(2016 final exam assignment) Sample Student Final Exam Essays 2016 Essay 2. Learning about Tragedy

LITR 4370 Tragedy  Model Assignments

Angela Copper

8 July 2016

Complex yet Evocative: The Undying Art of Tragedy

          Tragedy, in its conversational usage, refers to an unfortunate, sad, and perhaps unanticipated event. The academic definition of tragedy refers to a genre which finds its roots in Greek drama. Even though I had a general understanding of this latter meaning to tragedy—I knew of Medea and Hamlet, Oedipus and Othello—for most of my student career I have still incorporated the informal definition with the formal, meaning that in my mind a tragedy was simply a “sad play.” Upon taking this class, however, I have learned a lot about the meaning of tragedy as a literary genre. I have learned about the importance of plot to a tragedy, as opposed to the importance of individual characterization found in romance. I have learned of the “mixed” characters that are found in tragedy—and how the unfolding of events upon these characters intends to inspire catharsis, a strong release of emotions brought on by pity and fear. Perhaps the most important thing that I have learned is that tragedy is constantly evolving, growing. As an extremely complex genre which exhibits human suffering as its primary design, tragedy will never “fall out of fashion.” It is too near and dear to us. It is not looked down upon as a “lesser” genre, as may occur with comedy and satire, and it does not make man out to be better, as in romance. Tragedy strikes a chord with humanity in a way that other genres fundamentally cannot.

          While tragedy is interesting and complex and often shocking, it is not perfect. If “the same qualities that make tragedy great may also limit in complementary ways” (White) it is because tragedy, as any other genre, has its confinements. While it certainly will not fall out of fashion, tragedy is not particularly popular to start with. Tragic works do not make us joyful or inspired in the same way that comedies and romances do. Especially in America, tragedies are not as popular due to the tragic plot seeming to revolve around an unavoidable chain of events. Whatever the “tragic hero” does to resolve a situation only sows his fate deeper into the field. In an individualistic culture, it is hard to relate to classic Greek tragedies wherein man is a puppet or an insect, writhing in futility against the will of Fate and the gods.

          Indeed, in an individualistic culture, traditional tragic heroes may not be able find their place. Tragic characters are often more “noble” in station or spirit than comic, romantic, or satirical characters, which does not correspond with America’s “bring yourself up by your boot straps” culture. If a tragic hero is born into wealth and power, has the gifts of wit and strength, yet still finds themselves in a downward spiral, many modern audiences may find themselves unsympathetic to the hero’s plight. When, in Sophocles’ Oedipus the King, Oedipus brags to Tiresias, “Mock my excellence, but you will find out I am truly great” (Sophocles 533), a modern reader may feel put off by Oedipus’ perceived arrogance and privileged position. This lack of sympathy interferes with the goal of “inspiring pity and fear” (Aristotle IX), also known as catharsis, which Aristotle describes in Poetics. Aristotle notes that it is important that a tragedy “not be the spectacle of a virtuous man brought from prosperity to adversity: for this moves neither pity nor fear; it merely shocks us” (Aristotle XII). Aristotle’s insight reveals that the reason why tragedy has staying power, regardless of the heightened nobility of tragic heroes, lies in its complexity.

          Within this class I have learned that the complexity of tragedy comes from its mimesis, or imitation. Tragedy imitates life, in all of its intricacies. In Poetics, Aristotle claims that “through imitation we learn our earliest lessons; and no less universal is the pleasure felt in things imitated” (Aristotle IV). Aristotle goes on to explain this pleasure through the example of a portrait painting. If a portrait is very much like the subject, the onlooker can enjoy it in two ways: by learning what the subject looks like if they have not seen the original person, and by appreciating how best the subject is represented in color, painting style, etc. The latter pleasure is an appreciation of the way that the painting imitates the subject, also known as the painting’s mimesis. Mimesis can be complex and layered, as in a portrait painting or in a comedian’s impression of a celebrity; or it can be simple, as in a child’s imitation of a cat’s meow.

The imitation of human emotion and action is what makes tragic characters less flat. Instead of being fully “good” or “evil,” tragic characters are “mixed.” In our approach to understanding tragic characterization, we discussed in class the notion that tragic characters are just people doing the best they can with the cards that they are dealt. No tragic character thinks themselves evil – they are all doing what they believe is just or necessary. This can be seen through a contrast of character analyses between the character Phaedra found within Euripides’ Hippolytos and in Racine’s Phaedra. In Hippolytos, the character Phaedra struggles to control her secret love for her stepson Hippolytos. Phaedra explains that when she realized that her self-control was waning, her “only obvious option was to die” (Euripides 3.72f) so that she would not act on her desires and bring shame upon herself and her biological sons.  While Phaedra’s sexual desire for her son is profane, her resolution to die before she carries out any damaging actions can be viewed as noble. When a nurse later reveals Phaedra’s secret love to Hippolytos, Phaedra decides to hang herself, leaving behind a tablet which accuses Hippolytos of raping her. This again reaffirms the mixed nature of Phaedra’s character, as she sacrifices honesty and morality by lying in exchange for assurance of the safety and preservation of the untouched honor of her biological sons.

Though Racine’s Phaedra tells the same tale of Phaedra’s illicit love for Hippolytos, there is a notable difference in plot and thus in characterization. In Racine’s version, Phaedra herself exposes her secret love to Hippolytos, who rejects her. Phaedra’s nurse, Oenone, takes it upon herself to frame Hippolytos. This simple change shifts the evil act of lying from Phaedra onto an outside character, so while in Racine’s version Phaedra is guilty of attempted adultery, she is not guilty of falsely accusing Hippolytos of assaulting her. Rather, even though Hippolytos’ father Theseus proclaims to Phaedra “Since you accuse him, I’ll believe him guilty” (Racine 1705), Phaedra still tells the truth, insisting on Hippolytos’ innocence. This slight difference in the plot and resulting characterization of Phaedra within the same overarching story shows how complex the “mixed” characters are in tragedy. All characters within tragedy have their redeeming qualities as well as their faults, creating realistic depictions of humans who resemble ourselves and those around us.

Often, in real life, the people surrounding us are our family. Parents and children, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives. This is also the case within tragedies, the best of which, Aristotle notes, “are founded on the story of a few houses [i.e., families] … who have done or suffered something terrible” (Aristotle XIII). The reason why a story revolving around a family can make a more complex and pitiable narrative lies within the nature of family relations, which are logically more close and personal than the relationship between two strangers or two enemies who come to harm one another. Due to the understood closeness between relatives, strong pity is felt when the familial bond is broken, “if, for example, a brother kills, or intends to kill, a brother, a son his father, a mother her son, a son his mother, or any other deed of the kind is done” (Aristotle XIV). This, therefore arouses the pity aspect of catharsis, which is vital to a tragedy.

The other aspect of catharsis, fear, can be excited through means of spectacle or through the woven plot. Fear, in relation to catharsis, can be defined as a feeling of shock and horror. In Aeschylus’ Agamemnon, the character Clytaemnestra kills her husband Agamemnon as well as a blind prophet, Cassandra, who he brings home with him as a prisoner captured during the Trojan War. The stage directions outline when “[The palace doors open, revealing the bodies of Agamemnon and Cassandra. Clytaemnestra stands over them. She is covered in blood]” (Aeschylus 1622), detailing a gory scene which would be shocking to the audience. While spectacle can be used in this way to inspire fear within an audience, it is important that it is carefully managed. Within the same play, the murder of Agamemnon was not shown on stage. An overdose of spectacle, such as a brutal onstage stabbing, can detract from the pity aspect of catharsis. The second way of inspiring fear, through plot device, can be observed within Sophocles’ Oedipus the King, in which fate curses Oedipus and his household, leading him to unknowingly murder his father and marry his mother. Free will is seemingly laughed at by the gods when Oedipus, trying to avoid a prophecy that was given to him by the Oracle at Delphi, proves himself a mere puppet of Fate and the gods. Fear of the gods’ power would have been inspired within the Grecian audience who watched Sophocles’ play. In the context of Ancient Greece, catharsis was considered to be an important part of the Dionysia festival which hosted most of the tragedies which survive to this day.

Though we no longer celebrate the god Dionysus and thus have no religious inclination to experience catharsis, tragedy is still of value to modern society. As detailed in the “Horace on the dual purpose of Literature” page on the course website, literature, according to the Roman poet Horace, can have two purposes “1) to entertain… provide escape from the limits of daily existence or to delight a reader or audience with its adept imitation of reality” or “2) to instruct … or provide models of behavior … to offer a moral or lesson; also to model successful style for other writers or artists to imitate” (White). Entertainment, while possibly more strongly present in comedies or romances, still is found within tragedy. The final scene of Shakespeare’s Hamlet shows an increased amount of spectacle for the purpose of entertainment. The deaths of the King, Queen, Hamlet, and Laertes all take place in the final scene, in which Hamlet and Laertes participate in a fencing match. The entertainment of the play is heightened by the choreography of the match as well as the gory onstage demise of most of the leading cast. Wisdom through suffering is a common theme found throughout tragedy, as in the Eumenides where Orestes declares “My misery has been my teacher” (Aeschylus 333). Human suffering is often displayed within tragedy as inspiring complex thought or emotion, as well as transcendence. Through the suffering inspired by his family’s blood curse, Orestes realizes that he must ask help from the goddess Athena if he is to ever escape the Furies. Critical thinking as a result of experience (White) allows for not only the characters, but also the audience to learn from the play.

          The complexity of tragedy does not only lie within the limitations of imitating the human psyche, it also can be found on a bigger, societal scale. As mentioned on the “Mimesis” page of the Tragedy course site, tragedy is a form of creative writing which “in imitating the world or its realities, puts the parts of a world back together again, so that all themes or ideas are exposed as overly simple and re-complicated, just as real life does to any and all ideas” (White). This simplification of complex ideas as an imitated aspect of our natural lives found within creative writing allows for the synthesis of complex ideas and human emotion within art. For example, while nature of civil disobedience can be discussed at length within a non-fiction essay, its ideas may seem unnatural, unpleasurable, and uninteresting to us. Conversely, within the text of Sophocles’ Antigone, the theme of civil disobedience is not explained directly to the reader or viewer. There is no critical analysis, but rather only the imitation of life, in which a young woman who is protesting the injustice of a law which forbids the burial of her brother is described as “not resisting” (Sophocles 425). In two words of stage directions, Sophocles is able to create an imitation of life and reality which can be interpreted to make a point about the value of passive resistance in civil disobedience. This demonstrates one of the great values of tragedy, and for that matter drama as a whole, which is to imitate life and human society in a way that can be pleasurable to an audience, yet “provide information about the nature of the world beyond the text” (White). This is to say that a work of creative fiction can be just as, if not more effective in capturing the attention of an audience and developing an interest in a particular theme or idea due to the nature of mimetic appreciation in humans.

As Scott Agruso said in his 2014 essay “Tragedy is Not Just a Sad Story,” while I still do not know even half of all there is to know about tragedy, our class discussions can act as a “sort of Rosetta Stone for understanding and comprehending” tragic plays. When approaching tragedy, it is vital to understand some of the components such as mixed characters, the importance of plot, catharsis, mimesis, family, and wisdom through suffering. After understanding the components of tragedy, the work as a whole can be appreciated more for its depth. I find myself explaining to my friends and family how interesting tragedy is, and how it’s not so depressing as it is engrossing and remarkable.