Tragedy and the Common Man

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!

Antigone

Essentially, Antigone is about the law. Does anything come before the law? Is there a higher law that can trump the laws of the land? If it goes against your principles, do you have to obey the law?

Generally, the law is there because is serves the greater good. It gives protection and enforces justice. Without the law, everyone could just do whatever they want. Normally, people would say that not following the law is wrong. But is there any time when it should be excused? Antigone feels that, as the expression goes, blood is thicker than water. Burying her brother seems to be a good excuse for her to ignore the law. She doesn't think that the law of no one being allowed to bury one of her brothers while the other got the correct ceremonies is just. To her, burying her brother and possibly losing her life is more important than obeying a law she doesn't believe is just. Antigone claims that there is a higher law that allows her to do what she believes is right even when it is deemed illegal. She believes that she would be breaking this higher law by leaving her brother's body unburied.

Is it right that she is punished for doing this? Is it fair that her brother is to be dishonored in death? There is a saying, "Do not speak ill of the dead". When someone dies, they should be remembered for their good traits, rather than their bad. No one truly knows what anyone else's reasons for things might be, so we cannot always fairly judge another's actions. I don't believe it's right to think we can declare someone as good or evil. No one is perfect, but we generally do what we believe is right. Yes, we can be wrong, but that is life. To bring in a bible reference, when a woman was found committing adultery and was brought before Jesus to be judged, he told the people that whoever among them is without sin could be the first to throw a stone (John 8:1-11). Who are we to judge others? Yes, I will admit that there are certain actions that will be judged, no matter what. A good example is murder. Murder is counted as wrong among the majority of people. There are, of course, the small majority of people who don't see it this way. Hitler is a good example. I doubt there is anyone who will call Hitler a good person. But I've always wondered, what was he thinking when he chose to kill all those people? He must have had reasons. I once heard someone say the villain is the hero in his own story. Hitler must have thought that he was doing the right thing, the rest of us just don't agree. So, yes, I am being a bit of a hypocrite because I will say that Hitler was not a good person, even though I don't believe we should judge others. To summarize this rambling, I think Antigone was right to choose to bury her brother rather than follow a law that went against her principles. I believe the law was wrong and they should have given her brother a proper burial, despite his actions. He had his own reasons for his actions that he believed were right.

To find something good in Antigone, Kreon learned of his mistake and payed for it, Antigone got her wish and died, and the audience is made aware of the fact that sometimes you just have to do what is right even when you are told otherwise. Hopefully what you believe is right truly is the right thing and isn't about hurting others. I'm not condoning breaking the law, but if it is something you are willing to risk your life for, then it might be worth fighting for.

Oedipus the King

Oedipus, King of Thebes, world-famous, conceited and arrogant, is doomed to fall. It is prophesied that he will be the murderer of his father and will beget children with his mother. Yeah, disturbing but it happened. To his credit, Oedipus didn't know that it was his father he was killing or his mother that he was sleeping with, so he can claim ignorance. When he does find out, he is so ashamed that he stabs himself in the eyes and blinds himself. Slightly better than what his mother did, which was to hang herself. It is good to know that they at least have a sense of propriety and were ashamed of their actions.

To talk about the literature in the book, the main bit was the constant references to blindness. The prophet Tiresias was blind, yet he knew all that was happening and what was truth. He also stated that Oedipus, who probably had 20/20 vision, was the one who was blind. At the end, Oedipus does end up blinding himself. Obviously Socrates wants to make the point that you can have great vision, but can still be blind if you fail to miss what is right in front of you, whether it be real or figurative. The blind are the ones who don't know the truth.

Another good discussion our class had was about prophecies. Was Oedipus made to do the things he did because of the prophecy? Some people claim that if his father hadn't heard the prophecy, none of it would have happened. Laius wouldn't have had tried to have him killed, so he wouldn't have gone to Corinth. He then wouldn't have ended up meeting his father on the road to Thebes and seeing him as a stranger. He would have grown up knowing who his mother is so he wouldn't have slept with her. This makes sense, but my belief is that the prophecies just tell what is going to happen no matter what. Whether the prophecy was heard or not, Oedipus would have been the one to kill his father and for some reason have children with his mother. It would have happened one way or another and nothing was going to stop it, which is why the prophecy could be told; it was going to happen no matter what interference there was. That, at least, is my belief. I know others don't think this way.

That argument tends to lead to the question of whether we make our own decisions or if things are predestined. If there was no way for Oedipus to avoid what happened, then wouldn't that mean that he was predestined to do those things and didn't really have a choice? Yet again, I disagree. Oedipus made his decisions consciously. No one forced him to kill the stranger on the road. No one made him save Thebes, which resulted in his marrying Laius's wife. He very well could have chosen to do things differently, it's just that no matter what version of the situation he was put into, he would have chosen to kill his father and sleep with his mother. No matter what choices were given to him, he would have ended up choosing the same way in each one.

My happy conclusion: We are in control of our own lives. Whatever befalls you, it is not because there is some god out there that has it out for you, it is a direct result of your own choices. No one controls your life but you. Even as a Christian, I believe that God gives us free will, He just happens to know what we will choose and work with that to further His kingdom.

TED Talk 2

Alright, so the question is whether or not we actually make our own decisions or are we actually led to a certain decision by the options given to us. The speaker on this video of TED was saying that people don't truly make their own decisions. He gives many examples of circumstances where adding or subtracting a single choice will change people's preferences. I don't believe this.

Personally, I believe that no matter what choices you are given and how much input others give you, everyone will always choose their option consciously. There is always a reason for what you choose and I don't believe that you can really be forced to choose something else. People will choose whatever choice appeals most to them with the options they are given. If people could be forced into choosing a certain option just by the choices given to them, everyone would choose the same thing. The thing is, there is always some percentage of people who will choose another option. This disproves the theory that giving certain options can force peoples' decisions.

People will always choose the option that appeals most to them. When they are given similar options, but one has something more than the other, it only makes sense to choose the better deal. With the example of a trip to Paris, a trip to Rome, or a trip to Rome with free coffee, the trip to Rome with free coffee has more than the trip to Rome alone and the trip to Paris. Obviously, people will prefer the trip to Rome with coffee, but those who prefer Paris will probably still choose Paris and just pay for their own coffee. So people will choose the more intelligent choice, but they will also choose their preference, despite the fact that other options may be slightly better.

So my happy conclusion: people will always make their own choices. You may try and influence their decision, but, ultimately, it is their choice what they choose.

TED

This is kind of a late blog post so I don't remember the TED video very well. I did take a few notes so here are my comments on some of the ideas from the video.

One idea from the video was that the closer you are to someone in status, the more you can relate to them. This also means that you are more likely to become jealous of them. How many people are seriously jealous of kings? Kings are a lot higher in status than most people so it is hard to relate to them. People seem to assume that they are kings and it is their right to have lots of gold and power. It is easier to envy someone that you can understand. You know that they are close to you in status and you therefore tend to believe that you should be equal in most things. Then, if something is unequal between you, this causes envy.

Another idea was that tragedy is devoted to tracing how people fail. I think this is very true. Something is a tragedy because something is lost. This means that the protagonist has failed in some way to gain what he was searching for. Tragedy follows how someone's failures ruin his life or the lives of others. These things are then seen as tragedies because they elicit sympathy from the audience. Everyone can relate to failure.

To end on a happier note, it is always a good thing to remember that even though you fail time and time again, you will one day succeed at something. No one can fail at everything. Failure isn't even possible without the chance of success.

To Define Disaster

How does one define a tragedy? There are many definitions out there because this genre of entertainment has changed over time. Somehow the origins of the name seem to point to something along the lines of 'goat-song'. Personally, I really don't get where that comes from. How does some ritual about goats and singing become a popular form of entertainment that is usually associated with sadness? Another idea is that it came from some rituals that worshiped the Greek god of wine, Dionysus. That idea sounds more logical to me because people who are drunk tend to do things that they will regret later. The following are some possible definitions (these are all written in my own words to shorten them):

• Dictionary.com defines a tragedy as a dramatic composition that deals with serious or somber subjects and usually focuses on a main character that, through some horrible flaw or twist of fate, is eventually doomed.
• Cornielle believed that a tragedy needed noble characters and had to focus on issues like marriage, wars, etc... and that tragedies didn't need sad endings.
• Aristotle said that tragedies express noble actions that have a depth to them and is meant to purify ones emotions through pity and fear.
• Hegel wrote that Greek and other early tragedies focused mostly on the character choosing their own way in life while more modern tragedies feature characters that are more defined by their circumstances.
• Nietzsche stated that tragedies are more about the feelings, though they don't have to be pity and fear. I believe he sums it up better himself than I could:

"Saying Yes to life even in its strangest and most painful episodes, the will to life rejoicing in its own inexhaustible vitality even as it witnesses the destruction of its greatest heroes — that is what I called Dionysian, that is what I guessed to be the bridge to the psychology of the tragic poet. Not in order to be liberated from terror and pity, not in order to purge oneself of a dangerous affect by its vehement discharge — which is how Aristotle understood tragedy — but in order to celebrate oneself the eternal joy of becoming, beyond all terror and pity — that tragic joy included even joy in destruction."

Those are others' definitions of tragedy. Nietzsche's is my favorite because I believe that joy can be found everywhere, even in the midst of sorrow.


A random fact I found was that opera was pretty much a recreation of ancient tragedy.

Another interesting thing I found was a quote from the British playwright Howard Barker:

 "You emerge from tragedy equipped against lies. After the musical, you're anybody's fool."

I like this quote because it shows that tragedies are more about life with all its good and bad pieces, while musicals, though great in their own way, mostly tend to show the fairy tale ending.

So, if I was to give my own definition of tragedy just from reading these ones, it would probably read as follows:

A genre of entertainment that focuses on real-life scenarios where the hero is not perfect and where bad things do happen, and that elicits strong emotions from the audience that can be either good or bad.

The point I would like to end on is that tragedies don't have to be sad. They may focus on the sorrows in life, but I believe that something good can always come of it somehow and someway. :)