LITR 4533 Tragedy UHCL 2010 midterm samples

LITR 4533 TRAGEDY
Midterm Samples 2010

Essay Answers to Topic 3

3. Review possible topics of interest for Part B on final exam (3-4 paragraphs, 1.5-2 double-spaced page equivalent)

Allison Evans

June 20, 2010

*For the Part B of the final exam I am choosing to do two separate essays. I have separated them in this word document by their titles.

Character Internalization

Aristotle believed that the plot of a tragedy was its soul because, tragedy is the “imitation of an action” and this action is the plot. He then believed that the characters of a tragedy came second to this action in terms of what made the work of art great. This raises several questions about the effectiveness of the internal struggle that is seen within the characters of a tragedy. Could the tragedy be the same without this internal struggle? Would the audience feel as connected to the characters without it? (Aristotle’s Poetics).

The internal struggle of the characters in a tragedy often makes them more humanized. They are neither completely good, nor completely horrible; they are just like everyone else in the world who struggles at times to do the right thing. This humanization that the characters have allows the audience to connect with them and to sympathize with the situation of the characters. Without these features the audience would not be so concerned about the outcome of the characters decision and issue that is at hand. Without these emotions, from the audience being able to relate to the character, the action that attributes to the characters downfall would be seen as a sad occurrence and not tragic.

Spectacle and Sublime

The sublime is the indescribable, the “wow” factor that occurs when a character remains speechless after a certain event. Sublime can also be seen as the mixture of something beautiful with something dangerous. Examples of this can be seen all throughout the genre of tragedy as we often find beauty in danger. Along with using the sublime, tragedies also often use spectacles. A spectacle is a scene within a work of art that has visual appeal. It is often not regarded as taking much talent to create and often relates itself to gore or violence. The most common example of a spectacle would be slasher movies where the entire thing is nothing but blood and guts with some poor acting mixed in. The focus is not on the plot itself, but on the visual that is being received by the audience.

Melissa King

Part 3: Consideration of Final Questions

For the Final, I am considering discussing question 3, “Families in Tragedy + The Oedipal/ Electra Conflict.” I find this topic particularly interesting because of its common but subtle occurrences throughout literature. This topic is so controversial and is seen as a taboo in this day and age, which makes its presence in many pieces of Greek literature very interesting and shocking. The relationship that exists between Electra and her father Agamemnon is unique in Electra’s powerful love for her father. I struggle with the issues brought up in this relationship however, because I do not feel that her love for her father is romantic. I believe it is a familial love brought on by the neglect from her mother. It seems as if she feels a sense of being needed by her father because she can take care of him and wants to protect him from her mother’s actions. I do not think that she wishes for anything beyond a father-daughter relationship with Agamemnon, but I do feel that she would like to be the only woman in his life. She is just overwhelmed with the strong desire to be wanted and needed. The Oedipal conflict is drastically different from the Electra complex. First of all, Oedipus does not know that it is his mother that he has wed and reproduced with. He has not made the choice to love his mother knowingly. Also, his relationship with Jocasta is much more than mother-son. They are romantically and physically involved. In both Electra’s and Oedipus’s cases, I believe they each have redeemable qualities that allow us to overlook the shocking and controversial issues and enjoy the overall experience we have with the story. In today’s literature and film, I believe the Oedipal/ Electra Conflicts are portrayed in much more serious ways. Many films deal with rape and abuse from a parent to a child. This portrayal makes Oedipus and Electra’s situations seem much more harmless than they would be if viewed during their times.

I am also considering discussing question 2, “ ‘Plot is the Soul of Tragedy’ + Comedy & Romance.” I would really like to explore the character’s role in developing the plot since I believe the two are directly related. I agree with the statement “Plot is the Soul of Tragedy” because the plot brings about the tragic events. As the plot develops, we as an audience become invested in the story and feel the pain ourselves. Without a relatable and developed plot, the events would not seem near as tragic. For example, if we had not learned of Clytemnestra’s actions behind Agamemnon’s back with Aegisthus, Agamemnon’s death would not have seemed as sad and we would not pity him. The plot is of high importance in comedies and romances as well. It is crucial that we get to know the characters and their backgrounds in order to become invested in their journeys. In such movies as You’ve Got Mail, the happy ending with the two characters finding love with each other would not be near as appealing or enjoyable if the characters had not gone through the trials and obstacles to find each other. If the whole film was about them meeting and they just fell in love instantly and had not problems whatsoever, we would become extremely bored and would lose interest in the remainder of the story. The plot is needed in order to engage the audience and make the tragic or happy endings all that they can be.

Rachel Jungklaus

June 20, 2010

Exploring Tragedy

Before I started this class, when planning the projects my high school students would do when I begin teaching, I had always thought I had read too many tragedies and I wanted to explore comedies. I thought about how uninterested I usually was whenever my English teachers had said we were starting Othello or Hamlet or King Lear. I thought to myself, “That was boring! I am not going to make my students read those. We will read happy stories or comedies or just fantasy and science fiction.” However, I have learned that there is more to reading a tragedy than just a horribly depressing end where as my father would say, “He dies. She dies. Everybody dies.” Tragedies are very deep. They require actual thought which is so very different from today’s usual spectacle spattered across every movie and television show. Then, in my teaching class the other day we were practicing answering questions from difficult students and one of my teammates, curse them, asked, “Why do we have to read tragic plays? What will I need to know why Romeo and Juliet died at the end of the play for?” And I was not sure what the answer was. I had never in all of my 22 years wondered why I had to read Hamlet. I read for the sheer joy of reading. I read for that other world that is less, or more, complicated than my own. It was important for me because I enjoyed it, but also because I wanted to become an English teacher. It was good practice for me, but why is it necessary for their futures? Since starting this class, however, I have begun to find my answers to those very difficult questions.

First, why do we read tragedies in school? Tragedy, unlike comedy or romance, is for the intellectual. Where you would see Romeo stab Mercutio in a romance like Romeo and Juliet, you would not see Clytemnestra stab Agamemnon in a tragedy like The Oresteia. This spectacle is unnecessary and adds nothing to the story. So, rather than spectacle, in a tragedy you would hear about what had happened, or was happening, from another character, like the messenger or chorus. You might even see a body or two lying on the ground and the guilty party standing over them with a bloody knife when the door opens or curtain rises. These descriptions and after-scenes make a reader’s, or watcher’s, mind fill in the details and put pieces of the story together to get the whole scene. As one of my peers pointed out, often the imagination puts together something far worse than what actually happened. So, every reader’s creativity is tested at this point to see if they can come up with the rest of the story.

So, I want to do a little more exploring in the realm of tragedy. I have so little experience in it, and I think that not only will I benefit from this new adventure, but my future students will also. I will not leave my students lost and confused as to the purpose of reading tragedies, or any other readings we will do. I would have them know why it is important. Reading expands your mind and strengthens your creativity. Reading helps you to evaluate the people around you in ways that you might not have thought of otherwise. Reading helps you to decide where you stand on certain issues, such as what is right or wrong. Reading can be a grand escape, or the chance to tour the known, and unknown, world that you might not get a chance to tour any other way. Reading can also simply fill time while you are waiting, but it is never idly spent, that time that you spend reading.

[student unidentified]

Part B: Option 4 -- Tragedy and Spectacle, including the Sublime (Obj. 2)

One of the most interesting and seemingly backwards aspects of tragedy is the lack of obvious spectacle. Unlike horror movies that implore the use of copious amounts of blood and close-ups of knives on throats, true tragedy cuts like a knife on the audience’s sense of inner peace and balance. Tragedy, though, is not about terror. The objective of tragedy is not to frighten or spook, but to cut straight to the psyche and extract that which all of us, in some way, have within.

The grit of tragedy is the reality that such a scenario could happen. Yes, there are crazed serial killers who lurk in the darkness, but we all have the same devices and mechanisms to cope with them, be it an alarm system, a gun, or our physical drive to fight and live. The villain is on the outside, the perimeter. Tragedy, on the other hand, does not need the gore to contend. It does not need to rely on spectacle to prove its point. In tragedy, the heart of the plot is tragic enough. Added gore would be overkill and unnecessary. Spectacle makes dunces of an audience. It lessens the amount of thought and emotion needed to really make one think, and cheapens a possibly good story. Spectacle lays out on a silver platter the crux of a plot, so the audience doesn’t have to use its mind. What we, as an audience envision in our minds trumps by far any special effect concocted by a stage crew or film producer. The imagination can horrify much more spectacularly with its own devices. The subconscious knows what scares the individual most and it is much more effective at creating a deep unease in the heart and gut.

Also, the heart of the audience does not need to see a blood bath. The audience yearns for the provocation of thought. Bad guy slasher films are too obvious. Yes, they can employ the mystery and suspense, but in the end, there’s “the killer,” simple as that. Tragedy preys on the other end; the “other end” being that its tragic heroes are not simply “bad men,” or “the killer.” Like real men, they have both good and evil within. This is what makes tragedy so incredibly sublime.

The idea of the sublime is that which is, according to Aristotle, both beautiful and terrible, pleasurable and pitiful, sympathetic and repulsive. While the audience is disgusted with Oedipus’ actions, they are also considering the fact that his plight was placed upon him. He is nearly without fault, because it was the prophecy of Apollo that ordained his destiny. Yes, he killed his father, but he did so unknowingly. When you contrast Oedipus’ good intentions with his actions, it’s hard to place blame on him alone and entirely. He left his home willingly, left his family and all he knew to keep from allowing the prophecy to come to fruition. This alone shows that Oedipus, at the very least, was repulsed by the idea of murdering his father and bedding his mother.

This, too however, is contradictory because even though he strove to stay his hand against his adoptive father, he is still a murderer, and a robber. While wandering the land, Oedipus physically attacked and killed a wealthy caravan of men. What does this say about his character? That even though he tried hard not to kill his father, he was okay with murdering numerous others. Herein lies the aspect of the sublime. His plight was handed to him, but even so, he snuffed the life of innocent men anyway. Yes, Oedipus was a poor, wandering vagrant, and that led him to murder in cold blood, but he was that poor man for a noble reason. It’s a vicious circle. The sublime in this is that even though Oedipus murdered his father and fathered children with his mother, he had certain wonderfully redeeming qualities that make it impossible for the audience to just outright loathe him.