Coffee Nights with Sophocles

Like this paper, I think that George Steiner's article "Principle Constants of Conflict in “Antigone" is a last-minute attempt to make himself sound knowledgeable on a classic Greek play for which he could not find any worthwhile subjective commentary. Maybe he was afraid of saying something controversial, or maybe he had not studied the play enough. I am no expert on “Antigone,” and that is why I do not publish essays on it. Mr. Steiner should follow suit, for how hard is it to simplify conflicts in a play and how hard is it to be objective about a performance. "There were these characters and these others; they related to each other in this way and that." He said it in an erudite, eloquent way; I have a thesaurus on my shelf and Creative Writing under my belt, too.

Mr. Steiner, thank you for telling us that there was conflict in this play; we did not know that a play needed a conflict in order to work. (We also did not know that man and woman are polar opposites.)

It is great to have a lesson on the five directions a man may direct his conflicts. But it is as if he were lecturing on this lesson and using the play as an example, and a good example it is of conflict diversity and union. I will concede that. In fact, I will add that the play is a good foundation for world drama because of that, like Shakespeare's works set a foundation that cannot be circumnavigated when it comes to plot lines.

Steiner substantiates his points well with adequate references to certain scenes and lines. In that, he has done more than I. I care not to wade through eye-crossing, conscience-searing dialogue to find a way to argue with another late-night typist who got himself published. Congratulations, Mr. Steiner: you win.