LITR 4370 TRAGEDY Final Exam Samples 2015 (final exam assignment) Model Answers to Part 2. Complete Learning about Tragedy Essay

Part 2. Complete "Learning about Tragedy" Essay: Revise, improve, & extend essay begun in Midterms 1 & 2 on learning experience with tragedy, extending to include Hippolytos, Phaedra, and Desire Under the Elms. (Revise / improve midterm2 draft & add at least 5 paragraphs for 12+ paragraph total.) 

Victoria Webb
7 May 2015

Learning About “The Greatest Genre”

          Deaths, curses, and tragedies, oh my! I thought I knew what to expect when first entering this class; it was tragedy after all, and the greatest genre around since the time of the ancients. Having already established my love of Greek tragedies from previous classes and just from my own leisure readings, I was eager to begin discussing and being immersed in all things tragic. Because I am a literature major, I felt I was already familiar with genres. I had read Greek plays, as well as Shakespeare, so it was safe to say that I wasn’t entirely lost when it came to the texts listed in the course. That being said, I was interested in reading Nietzsche when first discovering that The Birth of Tragedy was on the list of reading assignments. I was aware of Nietzsche, only from seeing his work on the bookshelves of friends, but I had never actually read anything by him nor did I know his stance on tragedy, prior to entering this class. Reading Nietzsche and doing my own discussions over chapters of Birth of Tragedy, changed the way I was reading the texts. I began to imagine myself as the spectator and evaluating the importance of the chorus throughout the plays, as well as understand and appreciate the use of narration and dialogue in regards to emphasizing plot and main ideas of the plays. I felt that this gave me a better understanding of what I was reading and I was able to appreciate the works more than I had been able to prior to this class, and for the next few weeks I began to read the plays and texts much more in depth, I believe, than I would have previously.

While I was familiar with genres and classic plays, I was aware that I was nowhere near expert level. One of the first things we discussed that I found to be quite interesting was Aristotle’s Poetics. I had never read Aristotle’s Poetics prior to entering this class, and I found his comparison of comedy and tragedy extremely insightful for me as a student new to tragedy. While he does state that comedy is the lower form of imitation, after having read multiple works within the genres, I believe that tragedy and comedy are two sides of the same coin; both are “modes of imitation” (Aristotle’s Poetics, 2015). I believe that these two major genres of art must coexist in order to genuinely thrive. When I read and watched the play Agamemnon, I was able to see the coexistence of both tragedy and comedy, and managed to identify the instances where they worked together to create a deeper human connection. The entirety of the play begins and ends tragically, however, there are certain moments where the audience is taken from the dramatics, and given a bit of comedic relief. I believe this pulls the audience out of the depth of tragedy and levels out emotions. For example, the moment of Clytemnestra’s grand entrance to give the men the news of her husband’s arrival, she is a great big spectacle; the audience may or may not know that she has a hidden agenda against her husband. To those who may be familiar with this hidden agenda may find a bit of tongue in cheek humor when she exclaims that she will “give [her] honored husband the finest welcome home”, which is, obviously, murdering him and his mistress; the irony is all the more tragic. The greatness of tragedy is that when these plays are executed correctly, the performance, actions, and aesthetics are able to maintain and manipulate the emotions of the audience, which gives the spectators a deeper connection with the plays.

          Prior to this class, the only time I had heard the name “Electra” was in reference to the “Electra Complex”, which of course, gave me the wrong idea of what the Libation Bearers or The Mourning Becomes Electra would be about. I learned that any preconceived notions about classical works and genres should be thrown out before entering class; it is best to start with a clean slate in order to obtain and maintain the complexity of genres. After reading the notes over the play I could see was the plot of the story was the desire for revenge for the death of Agamemnon. This desire for the revenge of a loved one was able to demonstrate the mixing of other genres within the tragic play.

However, while reading and examining the play Libation Bearers, I was able to see that apart from the situational drama, the use of spectacle and repression had the ability of manipulating the audience’s emotions as well as allowing the imagination to run wild; this, in my opinion, and added to the drama. We had already learned about spectacle by this point and the significance of its use in performances; both the expression and repression of spectacle have the ability to create and suppress the amount of drama in the play. The reason for this is, according to the class discussion, sometimes it is the lack of what we see that creates the more haunting moments. An example I thought of that does not involve anything discussed in class, were classic horror movies that do not have any jump scares, and that simply present to the audience the uneasy feeling that something in not right. It is the feeling of unknown that disturbs us, usually because our imaginations have the ability to create more horror than any play could present (only we know what truly scares us).

However, going back to the plays that were examined in class, we see that moments The Libation Bearers present us with, use the elements of spectacle and the repression of it. In the case of the murder of Clytemnestra and Aegisthus, the act is kept hidden behind the palace doors. This hidden act is, of course, considered the repression of spectacle; now the audience is left to wonder what horrors are happening behind closed doors. Later, by presenting the bloody clothes to the audience we are given an example of spectacle (that which is seen), and now we, the spectators, know that blood was shed behind those palace doors; this too adds to the drama of the tragic play. By the end of the play we are given an interesting and well executed use of repression along with description of spectacle. All in all, the end scene with Orestes still seems, to me, a bit difficult to give a strict definition to, because while we do not see the horrors he witnesses happening before him (when he begins to see visions), he manages to describe these horrors with enough details to paint a mental picture. When he screams “Their eyes drip blood…” the audience cannot actually see images of eyes dripping with blood, but being familiar with eyes and blood, the audience has the ability to imagine the grizzly scene on their own.

I also saw the use of repression of spectacle in the case of Desire under the Elms, when Abby kills her baby. The audience is left with a horrible feeling after the infanticide, and quite honestly, it’s doubtful that anyone would actually want to see that dramatized. Being left alone with the mental image is tragic enough to want the play to finish.  The use of repression of spectacle definitely, in my opinion, created a much more tragic feel to the play, because while you read it, there is a time lapse that happens between one scene to the next, and it is here that we can conclude the infant was killed. These instances in the plays, to me, uses the elements of spectacle in a way that is the most beneficial for the scenario that is taking place. Understanding spectacle, in relation to tragedy, demonstrates the superiority it has in creating dramatics through the use of text solely, as well as overdramatic imagery.

          When reading famous works such as Agamemnon and Libation Bearers, I began to form my own opinion on the importance of tragedy within a literary perspective. I appreciated that tragedy is seen by Aristotle as a higher form of the imitation of man, however I also appreciated that it is more than that, and I saw it as a common connection of all man. Kaitlin Jaschek wrote in her essay “Tragedy is Real, Relatable, and Enjoyable”, that she saw tragedy as relatable because “it displays the imperfections of humans”. I feel like that statement simply and nicely describes the complexity and the ugliness that can be found within tragedy as well as humanity. Human beings are far from perfect, and while we cannot fully relate to all of the scenarios that come about in these tragic plays, we are able to sympathize with the characters. As a class we were able to discuss the “how would I feel?” aspect of the plays, which I believe, is one of the most vital aspects of learning literature, especially tragic literature. Together we were able to analyze the characters, actually attempt to see ourselves in the characters and, at times, play devil’s advocate. The reason that we lovers of literature, are able to identify with the characters in Agamemnon, Libation Bearers, and even Phaedra, is because, to quote Jaschek once more, the characters are never fully bad for fully good, but usually a mixture of both. Dr. White writes that tragedy imitates life “more than other genres…by representing characters as mixtures of good and evil--like you or me” (Tragedy, Terms & Themes). This purpose of imitation is to entertain and inform (White, Terms & Themes, Mimesis), and by tragedy imitating life, the audience is able to not only be entertained, but we are able to learn something about ourselves and humanity.

One of the most surprisingly insightful lessons was the lesson over comedy and its aid in tragedy. The play that took me by surprise was the play Lysistrata; this play that is extremely comedic, and was a play that I could not see had any relation to tragedy. How could a play that made sex jokes and had actors running around stage with oversized body parts compare to the raw depth that tragedy has? It definitely took extensive reading and in class discussion to get me to understand the importance of learning comedy in a tragedy class. Much like tragedy, which is raw human emotions, the subject matter that comes with the filthiness of the play also shows human needs unfiltered. As Dr. White puts it, comedy “represents people as well-meaning fools”. It is the humanity that is within these genres that connects them and also connects the stories to the readers or spectators; this unfiltered human emotion that seems to be the primary focus when we are learning about tragedy in literature and in plays. I believe that some of the reasons that these works have managed to last throughout the years is the fact that the tragic aspect is timeless, so the plays are able to be changed to fit the times, while still retaining the storyline, such as O’Neill’s version of Mourning Becomes Electra, which is just the updated version of the Oresteia. After studying and discussing in class what makes comedy so important in relation to tragedy, I was actually able to better understand that not only was there aspects of comedy within tragedy, but also that there may have been some aspects of tragedy within comedy, such as in the case of Lysistrata; while it is a comedy, the central reason for the women withholding of sex (the central reason for all the comedy) is the fact that the women miss their husbands who are at war. Both genres show extremities of humanity, whether it is extreme anguish or foolishness, and while tragedy will remain superior as the higher form of imitation, it still allows for appreciation of the lighter genre. 

          Of course, no discussion of tragedy can go without the mention of the most known and notably dysfunctional tragic family: The Oedipus family. Oedipus is a name that is just ingrained into memory, even if you have never read Oedipus the King in your life, you still know that Oedipus was the tragic king who killed his father and married his mother. But, what makes this tragedy so widely known, even without context? Just the concept is gut-wrenching, bringing even the strongest to gag at the thought. The curse of Oedipus is just so tragic because it was unavoidable no matter what measures were taken, and the sin committed was the most unnatural perversion of nature and natural order. The “tragic flaw” is what makes Oedipus so pitiful by the end of the play. The “tragic flaw” speaks for itself fairly well, but it was the term “hamartia” that I had honestly never heard before reading Oedipus and looking over the discussion questions. The easiest definition listed would be “1968 D. W. Lucas, Aristotle's Poetics ‘The essence of hamartia is ignorance combined with the absence of wicked intent’” (White, Terms/Themes, “hamartia”, 2015). That accurately depicts the cursed life of Oedipus; he is born with the curse and by will of predestination he ends up fulfilling the prophecy he tried to run away from, thinking all the while that he avoided his fate. This made me question freewill in all of great tragedies. Ultimately the reason I believe that Oedipus is one of the greatest tragedies and demonstrates the greatness of the entire genre; this is because, I believe, the play manages to create a unanimous feeling for the entire audience, which is usually horror, pity, and disgust. The universality of emotions within the spectators allows for tragedy to convey a message and receive a unanimous feeling in return.

          In the middle of the semester, when we had begun to read Antigone, I felt that I had a better understanding and appreciation towards tragedy than I had when first entering the class. I had previously read this play many times in high school and in junior college, and I was interested in what and how we would be discussing the play. It is a commonly taught play, however, I feel that the genre of tragedy is not usually taught as extensively as in this class. Having since gained a better understanding of what tragedy and tragic heroes mean I felt confident reading the play once more. I was able to comprehend Antigone as tragic in the sense that she struggles with civil disobedience. She struggles with doing what she feels is morally right, while going against what is instructed. This begs the question, is it better to do what is morally right or what is lawful? Antigone never settles for what is lawful but unethical, and ultimately her death is a sacrifice in order to resolve what has happened to her family.

Dr. White states that Antigone is not a philosophical debate, and instead it remains an imitation of life (Antigone). It is definitely a dramatic imitation of life and deals primarily with the issue of honor and dishonor in the family. Similarly, in the play Hippolytus, Phaedra also worries about dishonoring the family after she had fallen in love with Hippolytus. She hides her passion out of fear that others would find out and her reputation would be ruined. According to the notes on Dr. Whites page on “honor”, he has selections from various people, one of which, Unni Wikan, who states that honor “holds an alluring, even seductive appeal”, while shame is “the reverse side of the coin”. This is an interesting way to look at shame and honor in relation to tragedy. However the difference between Phaedra and Antigone is that Phaedra’s concern for honor was solely for herself so that she would be remembered as virtuous and admirable. Although, in both plays there is the issue with honor in regards to a “higher law”. Hippolytus’s honor and reputation is destroyed by Phaedra, but only after he refuses to honor Aphrodite by worshipping her. So it was the issue of giving honor where honor was due that was ultimately his downfall. Antigone’s concern with honor was her belief in the “higher law” and her determination to honor her brother’s body. Tragedy allows us to understand that there are instances where “laws of state” and “higher laws” are tested and we are faced with choosing a side, depending on the situation.

A major issue that I saw in a few of the plays we observed was the issue of honor within families. More than the issue of incest within families of blood or marriage, is the issue of honor and betrayal in the family. I believe it was that which made it the most humanizing quality of the plays. The betrayal of blood is probably the most tragic issue that is faced in many of these plays. In the case of Hippolytus and Phaedra, we see the same story being told from separate point of views. It seems as Phaedra’s tragic flaw had begun with her mother Pasiphae and her dishonorable lust for the bull and birth of the Minotaur. Phaedra claims that is a curse against her by Venus which dooms her (Phaedra 1:3:270-73); the family dishonor is passed down from one generation to another and we see that she attempts to dishonor Hippolytus by telling his father that he tried to rape her.

What I found the most interesting after reading the entire Oedipus Trilogy, is the fact that Antigone is more commonly read and studied than Oedipus the King. Antigone remains the most popular of the trilogy in comparison to Oedipus, which seems understandable in the case of relatable characters or sympathizing with characters. Dr. White mentions in his notes that it is due to modernization of tragedy and that we, as a culture now, have an easier time sympathizing with a tragic princess than a king. I found this to be extremely interesting, mostly because I had never thought about this before. What about a tragic princess makes her easier to sympathize with? I feel that we sympathize with Antigone wanting to bury her brother than a king that unknowingly slept with his mother. Both of the protagonists are essentially tragic heroes and contain the “tragic flaw”. However, unlike her father, Antigone’s character flaw, that eventually causes her downfall, is her deep devotion and love for her family and their honor. Oedipus on the other hand, was flawed by his own blindness to the truth. Her loyalty is admirable, but as Dr. White describes Antigone is “admirable but imperfect: her courage is romantic or inspiring, but her recklessness, boldness, or pride are as dangerous as her father's, so she is mixed and tragic” (Antigone). I believe that the admirable qualities of Antigone as the tragic heroine is what made her easy to sympathize with; it is those tragically loyal qualities, which stems from the essence of tragedy.

In the beginning of the class I felt no connection or sympathy with any of the characters we were learning about. How could I? These were extreme circumstances and dramatic plays. I still saw the plays as dramatizations of any real human circumstances. But, as I mentioned previously, those feelings for the characters changed and I was able to sympathize and analyze the plays much better than previously done. For example, I was unable to sympathize with Oedipus as much as Antigone while reading the plays, however, reading Oedipus at Colonus, which portrayed him in a different context, it was easier to see him as the tragic hero with a tragic flaw. In the previous play, his demeanor seems arrogant, and it is because he is a skillful problem solver and a great king. However, while reading the plot and the description of Oedipus in Oedipus at Colonus, there is a bit of sympathy for the tragic king, especially because the play begins with the blind Oedipus being led by Antigone. Even though at this point we are fully aware that Antigone is both his daughter and his sister, I feel like I am able to look past that, and see the bond of a family of tragic fate and genuinely feel pity for them. Interestingly enough, Shelby Hollen wrote in her first midterm about her learning experience was her ability to relate to the stories. I agree with her because I have also began to find myself feeling for these characters, and it is due to the fact that I have learned to observe and feel what the play intends for me to feel. However, I think that it is more than just sympathizing with the protagonists of the plays, it becomes a full emersion of emotions towards the situation. For example in Desire under the Elms, there is a mixture of emotions towards Eben and Abby’s relationship from beginning to end. While in the beginning the audience can see the relationship as a tragic romance, and it develops into an unhealthy and deadly obsession. In the case of this play I felt barely able to keep up with the emotions, but overall, I felt that this play pulled off the essence of tragedy beautifully with the overt display of human flaws.

It has been very interesting to learn about tragic plays more in depth than previously taught. For example, I was unaware of the Apollonian/Dionysus concept and now I cannot stop seeing order versus chaos in any movie or play I watch. I was, of course, drawn to the Dionysian style more than Apollonian and so my favorite of all the texts read has been The Bacchae. The humor and wit is easy to see in this play; although, a wine god forcing the king to cross-dress only to have his drugged mother kill him because she thinks he’s a lion, is probably not the most appropriate moment to snicker at. I’ve learned that most tragedies do have comedic moments, even if they are not necessarily “laugh out loud” humor, they may range between a witty exchange between characters or a dramatic moment of irony. An example of this from a Shakespeare play that we did not discuss in class, but I am familiar with, Titus Andronicus; in one scene when Tamora’s sons beg to know what has been done to their mother after she gives birth to a dark skinned child, Aaron the Moor retorts, “villain, I have done thy mother”. It’s not “laugh out loud” humor, but it is definitely a moment to blush at. It’s these moments in tragic literature/plays that I would have previously missed had I not taken this class. From spending the last few weeks examining tragedy as well as the other basic genres, and their subgenres, I have learned quite a bit more about how they may be intertwined, how they are presented, their forms, and essentially what gives tragedy the title “the greatest genre”.