In Socrates' Oedipus the King, the character of Jocasta plays a fundamental role in the plot. How one views Jocasta, the mother and later, unwittingly, wife of Oedipus, is integral to the progression of the story and how one judges the various characters in a play. By choosing to tell the story of Oedipus the King through the eyes of Jocasta herself rather than the third-person point of view employed in the original work, Ruth Eisenberg establishes another point of view from which Jocasta can be seen, presenting her more as a victim of circumstance and of the punishment of the gods as opposed to an accessory to the penance inflicted on Oedipus. Using strong diction, vivid symbols, and passionate emotions, Eisenberg is able to establish Jocasta as a victim who has no power to alter her fate, contrary to Socrates' interpretation that Jocasta is more of an instigator in Oedipus' fate but still little more than a pawn in the game of the gods. Primarily through the degree to which each author delves into Jocasta's character, we are able to see two contrasting views of who Jocasta truly is. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay In Eisenberg's poem, Jocasta, we get a much deeper look at Jocasta's psyche and especially her relationship with Laius. Jocasta expresses throughout the poem that she had no control over her life and was forced to listen to the whims of others instead of making her own decisions. Already in the twelfth line, when Jocasta says she is “fifteen and afraid to resist,” we begin to see her as a victim of Laius. Laius treats her not as a human being but as an object, something subject to his will and fantasies. By describing Laius as having “icy eyes” (18) and as a “deceitful man” (50/51), we as readers begin to see a picture of a resentful marriage. Laius' cold nature is contrasted with Aphrodite's warmth through Jocasta and the fire that burns within her for Oedipus. While in Oedipus the King there were no signs of negative feelings on the part of Jocasta towards Laius, Eisenberg places Jocasta in firm opposition to Laius. Consequently, the same woman who in Socrates' original work seemed in line with the corruption and sadness that Laius had poured out on Oedipus is, in Eisenberg's poem, in clear opposition to Laius, an apparent beacon of light against hatred dark that Laius brought with him. In doing so, Eisenberg places Jocasta and Oedipus in the same boat, both as victims who had no say in their independent destinies. Socrates established Jocasta and Oedipus as two very separate and unrelated characters, with one, Jocasta, on the Gods' side, simply a part of Oedipus' punishment. Although there are signs that Socrates saw some sympathy for Jocasta, as she begs Oedipus not to question her origins throughout the play, Socrates makes no attempt to delve into her character at all. She is a part entirely in the plan of the gods and nothing more. However, in Eisenberg's work Jocasta is seen completely differently, as she opposes Laius and the gods, denouncing their tyranny. Saying that the gods "blinded me to his [Oedipus's] scars, to his age, to any resemblance to Laius," (286/287) she rightly calls out the gods for what they put her through, describing their actions as nothing more than a “heavenly whim” (311). Jocasta takes control of her life in Eisenberg's poem, shaking her fist at the gods (283/284) and finally, stepping off the stool “into the air” (319) seems rise to.