 |
LITR 4370
TRAGEDY
Final Exam Samples 2017 (final exam assignment)
Model Answers to Part 3. |
 |
Part 3. Complete Research Report
Clark
Omo
10
May 2017
Tragedy Made Reachable
As
Nietzsche once said, “The realm of poetry does not lie outside the world…it
wishes to be precisely the opposite of this, the unadorned expression of truth”
(41). Such is true of Tragedy. Its truths as well as purpose are not beyond the
reach of those who study or indulge in it; its many themes and lessons can be
learned and understood, even more so by the minds of the average high-school
student. Tragedy has proven itself capable of reaching us in many different
ways, whether it be to expose a dire wrong or help us explore the emotions of
loss and guilt. Tragedy has its purpose to us as a culture and people, but also
to us as individuals. And, as for teenage students, Tragedy, from Sophocles to
Miller, offers a unique experience to explore emotions and quandaries that will
one day plague their lives both presently and futuristically; it offers them a
key and medium to examine these issues and conflicts that will ultimately better
them. And, when students realize this, they will recognize and accept the
rewards that come with it.
One
of the first issues that occurs when teaching Tragedy to high-school level
students is of, course, their maturity level. As Dr. Clody, Associate Professor
and Literature Program Director at UHCL expressed, the maturity problem greatly
impedes an instructor’s efforts to teach the Tragedy genre; the students at this
level tend to make fun of it and not take any of the themes, questions, or ideas
expressed in a Tragic story with any sort of seriousness, according to Clody.
Thus, they miss the point of the story. This is a detriment to the students
themselves, for they have reduced a story that could teach them fundamental and
applicable lessons to little more than a joke. The best way around this,
according to Clody, is to ask the students questions them cause them to think
about how Tragedy can relate to their lives. From Clody’s analysis, Tragedy
already makes us think of death. The idea of death and the peace it offers is
rife throughout Hamlet, probably one
of the most taught of Shakespearean Tragedies. Hamlet the Prince deals with the
idea of grief and pain throughout his infamous soliloquy. The struggle he goes
through trying to cope with it is evident in his language. Death is a thing that
we all must face: an inevitable fact of all our lives. At their age, teenagers
spend their mind’s energy on other things, but Tragedy brings this issue right
up to their faces and forces them to see this. And they must understand its
importance. Tragedy asks us to face our fears and apprehensions. Clody suggests
starting with a question that leads them into considering such things as death
and existence. Hamlet does possess
this power, and, regardless of maturity or age, it does have power. And such a
question that would prompt thought upon this idea is the following: “What does
it mean to put grief and death into words?”
Dr.
Clody suggests this by asking “What does mean it to have a medium?” for such
emotions and issues. And that is a good starting point, though the question
should probably not be asked in this way. Returning to the original question,
“What does it mean to put grief and death into words?” is a better way to start,
but essentially asks the same thing. As Dr. Clody mentioned during the
interview, Shakespeare’s own people did not speak as Hamlet does, and yet
Shakespeare chose to talk about death in such a poetic manner. Granted, most the
students have probably spent little time contemplating death and its meaning to
us humans. But they have at least experienced loss or disappointment in one form
or another. And once that bridge has been built, the instructor can then pose
the question “And how did that make you feel?” Emotion and human feeling are
tied deeply into how Tragedy operates, for the emotions often display or conceal
the thoughts and actions of the characters. Hamlet himself asks as though he is
mad to cover up his actual thoughts toward his father’s murderer, King Claudius.
And most the students undoubtedly have committed something similar: covering up
tears with a smile or expressing disappointment with anger. True, this is an
emotional argument and may seem somewhat superficial, but it leads to Clody’s
question of the medium. Shakespeare, through Hamlet, puts thoughts of death,
betrayal, and grief into words, something that not all of us can do on a whim.
And from there, the students are led to examine how Shakespeare is saying them.
Once that point is reached, all gateways open; they can explore other points of
the text such as Hamlet’s madness and the motives of Claudius. Basically,
encouraging student inquiry concerning the emotions of the character allows for
an inadvertent reflection onto one’s self. Students easily should see how they
compare to Hamlet, for most of them undoubtedly want to try and sympathize with
Hamlet, though the language and other aspects of the story may impede them at
first. But it is possible for them to sympathize, and if they can be led into
the situation with a question, then they will see it.
Furthermore, it should be understood that such sympathy is possible for the
characters of Tragedy. Dr. Elizabeth Klett, Associate Professor of Literature
and Director the Women's and Gender Studies Program at UHCL, acknowledges this
on a personal level in her interview.
She admits to sympathizing with Hamlet for his resistance to the status quo. His
struggle to be understood is a struggle that teenagers can understand, for at
that particular stage in their development into adults, they too are undoubtedly
struggling with their own identities. From my own personal standpoint, so was I
when I was that age. Hamlet tries to make his mother see the crime that Claudius
has committed, but she does not want to hear it. Teenagers feel the same way
when talking to their parents, and will continue to feel this way as adults when
they speak to a superior that simply refuses to understand what they are saying.
Sympathy is essential to emphasize when teaching Tragedy so that students can
begin to ask questions as to why the specific character engages with their
problems as they do.
Inducing sympathy is also why teaching more modern tragedies, such as O’Neill
and Arthur Miller, is an advantage. Dr. Klett states that commonness is an
essential aspect of teaching Death of a
Salesman, for Miller manages to bring Tragedy into the lives of the common
man, rather than keeping it restricted to the higher classes of royalty as both
the Greeks and Shakespeare did. This serves as another starting point from which
to launch discussions regarding Tragedy; if students realize that the event
portrayed in Tragedy touches even the ordinary man, they will begin to learn how
even more critical understanding Tragedy is when a higher class of society
experiences it. Tragedy’s impacts are not limited to social class or blood; they
strike even the ordinary man. When high-school students see this, they will
ascertain that Tragedy does not concern only death and sorrow, but also
highlights how these emotions affect everyday life. This path will lead them to
discerning the characters and the story, as well as all the other multiples
aspects that characterize a Shakespearean work, such as fate. Furthermore, they
may even begin to look at their lives and see how pain and death are handled at
their class-level, and then posit thought to how such emotions and events
described in Tragedies that focus on the commoner should be dealt with.
And
with this sympathy, should come an understanding of tragic flaw. Faron Samford
expresses the importance of teaching the tragic flaw in his essay. He says a
“reason why the tragic flaw is leaned so heavily upon in lower level education
is because it can be used to take very complex ideas about the nature of humans
and allow them to be put in more easily understood terms.” The tragic flaw, as
Samford states, is one of the many keys to the complexities of Tragedy and its
stories. By unlocking what is wrong with the characters, students will see how
and why the characters make the decisions they do, and such a realization can in
turn be refocused on the students themselves: “What would you do in a situation
like this?” Thus, the students are led into exploring themselves which motivates
them to try and understand the characters; once again, establishing an avenue
for sympathy. However, once the flaw is touched upon, there is a possibility
that students will come to different conclusions as to what the character’s flaw
is. If this does occur, it is not a detriment; in fact, it only inspires further
critical thinking. Students will hear other ideas from their classmates, and
then challenge or agree with them. Thus, a conversation rises from the silence
as the students start to engage with the text and its many lessons.
I
should allot some time to the Greek model of Tragedy. Dr. Klett states that the
Classical Model should be taught, along with Shakespeare or other modern
Tragedies. And I agree; the Classics are essential to understanding Western
culture and to ignore them in a classroom because they may seem unapproachable
is a gross mistake. But, there are issues with approaching this form of Tragedy,
and they were touched upon in my last installment into this assignment.
Obviously, these Tragedies focus on the Greeks, a culture that, though extremely
pivotal to Western cultural development, is far removed from the average
teenager. However, at their core, the Greeks teach the same things that
Shakespeare, O’Neill and Miller do. Indeed, Classical references riddle
Shakespearean works, and several of O’Neill’s works are directly based on
Classical productions. This just proves the point: if the lessons the Greeks
told can be told a millennium later, then there is a chance they can be told in
their original forms. Again, already explored in this paper, teaching the flaw
and forming questions that center on sympathizing with the characters and
understanding their emotions and motives should be the chosen method of teaching
the Classical form of Tragedy as well. Granted, the characters may seem even
more unapproachable than Hamlet; the characters are usually members of royalty
and they are Greek. But this does not mean that the Greeks did not understand
the essentials of existence. As Nietzsche said, “The Greeks knew and felt the
fears and horrors of existence” (22). The Greeks were capable of understanding
reality and life just as we are, the difference being that they attributed
existence’s control to their Olympian Pantheon. Their characters still make
mistakes and battle their emotions; one does not have to look far into the
Oedipus Cycle or Hyppolytos to find.
The Greeks still have their value and, if approached the same way as the other
tragedies accompanied by the proper adjustments, they can be taught just as
well, also.
Tragedy certainly presents a challenge to any instructor. Its lofty characters
and dark material often will scare and numb high-school students to its greater
and more essential merits. Yet, if approached by understanding the characters
from their emotions to their decisions to their flaws, the students will learn
to sympathize with the characters and thus form a connection. This connection,
in turn, enables the students to explore the characters and their stories, and
perhaps even allow the students to explore themselves. Tragedy contains more in
its stories than the rise and fall of a character; it is about exploring the
depths of humanity. And once students grasp this, they will discover that
Tragedy’s true characters are humans, which includes even themselves.
Works
Cited
Clody, Michael. Personal interview. 24 May 2017. Email: ClodyMC@UHCL.edu
Klett, Elizabeth. Personal interview. 25 May 2017. Email: KlettE@uhcl.edu
|
|
|
|
|
|
