Post #6 (For 11/12/10)

This week I edited my essay and turned it in. This is the final version of my essay, what do you think?

The Definition Of Tragedy

The definition of tragedy can be different depending on who you ask. Something that is tragic for one person may not be such a tragedy for the other. But what really defines tragedy? Many philosophers and writers across the spectrum have debated on this question, and each has come up with their own philosophies for the definition of a tragedy. An example of a classic definition of a tragedy would be Aristotle’s belief that “tragedy is the imitation of noble actions.” Several modern writers, however, have disagreed with Aristotle’s opinion of what defines a tragedy, such as Arthur Miller and Joseph Krutch. The definition of a tragedy can be defined in many different ways, and can be shown in many modern examples.

A classic example of a tragedy would be the story of Oedipus Rex. Oedipus follows the belief of Aristotle; tragedy imitating noble actions. Greek tragedies, such as Oedipus, coincide with Aristotle’s beliefs in the sense that they were greatly influenced by Gods, with great heroes having a tragic fall which they cannot come back from but still learn something from in the end. Oedipus was a successful person in the eyes of the Greeks, and was looked up to by many people. His tragic fall was determined by a destiny he could not escape although he tried to. Eventually, towards the end of the story, he suffered a tragic fall because he could not handle the reality of his past. Although these events were very depressing and tragic, Oedipus still learned the valuable lesson of not being able to change his destiny, which was seen by the people surrounding him as well.

Although philosophers such as Aristotle would agree with the idea of Oedipus being a classic tragedy, many modern writers would disagree. An example of a person who opposes Aristotle’s views would be Joseph Krutch, who expresses many of his views in his essay “Tragedy, Vision, and Firm.” Aristotle’s belief that tragedy is an imitation of noble actions is not something that Krutch necessarily supports, but rather he asserts that we can no longer use this model because our “definition” of noble has changed. This is also because of the fact that the word “noble” cannot be automatically linked to kings and queens, but rather Krutch believes that we should look at the noble actions people perform. He asserts that “no one knows what a noble action is or whether or not such a thing as nobility exists in nature apart from the mind of man. (Krutch)” Krutch insists that the word noble can be seen with many different definitions, so rather than being tragedy being an imitation of noble actions, it is only a representation of actions that are merely considered as noble. Krutch also insists that “All works of art which deserve their name have a happy end,” essentially because this is what constitutes a tragedy as art. His theory explains that while a character might have a tragic fall, the destination or journey to the tragic fall can help the character reach a conclusion that he would not have reached otherwise. Although depressing and tragic events can happen in a tragedy, Krutch believes that we should be thankful for these events because they are ultimately what create a great tragedy. He also contends that every tragedy must eventually lead to its happy ending and that a good must come out of the tragic events which occur throughout the story. Krutch also disagrees with the belief that tragedies must be centered on a belief in God, by asserting that “A tragic writer does not have to believe in God, but be must believe in man. (Krutch)” Krutch is explaining that a character in a tragedy does not necessarily have to have a spiritual faith in order to be considered a tragic hero, but he/she must have a certain faith in human nature. If there is no faith in human nature in the character, then there cannot be a tragic fall.

An opposing opinion to the one of Joseph Krutch and Aristotle would be the opinion of Arthur Miller. In his essay “Tragedy and the Common Man,” he states that he believes that there are less and less tragedies being written in our modern society, and many people believe this is due to the lack of heroes among our society. Aristotle believed that in order for a story to be considered a tragedy, it must contain a great hero, someone is who looked up to and admired by many. Miller’s opinion is quite contradicting to Aristotle’s definition, since he believes that “The common man is as apt a subject for tragedy in its highest sense as kings were (Miller).” Miller continues to defend this opinion by stating that something that can be considered very tragic to people is the feeling of feeling displaced, feeling like we are “being torn away from our chosen image of what and who we are in javascript:void(0)this world (Miller).” Arthur Miller continues to describe that nobody knows this feeling best than the common man. Miller also describes that it is alright for tragedies to end in a depressing tone, as long as there is a possibility for success and it includes optimism.

Aristotle, Krutch, and Miller all have a different definition and philosophy of tragedy. In my opinion, each writer’s definition contains parts which are true. I believe that in in order for a writing to be considered a great tragedy, it must feature a hero who has learned something after experiencing a tragic fall from the outcome of a tragic fault, such as in the story of Oedipus. Oedipus is a “noble” man who is considered powerful and great, and eventually suffers a tragic fall which he cannot recover from, but learns valuable lessons from. I agree with Aristotle when he claims that this is a classic tragedy because of the fact that Oedipus was a “great” tragic hero, but I also believe that  a hero of a tragedy does not necessarily have to be a person of power (or “great”). Arthur Miller shares a similar idea with mine in the sense that he believes that the common man can be considered a tragic hero. Joseph Krutch’s opinion relies heavily on the fact that a tragedy must have happy ending, which I believe might not always be the case. If a character in a tragedy learns something from their tragic fall, the tragedy itself can be considered a happy ending, even if the tragedy ends in a depressing tone. An example of this would be the movie “Titanic.” The main characters are prominently rich and powerful, and suffer a great fall after the sinking of the Titanic. However, one of the main characters, Rose, learns at the end that there is no difference between high class and low class other than money, and she had learned to fall in love with a man in a lower class than her. Although the story ends in a very depressing tone, one cannot help but feel happiness for her because of the fact that she experienced such a great love. Stories like these are the ones that leave me feeling like I have just experienced a great tragedy. The definition of tragedy has changed throughout the course of centuries, but one thing is set clear: a story cannot be considered a great tragedy if it does not include a hero who suffers a tragic  fall and has good come out of his/her tragic situation.