forbidden from even attempting. Is this rational? Probably not. But does it eventually help an individual return to rationality? It is not scientifically proven, but from my experience I would say, yes. As we saw in Hecuba, sometimes we need to be validated in our irrational coping of emotions in an effort to return to rationality.

In the play, with the appearance of the women of Troy, Odysseus, and Agamemnon there was a common response to Hecuba’s penetrating grief. The gist of these statements was “your life is so terrible,” “you are the queen of sorrow, grief, and pain,” “I would rather die than sink as low as you have,” “you poor, old, lonely, slave woman.” Sounds pretty similar to the, “that sucks” concept doesn't it? But why did so many people validate her in her irrational expression of grief? Because, it eventually helps her return to rationality.

Lets analyze the situation. Hecuba, utilizing mimesis is able to effectively persuade others through emotionally charged language, to feel empathy for her and her situation. Then the listener, being filled with compassion, uses rhetoric to persuade Hecuba that she is justified in her all encompassing grief. They vindicate her and let her know she is rational in such extreme emotion. After she is comforted with this validation, she carries on with revenge (which in this society would be considered "rational" because justice was a right esteemed by the gods and executed by the people).

"I Wouldn't Be a Man If I Didn't Feel This Way..."?

Among the most popular songs by Josh Turner is… Completely irrational?! In some ways one could say so. In his song, “I Wouldn’t Be a Man” Josh Turner describes the feelings that he has about a woman who, he claims, he couldn’t ever “resist.” Both Josh Turner and Euripides had a similar story to tell in regards to a force that seems to be greater than reason itself. Josh Turner calls it love but, just like Euripiedes, focus’ on the physical attratraction between the sexes. Both authors of their trade recognize that to be irrational from time to time makes us rational (it’s called being human).

In the Euripides’ Bakkhai, the women are portrayed as those who are irrational or even “wild.” This includes their preferred location of irrationality; the wilderness. These women were found believing in a God who “must be punished for [his] evil sophistries” according to Pentheus. In essense, Pentheus is a man who represents rational thinking and does not believe in this God named Dynioses. We are able to see the contrast between men and woman as well as the roles they play. Whether an individual is considered irrational (such as Agaues) or rational (such as Pentheus) both sexes and both classifications have irrational characteristics.

In regards to how Pentheus is irrational I cannot state it better than Katie Johnson who, in her blog said, “His downfall, therefore, is not recognizing irrationality as a hugely powerful force that controls a bit of everyone’s life.”

From this we learn the rationale behind Euripides’ play script. It also demonstrates incredibly well that to be irrational one must also be rational. In other words, to be rational requires a level of irrationality. To claim that you are rational yet also claim that you are not irrational from time to time is completely irrational (a complete paradox). What I find so incredible is that this was the most rational part of his script.

In further considering, I came to more fully recognize how “irrational” it is to believe in God’s. Ultimately, believing in God allows one to put into perspective some of the “irrational” things in this world. Consider the doctrine of “the fall” of Adam. One could suggest that this doctrine puts into context why man (the natural man) is so irrational as well as teaching the importance of controlling those irrational behaviors. I have come to understand that through religion itself we are able to also deal with irrational behavior whether we believe in it or not.

Mother Moo

The Irrational

In preparation for his expedition to go look at the Bacchae women, Pentheus has an exchange with Dionysus where he learns that he will need to disguise himself. As Dionysus explains that Pentheus will need to dress up like a forest woman, wearing “a rich and trailing robe of fine-linen… a snood… [a] dappled fawn-skin and [a] wand,” he resists, saying “Nay, I will not” and, “Enough! I cannot wear a robe and snood.”

Even though Pentheus has some initial resistance to this mandated cross-dressing, his rationality breaks down and he ends up doing it.

The Rational
Euripides uses his craft to help us understand this irrationality of cross-dressing. He reveals that Dionysus, while acting as Pentheus’ guide, can use Pentheus’ curiosity to manipulate him to do something irrational. He helps us realize that when we rationally put our trust in a guide or leader who knows more about something than we do, we may be led to do something irrational.

Euripides develops Dionysus as a character who is definitely in control and can lead or compel others to do irrational things.

The Personal
I was at Girl’s Camp and my older sister invited me to go to the older girls’ cabin and play a game with them. They told me that one girl in the group was going to be the guesser and leave the cabin, another girl inside was going to be silently chosen as the loudest mooer, and then when the guesser girl came back in, everyone would moo loudly at the same time, and the guesser girl would guess who mooed the loudest.

We played one round and then I was chosen to be the loudest mooer. The guesser girl came back in and everyone counted to three, and then I mooed as loud as I possibly could. “MOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!” But no one else was mooing. I was yelling like a cow and I was the only one doing it. I felt so embarrassed and irrational, but decided it was ok because I believed and trusted my guide, my sister.

I don’t think that this technique of attributing irrational acts to some guide or leader is always appropriate. I believe that we each have our own agency to act how we want to. However, Euripides does a great job of highlighting this technique that I am sure many people have experienced.

Praise, Greed, Escape

The Irrational:

-          First, it is very irrational for Dionysus to be so bitter about not being praised (see lines 378-379). I would be a little upset if people didn't take me seriously as a person or a god, but the fact that not everyone is praising him for his godhood it kind of pitiful and greedy. I don't know if I was accurately interpreting the text, but it seemed like he was upset that he 1) wasn't able to be ruler of Thebes, but also that 2) he couldn't get the entire city to worship him. Then again, Kadmos and Pentheus are the same way- only wanting the power and praise (see lines 394-398).

-          The next completely irrational thing that I found was the different ways that they treated each gender. I understand that at this time, women were seen as more frail and delicate and men were the protector and powerful. I understand that gender roles were different. Even so, reading (on line 876-877) “Women defeated the men--- and not without some god” as if the only way any women could beat a man is with a god’s assistance. There were other lines, too, from that play that seemed fairly irrational in their views of women and men.

The Rational:

-          Although many of the actions portrayed in the this play prove the irrationality of thought in different characters, the play seems to display them in a way that proves rationality- Of course the idea that gods and the worship of them can encourage a whole group of women to abandon everything and run into the woods to become wild is absurd, it shows the rational and realistic view that people can be persuaded and change in character. The irrational (gods, etc.) makes a great framework for the natural (persuasion, wanting to be a part of something bigger, freedom, etc.)

           

The Personal:

-          I have used music in my life to get the freedom and fulfillment that I desire- I was able to feel belonging and purpose by playing in a concert band for about nine years. It’s just too bad that Dionysus couldn't find fulfillment and acceptance in some other way, and neither could the women that ran into the woods.

"Look up just a moment at the sky"

Two Sided Creatures

The human soul sometimes appears to be divided into two halves which often seem to conflict with one another. One half is the rational, which we associate with logic, contemplation, inventing, discerning, planning, predictability, and stability. We love the security that comes from this.

The other half, the half that I believe we sometimes fear, is the irrational. The irrational are the things about ourselves that we can’t often explain such as passions, love, hate, jealousy, and curiosity. Though understand very little about this second half, we must agree that through the ages it has often raged as the more powerful of the two. How many irrational decisions have we seen throughout history? Men influenced by their love for a woman doing things that logically don’t make sense, others overcome with emotions of anger that they do something that they later regret, and on a happier note, people who have sacrificed or done something charitable for someone else even though there was no personal gain involved. While seem to be creatures of both passion and logic, passion may be the more dominate of the two.

The persuading power of passions can be very scary and hard to understand, especially when you are experiencing them. It can be hard to see the forrest through the trees.The Greeks discovered that by experiencing the irrational via drama, art, music, or dance, it helped us to come to grips with this powerful and necessary part of ourselves.  

Some of my best Friends

A powerful lesson from the Bakkhai was taught to me through Kadmus. Kadmus’ daughter, Agaue, while in a trance, had done many things that she would later be ashamed of. She had no idea she was behaving so irrationally. Upon returning home and talking to her father, Kadmus draws her mind back to the way it was before and her world began to clear.

People have always been an important part of my life. Whenever I struggle to understand myself or feel that I might be behaving irrationally I go to someone I can trust and explain what I am thinking and feeling. Often in the process of talking to a loved one my world clears and I can see things the way they really are. Sometimes we just need someone to tell us to "look up just a moment at the sky"

Fortunate Misfortune

Reading Euripedes' Bakkhai, all that was running through my mind was "wild."  In the story, the women of Bakkhai hide among the mountains performing their mystic rites, while Pentheus and his men seek to observe and thwart.  Unfortunately for Pentheus, his attempts to disprove the legitimacy of the Bakkhai's practices for the god Dionysus instead slowly convert those around him.  His men, after seeing the maenads dancing in the mountains and decimating villages in the most brutal of ways, cannot help but open their eyes to the power of Dionysus, admitting that he is in fact above mortals.  Through Dionysus' passive resistance and careful lulling, he slowly manipulates Pentheus to dress as a woman so as not to be torn to pieces for being a man amongst the maenads.  With this ploy of Dionysus, he successfully humiliates Pentheus before having his own mother kill him, a fitting revenge for one that mocked and questioned Dionysus' godhood, or is it?  Some may argue for, and some may argue against the rationality of Dionysus.  For me, however, the balance of attack and counterattack does not seem to settle evenly. 

In my own life, I had the worst of trials to surpass.  I needed to grit my teeth and trudge onward or else forever live amidst confusing, dark fog.  Wrongly punished?  Unfair?  If either was the case, it was an irrational punishment for nothing on my part.  Things just happened, I suppose.  Still, my "punishment" was impossibly brutal and set me back quite a few steps in life.  In response to this, I decided to vent and articulate my frustrations in print, writing my first book, Orrleth.  Through it, I was able to depressurize my rage at the world, recover from my mishap, and also provide some sort of good to the world if one so wished to read and enjoy.  Though the logical path would be to let myself stay frenzied at the world, I chose to regain composure and recover.  In that case, however, was that the rational thing to do?  Wasn't it irrational not to lash back at my persecutor in turn?  The only problem with that was that there was no particular offender who had committed the wrong.  It was just terrible luck, so why bother punishing the world, right?  

You can enjoy one of my first gifts back to the world by visiting my book website:

http://www.orrleth.com

I killed Mufasa...

I can always look back and remember times when I’ve heard “So I have this friend…”  We all know that this “friend” is really an easy way of not admitting something embarrassing of oneself.  It’s how we can talk about the undiscussed.  We can try to understand the topics that are not quite open for much understanding.  It is one way that we deal with the irrational.  And I may or may not have used this one unsuccessfully in my own life.

There are many irrational elements in the play Bakkhai.  But Euripides knew that the opportune moment for discussing these irrational passions was in the rational, comfortable and respected stage of the theatre.  He knew that he would have a large audience and could bring up these issues to the minds of many.   He knew that his audience respected the gods and would side with the chorus but at the same time he plays on their emotions.  Through the use of pathos the audience begins to pity Agaue.  Without realizing, she had killed her only son.  This stirs up a mixture of emotions.  Should the audience be happy because Dionysus showed his power as a god or should they be upset because a family had to pay the price through murder?  Euripides uses opposites to display that what is considered to be rational may not be all that rational in the end.

Speaking of irrational, the god Dionysus may not be the most rational of the greek gods. What kind of a god would trick women into becoming senseless killers?  In our culture we consider women to be daughters of the Most High God and to be respected.  Euripides turns things around completely by having an irrational, unforgiving, and ill-tempered god put women into a haze and use them as tools without agency to show his power.  Also family members killing other family members doesn't seem too godlike, yet it always reminds me of The Lion King.

Irrational punishment by those in power

In this play, we see an interesting characteristic of the irrationality of the powerful vs the rationality of the weak. In the middle of the play we see Pentheus, a mortal man, punish Dionysus, a relatively powerful demigod, by sending the latter to the dungeon. This type of punishment would fit the supposed crime that Dionysus had committed and would thus be classified as rational. Yet, at the end of the play, Dionysus creates an elaborate plan to brutally punish Pentheus by having his own mother rip him to pieces and braggingly carry his head around as a trophy. One would be hard pressed to argue that this punishment is rational for any crime. And thus, we see the strange paradox that people with power will act irrationally while those who are weaker will generally act rationally – with respect to punishing others.

I saw this exact same phenomenon in the military. While I was a new cadet at the United States Military Academy, those in charge of me put me through some rigorous tasks. On the whole, the cadre will fairly mean, but an occasion arose in which I could have gotten my commanding officer in a great deal of trouble for a mistake that he made. In my current, “weak” status, the idea of punishing my commanding officer, who had already felt guilty enough for his mistake, seemed unfair and irrational to me. I chose to let his punishment be self-inflicted and move on with life. A few years later, the roles reversed and I was in charge of training the new cadets. A bizarre change occurred while I was in command. I had the irrational urge to punish the new cadets as fiercely as was legally permissible. 

In retrospect, I link my irrational, punishment tendencies to that power that I held over the new cadets. The power turned to pride – a pride that felt tainted and slighted when the new cadets made mistakes. I felt it was a personal insult to me when they would mess up and therefor punished them severely. Whereas when I was the new cadet, void of any power, I saw no reason for excessive irrational punishment.

Becoming Fond of Justice

Justice. Seems rational . . . at least in our world where it is paired with mercy. In our world it is a means to repentance, healing, and to creating order. In the world of Bakkhai, justice is a vicious, fiery, irrational cycle of self-interest. It started with Zeus himself. “It was Zeus who was to blame for the wrongdoing in her [Semele] bed” (pg 46). And yet, only one individual had to answer the demands of justice, and it wasn’t Zeus. As a god he "could" completely exempt himself from answering to those actions. Dionysos, as a god, felt as if he had been treated unjustly. And in Bakkhai we read that he sought justice by then being unjust himself. These flaws in the gods are human. Are we not guilty of being more fond of justice when it is being brought to our offenders rather than when we ourselves are the offenders? But, because Zeus and Dionysos are gods and not mortals, that is where justice turned irrational and embodied revenge rather than order. Justice requires an authority figure who abides by the law. It’s in our humanity to oppose that order. Yet, the rationality is found when the one establishing the demands of justice actually adheres to the law while the one answering to justice learns to overcome his or her humanity. I think this is the point Euripides was trying to make. That justice only has a rational framework when the two parties are at different understandings of justice; because otherwise both in their limited knowledge act self-centeredly and impose injustice upon each other.

I saw this growing up in my own family and in the families I babysat. Parents are not perfect. In my experience though, all honestly try to be just and merciful with each of their children. I have witnessed so many cases where one sibling believes no matter what the request or consequence is that it is unjust. This child would always compare their punishments and rewards to those of the other kids in the family, never recognizing that even similar situations have different outcomes because of the other child’s ability to accept the consequences and not fight it. Eventually, each child’s understanding of justice evolves and they learn to respond differently. This development helps keep order intact. Choices have consequences that we do not choose. And there are loving authority figures who are trying to help us overcome ourselves whom we need to acknowledge and listen to. This understanding is rational and to believe justice doesn't apply to us or that we are somehow exempt is irrational.

Bakkh Humbug

RRRRRRIIIIIP.

Was anybody else just cringing as they read that section where Agaue tears Pentheus apart? Eugh. If that's not an irrational action, I don't know what is. It would've been one thing if Agaue was a mean murderous mother from the start. But when she comes back into town and wakes up from her worshiping craziness, she sorrows for what she's done. So the question is: why did she give in to this irrationality?

Let's look at it like this: 

  1) Agaue lived in the forest,
  2) and Pentheus lived in the city.

Euripides used this theatrical framework for Agaue's irrationality because all of us can understand the difference between the two settings. We all have a shared social perception of what each is like. Thus:

  1) It makes sense that Agaue took on the persona of a forest creature and became wild, violent, and rabid, even.
  2) It makes sense that Pentheus from the orderly, logical city fell victim to the chaos of the wild.

This seems much more rational, right? Instead of saying, "Agaue was overcome...swept away...Dionysos...ya know," we can say, "Agaue grew into a beastly creature--and did beastly things--because her environment affected her in that way."


In my life, writing is the way that I deal with my own irrationalities. I love to write poetry that uses symbolistic themes to express emotions--things that are difficult to express otherwise. I'm currently working on a poem like this for my creative writing class. It's entitled "A Popcorn Ceiling," and in the poem I use the pieces of (you guessed it) a popcorn ceiling to represent memories of home and family. This image, in turn, helps me express the rather abstract feeling of nostalgia. The popcorn ceiling is like my "setting" that I use to help other people understand and accept my topic.

Vengeance is Mine!

              Dionysus must have been pretty spoiled growing up to go as far as he did when things did not go his way.  In any case, he had Pentheus’ demise all worked out from at least the point when Pentheus puts him in jail.  Even though Dionysus knew that he could easily get out and no harm was done to him, he thought it only just to levy a rather harsh punishment on Pentheus and his family.   This may perhaps to an extreme degree reflect the irrational tempers of mankind, who often desires vengeance upon all those who are at odds with them.  Euripides catches the irrationality of Dionysus rage through taking the passive and rational figure of a mother and causing her to commit crimes that made me want to listen to church conference talks to clear my head.  I hope that everyone who feels like Dionysus gets some psychiatric help. 

Assignment: Euripides' Bakkhai and a Rationale for the Irrational

Pentheus Among the Bakkhai

I've asked my students to read the Bakkhai (or Bacchae) by Euripides. This play is providing some contextual background for the Greek development of the art of rhetoric.

Their assignment is to respond to the irrational and the rational elements of the play, and to personalize this (again) by drawing upon personal experience.

The Irrational
What are the things in this play that do not make sense? Consider the motives or actions of any of the characters, the degree to which these characters accurately reflect truly irrational aspects of us humans, or even consider how (un)realistic the play is. You can focus on Dionysus (or Bacchus). It may seem very obvious, but what's the problem or issues with a God like Dionysus? Say why this deity or what he does just doesn't make sense. Another angle could be gender: How is each sex represented as driven by things other than reason? How does sex amplify the irrationality of the human condition? Choose any of these approaches or something similar dealing with the theme of irrationality.

The Rational
Consider how Euripides uses his craft as a playwright to provide a rational framework for the irrational that is present in the play. How does he bring out opposites? Consider male / female, city / wilderness, etc. Does the highly formal nature of the play give a more discernible way of talking about the issues? I'm looking for discussion about the functions of art, language, and theater and how these provide structure and form for the meaningful investigation of powerful, irrational forces native to the human condition.