I want any future daughter of mine to know who Antigone is and why she's an important figure at least by the age of twelve, so yes.
Creon did nothing wrong. Antigone was trying to honour a traitor who had just attacked the city with a foreign army. Private interest here would have been to invite anarchy.
What makes Antigone different from other tragedies is that the conflict in it is between two characters who are each trying to impose on the other their sincerely-held conceptions of an ordered, just, and rational universe...and those two conceptions are, through no fault of anybody's, completely incommensurable. So in the end my reading of the play comes down to which of them I find more personally sympathetic, and (in most stagings; the one with Christopher Eccleston as Creon is a notable exception) that's Antigone by a country mile.
I was trolling somewhat.
Creon is shown to be an incompetent dickbag, but as you alluded to the greatness of Greek tragedy is that the conflict often comes from two characters who can both make reasonable argument on their side. Sophocles does the same in Ajax (Homeric honour vs public good) and Philoctetes (right vs advantage). Just hoped to start an argument!
Poll
