Tragedy Paper

I just completed my tragedy paper and I have posted it below for review. Comment if you'd like to give me some feedback! Thanks.

Common Nobility:

Advocating for the Common Man’s plight in tragic works

The concept of a tragedy originated in Ancient Greece and, by definition, is based on one simple notion: the portrayal of human suffering. The manifestation of this suffering has been changed, molded and modified to fit the times throughout the ages and has developed into one of the most popular forms of performance to this date. Aristotle, famed Greek philosopher, created the format for what he believed to be a ‘perfect tragedy’. This definition of tragedy has been challenged by other prolific scholars and authors, and the basis for many arguments is the implied rivalry between classic tragic works and more modern interpretations of the drama. Many have speculated, examined and scrutinized the tragic form and which elements create a ‘perfect’ tragedy. This study aims to conclude which of these manners is most effective.

Aristotle laid down the grounds upon which tragic works of drama would be written and molded around for centuries. He argued that tragedies must contain several key elements in order to be the most effective that they can be. In his opinion, the perfect tragedy must involve a man who is held in high regard who experiences a fall from grace as a result of some error in ways or mistake. Aristotle defines tragedy as “the imitation of an action that is serious and also, as having magnitude, complete in itself; in appropriate and pleasurable language;...in a dramatic rather than narrative form; with incidents arousing pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish a catharsis of these emotions” (University of Chicago). Aristotle’s definition of tragedy was used for centuries to come as the basis for all dramatic works of tragedy, and it was considered vital to incorporate the catharsis aspect. In his definition of tragedy, the philosopher also speaks of six crucial aspects to tragedy. He ranks them from least to most important as such: plot, character, thought, diction, melody and spectacle. Aristotle felt that the plot of the performance was the most important. He said, “All human happiness or misery takes the form of action... .Character gives us qualities, but it is in our actions--what we do--that we are happy or miserable.” (University of Chicago) According to the philosopher, actions basically determine the outcome of a situation - not their inherent personality traits, but rather their decisions and following actions. This definition of what creates a ‘perfect’ tragic work held true for many centuries - until the emergence of the so-called “modern” tragedy. This crack in the foundation are where the arguments begin to take place - the argument between the noble man’s tragedy depicted by the Ancient Greeks and the common man’s tragedy, depicted by authors of the mid-20th century.

On one end of the spectrum, there are supporters of strict classical tragedy. In his essay supporting the validity of classic tragedy, Joseph Krutch describes his issues with modern tragedies. He argues that modern tragedies are not as prolific as Greek or Shakespearean tragedies, simply because the latter leave us with positive feelings as opposed to negative and morose sentiments. In the tradition of Greek tragedies, the audience is supposed to be left with a feeling of catharsis. Aristotle describes catharsis as the purging of the emotions of pity and fear that are aroused in the viewer of a tragedy. Therefore, we are supposed to be glad that Juliet and Romeo lay dead in their tombs and that Othello kills Desdemona. We must be glad that Oedipus the King puts out his own eyes. We must be content that they do so and would not change the course of events. Of this, Krutch states that “we accept gladly the outward defeats which it describes for the sake of the inward victories which it reveals”(Krutch).

According to Greek tradition, in order for it to be a perfect tragedy, it must contain a noble figurehead who falls. In the essay “Tragedy and the Common Man”, playwright Arthur Miller states that the modern man’s tragedy adheres to a different set of standards - different from the grandeur of the likes of Oedipus the King. He recommends a realistic and balanced sense of reality when creating a tragedy. Miller defines tragedy as “the consequence of a man’s total compulsion to evaluate himself justly”(Miller). At the time that this author was was writing prolific plays such as Death of a Salesman, there was not a real sense of nobility within American and - for the most part - global society. He felt that the common man was “as apt a subject for tragedy in its highest sense” as kings were and argued that thus, they should be treated no differently within literature (Miller). The main element to a work of modern tragedy, according to Miller, is the loss of dignity by the main character. The main character experiences a total and complete blow to the soul - they try, fail and are left with nothing. This tragic aspect is the quality, according to Miller, that truly shakes the soul. This thought shook a nation. In a time where people were ravaged by the Great Depression, they needed a new type of tragic hero. They found such heroes of common nobility in the works of Arthur Miller, and even in modern theatre, television and film, this standard still holds just as true and powerful.

Many supporters of Greek tragedy loathe modern interpretations of tragedy because they lack many of the key points that a Grecian tragedy contains. Is it possible that Aristotle’s definition of tragedy has grown outdated since the thousands of years ago that it originated? When one reads works such as Oedipus, Romeo and Juliet and other literary works of tragic merit, it is not often that one experiences a feeling of happiness after seeing a man brutally maim himself or two teenage lovers commit suicide. Surely enough, they do both make for great stories, but the catharsis that is supposed to be an after-effect of Aristotle’s ideal tragedies might be sorely lacking. When regarding the outdated-ness of more 'classic' works of tragedy, Miller stated that “surely the right of one monarch to capture the domain from another no longer raises our passions, nor are our concepts of justice what they were to the mind of an Elizabethan king” (Miller). Of course, there is a reason that the tragic works of Greek playwrights still stand the test of time. They do serve a purpose - but are they as effective? The standards of society are ephemeral and ever-changing, and therefore it is necessary for the definitions of tragedy to be changed and molded to fit the times. Miller did this effectively by creating an entirely new definition of what makes a ‘perfect’ tragedy.

Classic works of tragedy such as Oedipus and Antigone certainly have outstanding and monumental literary merit and did indeed establish the original definition of what makes a tragedy. However, in modern times, the most essentially tragic thing that can happen to an individual is likely not the downfall of a king. As Miller states very eloquently in his essay, “the quality in such plays that does shake us, however, derives from the underlying fear of being displaced, the disaster inherent in being torn away from our chosen image of what and who we are in this world. Among us today this fear is as strong, and perhaps stronger, than it ever was. In fact it is the common man who knows fear best” (Miller). The most relative and realistic tragic works do not tell tales of royalty and nobles and fate and the Gods. One of the most devastating things to a person is to no longer know who you are and what your place in the world is. An empty feeling of invalidation can leave the human spirit torn to pieces. Seeing these elements manifested onto the stage or screen is one of the most powerful things for a human being can witness.

• Works Cited

• University of Chicago."Aristotle's Ideas About Tragedy." Poetics, n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2010.
• Krutch, Joseph W. 1981. Tragedy, Vision and Form. Ed. Robert W. Corrigan. New York: Harper & Row, 1981. 227-38. Print.
• Miller, Arthur. ""Tragedy and the Common Man"" 1981. Tragedy, Vision and Form. Ed. Robert W. Corrigan. New York: Harper & Row, 1981. 168-75. Print.