The play and opera versions of “The Barber of Seville,” essentially accomplished the same goals in the plot, but the opera was more lively and entertaining.  One thing that made it so, was the group musicals throughout the opera.  Instead of having one person singing the entire time, the group sang together.  This made it more pleasing since there were different voices, like the tenors, sopranos, bass, and baritones.

When reading the play, I was confused as to why the title was “ The Barber of Seville.”  The reason being that the barber, Figaro, seemed to be a supporting cast to the love trio that the play focuses on.  However, in the opera, Figaro runs the show.  He even admits that he “runs the house” of Dr. Bartolo since he performs multiple duties of a “barber, surgeon, botanist, apothecary, [and] veterinarian.”  He also seems to create the bond between the Count and Rosina.  He coaches the Count and tells him what to do,  while he entices Rosina with the temptations of a lover.  From the opera, I understand why the title is “The Barber of Seville,” because without Figaro, there would be no story.

Towards the end of the opera, the change from Dr. Bartolo bribing the notary to threating him with a gun was a nice touch.  It showed the corner that Bartolo felt he was backed into and the only way he could get out was by drastic actions.  By bribing the notary he was in control, but having the gun made him seem more desperate, which he should be since he was losing the woman he wants to marry.

In the end though everyone seems happy.  Dr. Bartolo doesn’t get the girl, but he gets the dowry.  Then he continues to bless the Count and Rosina on their marriage.  I felt this tied into the idea of “all’s well that ends well.”  Especially with the closing lines of “May love and faith eternal reign in both your hearts.”

One’s destiny has been a question for all of time.  In earlier civilizations, fate was seen as something predetermined by the gods.  The gods controlled everything and no matter how hard one tried to avoid his fixed path, the gods kept him on it.  However, in the French play “The Barber of Seville” by Pierre Beaumarchais  fate seems manmade.

Dr. Bartolo and Count Almaviva both want to marry Rosine with their own free will.  There is no divine intervention forcing them to do otherwise.  In fact, both take matters into their own hands.  Dr. Bartolo decides to hurry with the proceedings of the wedding and tries to keep Rosine out of contact with other men.  Count Almaviva dresses himself up and attempts to woo Rosine.  With all the secrets and skepticism, there is no help other than from the minds of men.

The only help the Count gets is from Figaro.  Figaro aids the Count in his quest, with the qualities and advantages he has.  He is able to help the Count get into Dr. Bartolo’s house and see Rosine.  Then Dr. Bartolo falls asleep during the music lessons due his own inability to stay awake.  The count takes advantage of the situation and kisses Rosine.

Towards the end, Dr. Bartolo doesn’t use any type of magic to seduce or entrap Rosine; he simply uses lies.  He lies because he is a man and because he is limited to him manly powers.  He can’t watch Rosine every moment, nor can he stop other men from seeing her.  What he can do though, is create doubts within her mind and trick her.

Since, his lies are lies and can’t be made true, Dr. Bartolo loses Rosine to Count Almaviva.  Neither man played with any type of divine advantage.  They had to do what was in their powers to try and win Rosine.  For that reason, destiny has begun to lose its edge as time progresses.  With time, comes the growth of individuality, which leads to the belief that we are the commanders of our own fate.

Throughout the history of the world, divine intervention has been a prevalent matter.  Specifically, many Greek pieces of art and literature the idea of fate is intrinsic.   Socrates’ trilogy of Theban plays is a prime example of these ideals.  In this trilogy there are the Oedipus the King, Oedipus at Colonus, and Antigone.

Before the story of Antigone, there was Oedipus Rex.  Oedipus Rex epitomizes the concept of fate.  From his early birth it was foretold that he would kill his father and marry his mother.  Then he would be the father of his siblings.  Since fate was no laughing matter to the Greeks, Oedipus’s parents decided to kill him to prevent those occasions from ever happening.  Little did they know that Oedipus did not die, and instead his destiny began to unfold.   Unknowingly following the commands of fate, Oedipus kills his father at a crossroad.  He then continues along this predetermined path and marries his mother.  From a baby these events were foretold to happen, and they were unintentionally carried out by Oedipus.  In this respect the Greeks believe, fate is determined from the day one is born and there is no way of stopping it. Oedipus’s parents tried to end his life and his life’s purpose along with it, but they couldn’t stop the doom he was foretold to bring upon himself and them.  In this sense, the Greeks believed that man could not unbend the chains of fate and change the course of life.

            However, Antigone presents a different argument to this idea.  The first implication is the word anti in her name.  Her name suggests that she opposes a belief of the Greeks.  Contrary to the belief that there is a predetermined path for every person, Antigone takes actions into her own hands.  She chooses to go against Creon and bury her traitorous brother.  Enforcing her stance on individuality is the fact that she takes her own life.  She refuses to experience a judgment by another that should’ve been decided by her deeds.  Hanging herself proved that she defied the verdict on her life and she is the sole controller of her life.

            The Greek way of life was centered on fate.  When a person was born he was given a purpose for living and that force would push him through his existence.  However, the Greeks believed in the action of choice, but as an “anti” ideal of their people.  The idea of choice gives light to our individuality, which contrasts with the idea that the gods gave us our life to carry out certain deeds.  If the gods gave us purpose then the beings of our existence isn’t ours.

Death is an evident theme in Jhumpa Lahiri’s The Namesake and Jonathan Foer’s Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close.  Death causes people to reminisce on the deceased, how they died, and the last time they spoke.  In both novels whether or not the deceased died alone affects the closure of the living.

            In Extremely Loud and incredibly Close, Oskar Schell returns home from school to five messages left by his father.  The phone rings, but Oskar doesn’t pick up, causing a sixth message to be made.  His inability to pick up the phone causes him to feel as if his father died alone, without any loved ones around him.  Feeling like he let his father die alone, Oskar is unable to find a sense of closure.  He imagines all the ways his father could have died and tries desperately to figure out how his father actually died.  His sense of closure is delayed until he is able to admit his mistake.

            Similar to Oskar Schell’s father, Gogol Ganguli’s father died alone.  When Gogol cleans his father’s room “he cannot remember the last time he and his father had spoken.” (177).  Gogol then proceeds to imagine the daily routine of his father and what his father did the day he died.  Like Oskar, Gogol’s path to closure is a long one, due to the belief that he abandoned his father while he was alive.  After hearing the story behind his name, Gogol feels like he abandoned his father, but as he begins to accept the name he is able to gain closure.

            In The Namesake, Ashima Ganguli receives a phone call and expects it to be about the death of her grandmother. Upon receiving the news that her father is dead, Ashima doesn’t imagine what her father did before he died like Gogol and Oskar did.  She doesn’t have their feelings of abandonment because she followed the practices of her culture as her father wanted.  Since she felt like she followed her father’s wishes and that he father died around loved ones, Ashima acquires a sense of closure allowing her to move on.

            In the end, dying around loved ones makes closure more feasible.  When people feel they abandoned the deceased, like Oskar and Gogol, they take longer to gain closure.