The Daly Post

     Our discussion in class this past week about humor and satire had me wondering - how is humor defined? The dictionary would say that it is the quality of being amusing or comic, but why is it that if something is defined by “amusing or comic” that not everyone laughs?  When being introduced to the idea of satire within literature, we were shown a series of videos that demonstrated humor in a certain way. Some clips, such as the princess bride, displayed an underlying, somewhat ridiculous humor. The expressions, the nonsense ideas, and the tone created by the characters is what ultimately made the clip humorous to some. It was nondirect and took the idea of humor to more of a discrete level. Other clips, such as the SNL clip about sarcasm, presented a very upright, straight-forward type of humor. As an audience member, you can tell that the skit was meant to be outwardly humorous.      Throughout these variations of scenes and skits, (this may sound creepy), but I remember lookin

          Hubris, along with the idea of ignorance, are themes often presented in a multitude of mythological works, such as ‘Oedipus Rex’. The excessive pride and overwhelming amount of confidence that characters inherit may ultimately lead to their downfall. Oedipus, in particular, heavily possessed the common, stereotypical tragic flaw of ignorance. Ignorance is defined by the idea that one may be uneducated or unaware of information that they are expected to know. Oedipus carried a large amount of ignorance, which was only emphasized by his overloading sense of pride to save the village of Thebes. Therefore, the idea of hubris and its ties to the well-known tragic flaw of ignorance is what carries Oedipus into his downfall and defeat as an individual, thus being defined as a tragic character.      ‘Oedipus Rex’, the play itself, displays how a character’s tragic flaw can ultimately be the downfall of their persona. At the beginning, Oedipus is shown to be a character of great qual