So a big part of our exploration on tragedy over the past couple of days was reading a paper by Arthur Miller. He gives a definition of tragedy that outlines some specifics within the plot, and he perhaps implies a "why" for our enjoyment of tragedy. Tragedy, Miller argues, has to first have the main character seeming living a pretty good life. The purpose of this is to set up the "fall from grace". There has to be a grace to fall from. Then, there's a discovery of a problem, something that screws up this balance and harmony. Finally, the protagonist has to try and fail to solve the problem. That's the basic framework of how a tragedy, in Miller's opinion, is put together. He also argues that there has to be a possibility to win, because without it, it doesn't feel like a tragedy when the main character fails, it just feels inevitable.
Now, do I agree with this? I'd say so. With definitions like this, it always seems a little weird, because they seemingly don't focus on a lot of what we personally define as a tragedy. I initially described it as a great sadness, for example. The definition doesn't focus on this, not because it is inaccurate, but because they can define it in terms of something else rather than just a feeling, like a specific plot line. Initially, I was pretty skeptical, but with some more thought, I began to see the merits of defining it like Miller did.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |