Whitney J. Oates (1904–1973)

so this really isn't my thing, in general. the timing was good to read it, though, as i'd been primed after reading some historical fiction about rome, even though that was 500 years after most of these plays were written/produced. still, it puts you in the right frame of mind for the kind of violence that seems to have been prevalent then.

i'd read at least 2 and as many as 4 of these before, but didn't really remember much of them; already knowing the story doesn't detract any as you're kind of supposed to know the story going in anyway. to that end, each of the plays is introduced with a short explanation, giving the context to the reader. there is also a glossary at the end, so you can look up the many references to people and such throughout. personally, i found the introductions helpful, but would have much preferred references on the side or at the bottom of the pages to help explain the rest of the information that is found in the glossary. when i used the glossary, which wasn't too much, i didn't find it helpful. i don't want to know who some historical/mythological reference is but why it is important; i need more context. so i'm sure there was a lot that i missed. especially as i found myself mostly skimming as i went along.

ok, so i most enjoyed both of sophocles' plays, oedipus the king and antigone, at least one of which were rereads for me. i found these to be the easiest to follow without trouble at all, and the flow seemed better to me in them. also i just like the subject matter better (personal struggle). i also liked euripides' alcestis but didn't much care for his medea, although both were also easy to understand and follow. i wasn't into aeschylus' plays at all (prometheus bound and agamemnon) and found them hard to get through without a better background in the history. aristophanes' the frogs seemed a trifle that i didn't see much point to, although there were parts that were a little amusing.… (more)