Let me give you a summary. The play takes play in NYC after September 11, 2001. Antigone's brother that she wants to bury (though, actually more honor, than bury since there isn't anything left) is one of the hijackers that attacked the WTC. She doesn't like what he did, but she does love him and wants to have a memorial, or something of that nature (haven't gotten all the details figured out yet).

My problem is, I'm not sure this is a very... tactful thing to write, so to say. I mean, I really want to, because I like the concept, and I've already got part of it planned out (it all takes place on one of the observation decks that overlooks the WTC rubble), but has anyone else run into this sort of problem?

Yes, people will be offended, but if you have a VERY GOOD REASON for doing this and it works, you will not terribly offend everyone--just the ones who don't "get it."

A question, though. Would you want to write this story if someone suggested that you have it take place at the Oklahoma City bombing memorial and have "Antigone" be Timothy McVeigh's sister?

Is the idea of using the September 11 attacks the only thing that appeals to you, or do you want to explore the "Antigone" idea with regard to terrorism in general?

If the latter, another possibility would be the sister of the Passover suicide bomber with the story set in front of the Wailing Wall.

All these people running around with flags on their cars as if they just realized that they were members of the United States? People blaming anyone in the Middle East for terrorism. I just got an e-mail listing gas companies that buy from the Middle East—and? The sender wants everyone to boycott these companies because they support terrorism. Uh? Not every country in the Middle East supports terrorism and they suffer worse than we have on a daily basis.

And those flag wavers? When walking into Wal-Mart one day, a truck bedecked with those flapping flags whipped past me, just missing an African American woman and her toddler. The politically aware driver shouted out his window, “Stupid Nigger!” ????? I have stood in line at the post office and observed first hand the rude treatment that some workers give to those not of the same race. We are a nation of political incorrectness—and I think anything that opens the eyes of the nation to the inner truth is worth writing.

I say write what you will. No matter what, someone will find offence---I know I have written some “offensive” stuff. Maybe you need to write it to deal with your own feelings over the event.

Shawn

See, Polynices is much wronged by Creon, who has decreed that Eteocles is to be honored and Polynices dishonored, despite the fact that the battle they both were killed in was to reestablish Polynices, the rightful ruler, on the throne according to the law of Thebes.

Now you can argue over the wisdom of the power sharing arrangement dictated for Eteocles and Polynices, but it is an integral part of the plot that Polynices was in the right, and Eteocles was in the wrong. For Creon to honor Eteocles as the son of the king is all well and good, but for him to leave Polynices unburied is an offense against the gods. Polynices was the rightful, legal, appointed ruler, and he had the right to fight to reclaim the throne. All who fought against him, including his brother, were traitors under both the civil law and the "divine" law of justice. Even though Polynices brought in allies from other cities to fight against the Thebean rebels, the fact is that he appealled to their aid based on the fact that they were allies of Thebes, of which city he was the lawful ruler.

That is the whole point of the story, that Creon is in rebellion against the gods, and Antigone must lay down her life to convince Creon of his sin.

Now try and apply that to the September 11 attacks, or any other recent acts of terrorism, and I think that you might have a problem. For one thing, 'tis not as though the US can reasonably be said to be in rebellion against legitimate Islamic rule, a central premise needed to successfully cast the Al Queda terrorist as Polynices. For another thing, you don't have an Eteocles, another important component. And Antigone has to martyr herself, thus convincing Creon that he is really wrong. I don't know who you're getting to be Creon, but you don't have anyone in a position to make a good Antigone, so far as I can tell.

Sure, if there turns out to be a sister of one of the Sept.11 terrorists in New York, and she admits it, she's going to be arrested and questioned. But she's probably not going to be executed, unless we are totally convinced that she was in on the terrorism herself. And in that case, her death would not make anyone committed to the defense of America question their devotion to this country or feel that the Al Queda terrorists have a legitimate right to rule over this country.

In short, your "recasting" of Antigone will end up missing all the elements that make Creon a tragic figure. And make no mistake, it is Creon, not Antigone who suffers tragically. Antigone is presented as being a straight up hero, one who goes all the way and succeeds in her mission, which is to remind Creon of the demands of justice. At best you will have a shallow story about a young woman having a difficult time and committing suicide in the end. But it would be cheapening to call her Antigone.

I think it's important to make an effort to understand everybody. Even the psychos, even the insane, even the perverts . . . everybody. I think that in a world where hate is running rampant, we have to do something to become less hateful. And let's face it, we're imperfect. As much as some of us would like to think it's possible to 'love unconditionally' for us humans it isn't. But as with any ideal of 'perfection' it's a laudable goal to at least TRY. Being imperfect and emotional humans, that's tough, but one of the best ways to do so is to try to understand why the people we tend to hate, the ones who do terrible things, do the things they do.

Bearing in mind that there is no need to AGREE with the motives, thoughts, actions, etc. behind these terrible crimes, I think that we need to not only understand, but also sympathize. (<-- literal meaning: feel the same) If a work of literature (or film or theater for that matter) can lead us to sympathize with someone we would normally hate, I think that's a good thing.

The story you're suggesting, seems to be an attempt to do just that, and I applaud the effort.

There was a mini-series I've heard of, but never seen, that does something similar. We watch the movie from a small organization's perspective. They live in a country in turmoil. The current ruler is making thoroughly absurd policies, and civilization is going to hell. He's far too popular with the masses to be removed through any political means, but he is quite thoroughly destroying the lives of this group of people. Furthermore, he has convinced the masses that his actions are just and warranted. The only option this small group sees left is to kill him.

They put together a good plan, and we are rooting for them, as we know they have no other choice. We watch with delight as the plan comes together, and the lone gunman goes out to do his deed. And we cheer for him as we see that the plan has succeeded . . . right up to the point when we realize . . . we've just witnessed the assassination of Abe Lincoln.

Again, I've not seen this story, and I don't belive a copy exists any more . . . I've tried to find it, but if any story like this, or the one you want to write, can help us to understand the terrible things that happen in the world, I think it's good. If you manage to do that, who cares who gets offended?

And I quite thoroughly agree with srhowen that all this patriotism is a day late and a dollar short. I would go further and say it's misplaced and in some cases hypocritical.

Many of these newfound 'patriots' have merely found someone to dump their aggression. (I say many, not all) Suddenly it's us against them, and it makes them feel better to be part of this 'us' group. But we don't know who 'they' are. So we just pick someone to hate . . . the arabs . . . the muslims, etc. So, what looks like support for a country whose founding belifs are those of tolerance, acceptance, and freedom, is actually hypocrisy of the highest order. They don't love our country, they just hate the 'others'.

Now that's a bit overstated, for the purpose of conveying my thoughts. There are many who do love this country, and Sept. 11 may have opened their eyes to just how wonderful our homeland is, and how much we need to do to protect it. But we never should have forgotten, and we've paid a terrible price for that reminder. Far from being proud of our newfound vigilance, we should be distressed that we even became so complacent. At least, that's my perspective.

Then there's MY personal loyalties which could never be to such an artificial construct as a country. I would never be willing to die for a country, but I would die for an ideal.

I'm proud of the USA when we reflect the ideals we stand for, because those ideals I believe in. But I'm ashamed to admit I'm an American when my country does things to be ashamed of. And not only the politicans, but the country as a whole. Just as the stupidity of the rioting during Mardi Gras in Portland, Oregon a few years ago made me ashamed to admit I'm an Oregonian, (and a Portlander at that) the ignorance and hatred directed at Arabs and Muslims (and no they are not necessarily the same!!) made me ashamed to be American.

But I've been on my soapbox long enough. I'll step down now and let somebody else up here.

JOHN!

I mean, free speech is free speech, but Antigone is probably the best thing produced by Greek culture, ever, and I think that adaptations of such a preeminent work ought to at least make an informed effort to communicate the literary and human values that make it so worth study.

If you want to write this story about Sept. 11 and all, fine, but don't mock Antigone.

Just for the record, I think that it would be more "daring" to write a story portraying the Sept. 11 terrorists as mindlessly bloody murderers who got off on killing totally innocent and defenseless people for no reason at all, in that you would be much more likely to recieve a "political" bad grade. But I think that you probably guessed that from the comments expressed so far.

This is not just a matter of literary interpretation. What I have mentioned before

quote:

---

See, Polynices is much wronged by Creon, who has decreed that Eteocles is to be honored and Polynices dishonored, despite the fact that the battle they both were killed in was to reestablish Polynices, the rightful ruler, on the throne according to the law of Thebes.

Now you can argue over the wisdom of the power sharing arrangement dictated for Eteocles and Polynices, but it is an integral part of the plot that Polynices was in the right, and Eteocles was in the wrong. For Creon to honor Eteocles as the son of the king is all well and good, but for him to leave Polynices unburied is an offense against the gods. Polynices was the rightful, legal, appointed ruler, and he had the right to fight to reclaim the throne. All who fought against him, including his brother, were traitors under both the civil law and the "divine" law of justice. Even though Polynices brought in allies from other cities to fight against the Thebean rebels, the fact is that he appealled to their aid based on the fact that they were allies of Thebes, of which city he was the lawful ruler.

---

When I say

quote:

---

That is the whole point of the story, that Creon is in rebellion against the gods, and Antigone must lay down her life to convince Creon of his sin.

---

For instance, I have said that Polynices was the lawful, appointed ruler of Thebes, and had the legal authority to call on the allies of Thebes to help him reclaim the throne. What I do not say, or claim, or base any part of my interpretation on, is that he was a wise, good, or strong ruler, because the evidence in the play is that he was just as rash, impetuous, and gullible as Eteocles. I therefore do not hold to a literary interpretation (for instance) that elevates Polynices as a hero or martyr, since it is clear that his own pride and folly have been the cause of his death.

Although such an idea would bolster the idea that Antigone is doing the right thing in honoring her brother, it would be unsupported by the play. That is why I don't assert it. It would be contrary to the work as written.

When any writer seeks to reinterpret a work, they have to stay within the bounds created by the essential plot elements of that work. Otherwise, it is not a reinterpretation, but a revision. Which is okay, but you shouldn't call it a reinterpretation.

I really didn't mean to imply anything else. I was trying to encourage tackling the more challenging viewpoint of a terrorist being a real human who had somebody who cared about him, as opposed to a vicious monster, the latter being the more commonly adopted notion.

To get an idea, think for a moment about how people who believe in Islamic law must regard the practice of abortion. I mean, even in our own culture, there is a lot of feeling on the subject, but to Islamic law abortion is worse than ritual gang rape-murder. And we perform millions per year. Just on that basis alone, you can see that the Islamic world has reason to think of us as worse than Nazi Germany (abortion being about a million times worse in their eyes than slaughtering innocent Jews). Of course, there is no shortage of cynical expliotation of such feelings, but the feelings themselves are not just the kind of cheap moral outrage that we're so used to encountering from the media.

Of course, if you don't see abortion as being morally questionable, then you should avoid it and magnify your feelings about something that does seem morally questionable to you, like globalization or conspicuous consumption (though I have difficulty seeing how a Saudi terrorist could be all that troubled by either) or technology changing our world or political freedom (we tend to underestimate how bad some people think such things are) or even completely fatuous and untrue but nonetheless cherished beliefs about the history of the Middle East and Zionist-Imperialist-Westernism (I made that last word up myself, but the beliefs are worth learning about if you are trying to understand radical Islam--just because an idea is based entirely on keeping people ignorant doesn't mean it can't motivate them).

In fact, a bald portrayal of the actual beliefs and motivations of most terrorists is far outside the mainstream of thought that to most people it seems like a portrait of a monster, because we tend not to believe that any human being could believe in such bizarre ideas. But what people believe can vary radically from place to place as well as from time to time, less than a hundred and fifty years ago a substantial number of people in the country were willing to die rather than free black people from slavery, let alone regarding them as morally equal to whites (they felt the same about chinese people, by the way). And don't say it was for States Rights or the Constitution, they mangled both to suit themselves, but giving up slavery wasn't even tabled (if the Confederacy had been willing to issue an Emancipation Proclaimation of their own, then it still might be around today--but they knew what the South was really fighting for).

Although to a modern perspective this makes them seem like monsters, they were just ordinary human beings who believed differently (and, in my opinion, wrongly) fron us. That's why most of the time historians whitewash the slavery issues in the Civil War. They can see that the men who fought for and led the Confederacy weren't just rabid lunatics, but if you present their views honestly that's how modern people will view them.

Which makes it a sticky problem. If you write an honest, informed presentation of what these Islamic radicals believe, then to American cultural sensibilities you paint them as monsters. To avoid painting them as monsters, then you must finess the truth (or, stated more bluntly, lie).

I don't think of it as a necessary exercise, either way, though I understand the motivating impulse. But I think that to really understand another culture from the outside, you have to start with your own. Once you understand the depth and breadth of concupiscence and damnation that marks our own popular culture, and how deeply you as an individual are tarred by your association with it, you can begin to see and feel genuine compassion for the cultural background of your putative enemies.

Make no mistake, as much as radical Islam delights in the shedding of innocent blood, American populism is guilty of the same. And we are perhaps blindest when we try to cover the sins of others to justify our own.