Paradox and Tragedy in Dennis Lehane’s Shutter Island and Seneca’s Oedipus Rex: A Comparative Study

The stratagem of employing paradoxical scenario in any form of artistic expression has been a timeless creative scheme. A very famous example of paradox may be seen within Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex, with the titular character’s pursuit of truth and goodwill leading to his own tragic downfall. Similarly, tragic expression has been at the centre of humans’ outlet for cathartic release. Thus, both paradox and tragedy tend to emerge in different ways in works of literature. The present study is focussed on recognizing and exploring the traces of commonalities of paradox and tragic elements between Oedipus Rex and Shutter Island(2003),by the renowned crime and mystery novelist, Dennis Lehane by considering the heroes in both narratives and the situations that their character attributes incite. The authors in both cases assign character attributes of a traditional tragic hero which constantly inform their actions, thereby creating an inevitable journey of personal downfall. The moments of anagnorisis are imbued with intense guilt and grief as both the protagonists realize that they themselves are the cause for their problems.

,by the renowned crime and mystery novelist, Dennis Lehane by considering the heroes in both narratives and the situations that their character attributes incite. The authors in both cases assign character attributes of a traditional tragic hero which constantly inform their actions, thereby creating an inevitable journey of personal downfall. The moments of anagnorisis are imbued with intense guilt and grief as both the protagonists realize that they themselves are the cause for their problems.
"Every heart would follow Oedipus and accompany his exile with profound sympathy" -Francis P. Donnelly Dennis Lehane is a renowned author of a number of successive lucrative crime and mystery novels and films that have created a sensation among both the public and the critical eye within the past three decades. The sensation generated by such novels featuring crime and a mystery-centred plot is not a new phenomenon. Moreover, there is a sense of an archetypal foundation in Lehane's execution of the twist-ending and characterization in his 2003 psychological mystery novel, Shutter Island. Within this perspective, the following discourse attempts to trace and highlight the presence of an archetypal configuration of Seneca's Oedipus Rex and its tragic hero, Oedipus in Lehane'sShutter Island.
Lehane was born in August 4, 1965 and brought up in the neighbourhood of Dorchester in the city of Boston, America which has influenced certain elements within quite a few of his novels. His personal experiences have fuelled and inspired the tonality, setting characterization, dialogues and certain other aspects as presented in his crime-mystery novels. (Butler 2010)Besides his riveting plots and twist-endings, Lehane is able to bring forth exceptionally alive and endearing characters. for the masterful execution of red-herring schemes and twist-endings in his mystery novels.
Furthermore, his writing prowess has branched into screen-writing for both films and television.
Lehane's Shutter Island is a mind-bending mystery thriller and suspense novel. Its twist-ending and narrative is psychologically and emotionally affective, causing the readers to revel in the paradox effecting its protagonist. While the tone and narrative of the novel is reminiscent of the mystery and hardboiled era of the 1940s, it also pays"an homage to gothic, but also an homage to B movies and pulp [fiction]", as Lehane himself declares in his 2006 interview with Dave for Powell's Books.
The beginning of the narrative aims to establish that Teddy Daniels is the protagonist and a "hero-figure" with all the necessary and archetypal character attributes customary for such a depiction; while Chuck Aule is the loyal comrade and confidante or the "side-kick" who constantly praises his astute skills and provides comic relief. The two are assigned a case on "Shutter Island"remotely situated at sea. Their aim is to find Rachel Solando, an escaped patient from the Ashecliffe asylum for the criminally insane located on the island.
Initially, the protagonists suspect both Dr Cawley, the head psychiatrist and Dr Lester Sheehan, another psychiatrist who is away on leave. However, as the story progresses Teddy Daniels reveals that he has an ulterior motive in visiting the island, which is to find and kill "Andrew Laeddis", a violent madman and the murderer of his wife. On progressing further, issue to be stressed here, is that readers and audiences become accomplice to the flaws present in the heroes and the mistakes that they commit in due course which leads to their tragic ends. Barstow recognises the difference between a sensible hero and a tragic herothat a "wise man preserves a just balance among his natural impulses, and firmly and consistently directs his will and emotions toward the supreme end which reason approves" (2). As opposed to these character attributes, a tragic hero "fails to attain happiness, and fails in such a way that his career excites, not blame, but fear and pity in the highest degree" (2).
It may further be observed, that in Shutter Island as well a similar scenario transpires. This aspect is made apparent in both the cases of Teddy Daniels alias Andrew Laeddis and Oedipus.
The resultant situation in both Shutter Island and Oedipus Rex, instigated through the tragic-hero traits discussed previously, there arises a state of paradox and inevitability.
Oedipus constantly yearns to know the extent of fulfilment of the prophecy, that he shall kill his own father and marry his own mother. In his constant endeavours to avoid fulfilling each fragment of the prophecy leads him to ultimately fulfil it one by one. Therefore, there are two constitutive character traits in Oedipus causing the paradox in the narrative, which also represents his tragic flaw of sorts. First, is Oedipus's initial curiosity regarding his birth borne out of the rumours spreading in his kingdom, that he is not king Polybus's biological son but, was adopted as a baby. Thus, as Barstow observes, Oedipus is "too energetic to remain in the ignorance which might have been his safety, he eagerly hastened to the sacred oracle at Delphi to learn the truth" (3). On learning the contents of the prophecy, he leaves Corinth and kills his own father, Laius on the path to Thebes, thereby fulfilling first part of the prophecy.
Secondly, Oedipus' doubts and pursuit of truth regarding the identity of the person who killed Laius leads to a horrifying discovery and his ultimate doom.
In Shutter Island, a similar course of inevitability plays out as Teddy Daniels determinedly sets out to find and exact revenge on the killer of his wife -Andrew Laeddis, who is, in fact, his own alter-ego. Just as Oedipus pursues the identity of Laius' killer and declares punishment for the same, Teddy Daniels searches for Andrew Laeddis yearns to kill him. This, thus, results in a paradoxical discovery in both casesthat Oedipus is the killer of his father and responsible for his own catastrophe and Teddy Daniels is the killer of his wife and responsible for his psychosis and death. The audiences and readers positively shudder at the tragic anticipation and feelings of fear and pity in both cases.
The two narratives and the heroes may be likened with one another in terms of guilt as well. Lehane has said that the "other thing between me and Scorsese is the obsession with guilt" (Aucoin). In Oedipus Rex, after the discovery of the truth, Oedipus gauges his own eyes out in shame and despair. In fact, it is his deep-seated feelings of doubt, fear and guilt that he may have killed his own father on the road, subconsciously fuels his desire to pursue the truth of the prophecy, which ultimately leads to his downfall. Similarly, Teddy Daniels chooses death as opposed to life and treatment, as being alive and sane would constantly remind him of his tragedy and loss; as insinuated in his famous lines at the end of Shutter Island "Which would be worse, to live as a monster or to die as a good man" (Lehane 2003