This is a good article. Arthur Miller addresses certain concepts of tragedies that many people don't really understand or realize. First, tragedy is not something that can no longer be well-written or understood, and second, it is not all about a sad ending.
Miller says that many people believe tragedies are for the nobility. He goes on to say that this is completely wrong. I agree! If tragedy was written for the general public to view, then it needed to be something they could relate to. I think it got this reputation because if nobility was going to watch it, it needed to be about nobility because they wouldn't want to watch something about commoners. Also, nobility had troubles that could be made a bigger deal of. They had kingdoms to rule and reputations to maintain. They were the people who drew attention to themselves and would believe they were above the law. They also had bigger egos to be offended, which is important because Miller says that tragedies tend to be about someone working to secure their dignity.
In truth, tragedies are for everyone. You can look around at the world today and see many tragedies, they just aren't written about. Tragedies don't get written so much now, and I believe that is because either people don't want to be reminded of all the tragedy around them, or because writers of today can't live up to the classics. We don't really have nobility to write about today or to please. Writers in this day and age tend to write commercial fiction. The great books that you hear of everyone reading are ones like Harry Potter, Twilight, The Hunger Games. None of those will be required books in english classes in the future. They might be remembered, like The Lord of the Rings or The Chronicles of Narnia, but they will not be considered classics that have had a profound impact on our world. But in summary, tragedies are relatable, which is why we still read them.
Miller's second main point was that tragedies don't have to be pessimistic. Again, I completely agree, hence the name of my blog. Tragedies have gotten that reputation because they have sad endings where most of the main characters tend to die. I mean, seriously, in Hamlet every main character dies except Horatio, because Horatio is just awesome like that so he just kind of can't die, like Chuck Norris. Back to my point, tragedies can be sad, but they can't be hopeless struggles, otherwise they would just be depressing and no one would want to watch or read them. As Miller says, "The possibility of victory must be there in tragedy." Tragedies are truly about humans struggling to further themselves above expectations, of proving that they are not just creatures put in a certain role and doomed to be there their entire lives. In tragedies, the protagonist must find a learn something in the end, a higher law that might explain what has happened.
My bright spot: obviously that tragedies are not just about death and sorrow, but there is a higher point to them, a good reason for them. Tragedies are not pessimistic views of the world, but someone's view of humanity struggling to prove that we are better than expectations. I made the point of my blog kind of as a joke because I am a bit of an optimist and didn't want to be stuck with a bunch of pessimistic stories, but this proves that my goal is not in vain. I win!
No comments:
Post a Comment