Blood Wedding #3

"Not rounding off, but opening out."

The ending is important in Oedipus and Blood Wedding. In both texts, there is a power and relationship aspect. In Oedipus, he and Jocasta are happily married and ruling over Thebes. However, throughout the play the reader learns of Oedipus' twisted fate and his outcome. This play ends in death; Jocasta kills herself due to the anguish of what she has done, and Oedipus gouges out his eyes. Causing for there to be multiple tragic events within the end of the play. Sophocles allows for this play to be ended in a way that a sequel could be created. But, also, Sophocles does not just end the play in a happy way. There is tragedy!

In Blood Wedding, the Bride and Bridegroom are preparing for marriage. Also, there becomes an idea of what transpired between Leonardo and Bride previously. Because of what transpires during the wedding, leads to a tragic ending. Lorca writes the play in a way that allows for the audience to keep guessing. There could be a sequel with the lack of a capped ending. By having both Leonardo and Bridegroom dying in the end, it allows for a story to blossom around Bride.

In Wild Duck, the way Ibsen ends the play is slightly different from both plays by Sophocles and Lorca. Ibsen allows for there to be a sequel, but the primary storyline dies with Hedvig. (Then again do does that of Oedipus and Blood Wedding). However, Ibsen's play is harder to create a sequel for. By having Hedvig die, Ibsen creates more of a rounding off affect. The play isn't as opened out as the other two.

By not rounding off, it allows for relating to the real world and allows for a more branched discussion. By opening out, readers are more likely to relate to the text and grow fonder to it. The more connection that are able to be made, then the more analysis that can come out of it. Opening out allows for more connections to other texts to be made.