Wild Duck Journal 4:

Journal 4: Compare how the authors have explored disguise and deceit, and with what effect.

Sophocles, in his tragedy Oedipus the King, disguises Oedipus' affliction (his fate) through Oedipus' own flaws: his pride, temper, and inability to see despite having eyes. Oedipus is still blind to his fate even when Tiresias reveals it to him. He spun a web of deceit around his own life, ignoring all the facts, and the truth of what others said to him. Likewise, Ibsen explores disguise and deceit. He disguises all the people of The Wild Duck as the Wild Duck or the clever Dog, thus leading to the point discussed in a previous journal. While the duck encompasses all the lies of the Ekdal lives, and Oedipus spins his own demise and ultimately falls to the fate of the gods, both authors manipulate what is hidden to the reader and what is hidden to the characters, spinning a juxtaposing web of lies. In Oedipus, all Grecian citizens already knew of the story of Oedipus. However, Sophocles spins the deception not around Oedipus' famous actions, but around his revelation of knowledge, of the truth, to point to the common place idiom that ignorance is bliss, but also to speak as a message to the audience that what really lies in one's path to truth is oneself.
Ibsen follows a little bit in these same steps, but he shrouds the characters with disguise and deceit to convey the emotional loss of living falsely, as in Hjalmar's case, when he is clouded into thinking that all he is doing is going to help his decent family, until he learns that Hedvig isn't his daughter.

Wild Duck Journal 1:

I misplaced my journal sheet for this night, so I will just compare the expositions of Wild Duck by Ibsen and Oedipus the King by Sophocles, mainly focusing on the characters.

In Oedipus the King, Oedipus is presented as an outstanding man, rescuing Thebes from the Sphynx. However, beneath the facade of a proud king lies a confused man finding his roots. This comes out and finally his parents are no longer his parents. Just as in Sophocles' novel, Greger in Wild Duck doesn't view his father as being a father figure. He accuses him of having an affair with the maid and having ulterior motives in helping the Hjalmars. Greger Werle is like Oedipus he too loses trust in his roots, as Oedipus did when the messenger arrived. But, I feel that Greger will continue to be an impressive force throughout the play, while Oedipus fades into a pathetic creature, fated by the gods to suffer. Irony in the two plays also connects the characters. In Oedipus the King, Sophocles used dramatic irony with Oedipus' origins. In The Wild Duck, Werle says to his son "Listen, Gregers, there are so very many things that keep us apart, and yet, you know - we're father and son still. I think we should be able to reach some kind of understanding" (133). This is ironic because, from the readers perspective, the only reason that there would be a separation of significance between them is from the fathers actions. He hold grand parties, ignores a dear friend, and possibly even sleeps with the house maid. Werle then goes on to say that they need to reach an understanding. This is ironic because Greger is beginning to understand that his father had other reasons to do these things besides just pleasure.