Adrian Hernandez

A Particular Type of Tragedy

            The Genres handout described tragedy as beginning with a problem significant to society, its leaders, or its representatives.  The tragedy involves a hero that represents a tragic flaw with which human beings can identify or recognize.  The error or fault or problem, however, is intimate and is not objectified to a villain or outside force.  Instead, the flaw of the hero is usually something like greed or vanity.  The action consists of an attempt to discover the truth about the problem and ultimately restore justice.  The tragedy ends, usually, with the demise of the hero by death, banishment, or general quieting. 

            Tragedy, although dismal and depressing, attracts people’s attention because it deals with the flaws with which most people can identify.  Most of us have witnessed or experienced things like greed or vanity.  Whereof, it’s simple for us to become involved in stories dealing with these subjects.  Most people also find comfort in being able to address those flaws through literature of through movies or plays as some flaws may not be very conversation-worthy in everyday life.  Tragedy, however, despite its ability to connect with our human nature, fails in providing us with the “wow” effect that most people have come to expect with modern day technologies and themes.  While this seems to make tragedy seem to drag its feet – so to say – it can also prove to strengthen the staying power of the work.  By suppressing the spectacle, according to the “On the greatness of tragedy” handout, tragedy opens the audience up to spiritual possibilities. 

            It is this, the spiritual possibility, the thinking element of tragedy that helps tragedy live on well beyond the conclusion of spectacle and slapstick.  Tragedy therefore is most durable and memorable as it is profound and can imprint memory and imagination.  The tragic heroes such as Hamlet and King Oedipus are far more memorable because of their circumstances which force the audience into uncomfortable situations that require critical analysis.  While this creates a lasting impression, however, it can also cause readers to avoid the genre altogether as it tends to be more involved than, say, comedy.  Why would a reader want to feel uncomfortable and depressed when he or she could simply follow a simple, comedic plot and finish with a happy ending and a smile on his or her face?  Perhaps not always taking the story with you isn’t so bad after all.  Perhaps it’s not necessary to always have the memory of Hamlet’s death and his turmoil tucked away in the depths of one’s mind.  

            Aristotle breaks down tragedy into three elements: plot, character and spectacle.  Tragedy is best when in this particular order and as he defines each element.  Plot, according to Aristotle, is the specific sequence of actions which deal with seriousness and strong emotions.  The character, being less important, is only as important as his or her actions and those actions fall in a sequence within the plot.  A character determines its happiness through its actions.  Finally, the spectacle comes into play.  As previously discussed, however, the spectacle is an element which tends to be absent with tragedy and Aristotle explains this by saying that the spectacle depends more of the stage crew than the poet as it is more a visual or sensory experience.

            Like tragedy, comedy begins, also, with a problem; however, that problem is usually less significant and usually does not threaten the audience like the potential issues tackled in a tragedy.  Comedy usually resolves the problem by chalking it up to a mere misunderstanding rather than actually attempt to address a socially prominent issue.  Furthermore, tragedy tends to use socially prominent heroes whereas comedy does not.   In the end, definitely not like tragedy, the characters are usually celebrating and dancing.  Tragedy usually has someone dead by the end of the play.  The use of a problem is similar, while the resolution of vastly different.  And, whereas tragedy makes the problem stand on its own, romance paints a clear picture of good can bad.  The characters are generally separated and the simple plot is designed to overcome the obstacles in order to happily re-unite the main characters.  The obstacle is usually a villain or an outside force.  Tragedy, again deals with flaws in humans such as the oedipal complex as discussed by Sigmund Freud.  Freud contends that children develop a liking for their parents at a young age but subconsciously suppress urges to act upon those feelings.  Freud even continues, in his Oedipus Complex papers, that today, just as in the times of Sophocles and King Oedipus respectively, many men dream of having sexual relations with their mothers.  This is not an issue that can be overcome by simply silencing a villain with a mustache. 

            Tragedy goes far beyond just leaving the audience with a sense of a “tragic” play or novel.  Tragedy is very specific to our human nature, to our flaws and to our deepest darkest secrets and repressed urges.  Tragedy, while being somewhat complicated in its structure, is simple to understand through the connection with our very being.  It allows the audience to both cringe with discomfort all while secretly playing out complex, suppressed feelings through the characters and their actions whether it be on stage, on TV, or in a book.  Perhaps the most appealing thing I have learned about tragedy is why it has such enormous staying power.  I find it fascinating how we are able to latch onto things that potentially leave us feeling depressed and dismal.  Perhaps we yearn to visualize that about which we can only dream. [AHe]