Because almost all of the classic tragedies, Oedipus Rex, Antigone, Hamlet, Macbeth, involve the nobility, some might assume that tragedy is just something for the upper classes. After all, most of the great pieces of tragic art star a king or queen, prince or princess as their main protagonist. There are people who have the impression that tragedy is something "above" the common people.
In his essay, "Tragedy and the Common Man", Arthur Miller argues otherwise. He believes that "the common man is as apt a subject for tragedy in its highest sense as kings were." And he does have a very valid argument: "if the exaltation of tragic action were truly a property of the highbred character alone," he writes, "it is inconceivable that the mass of mankind should cherish tragedy above all other forms, let alone be capable of understanding it." I completely agree with him on this. There is no way we would still be talking about and analyzing tragedy today if it wasn't relatable to the common people.
Miller goes on to write that the tragic flaw, a necessary character trait of all tragic heroes/heroines, is "really nothing--and need be nothing-- but his inherent unwillingness to remain passive in the face of what he conceives to be a challenge to his dignity." This is the lesson, Miller argues, that tragedy has to teach us: do not be passive in our lives. To me, this is one of the reasons why tragedy is still important today, the other one being empathy. Tragedy teaches us to look at characters fighting for what they think is right and necessary, whether it be truth, justice, or love. They fight like any other human would fight, making mistakes and committing questionable acts for the sake of their goal. In the end, they fail, but to the readers, they give a sense of hope. For in every failure lies the possibility to succeed.
In his essay, "Tragedy and the Common Man", Arthur Miller argues otherwise. He believes that "the common man is as apt a subject for tragedy in its highest sense as kings were." And he does have a very valid argument: "if the exaltation of tragic action were truly a property of the highbred character alone," he writes, "it is inconceivable that the mass of mankind should cherish tragedy above all other forms, let alone be capable of understanding it." I completely agree with him on this. There is no way we would still be talking about and analyzing tragedy today if it wasn't relatable to the common people.
Miller goes on to write that the tragic flaw, a necessary character trait of all tragic heroes/heroines, is "really nothing--and need be nothing-- but his inherent unwillingness to remain passive in the face of what he conceives to be a challenge to his dignity." This is the lesson, Miller argues, that tragedy has to teach us: do not be passive in our lives. To me, this is one of the reasons why tragedy is still important today, the other one being empathy. Tragedy teaches us to look at characters fighting for what they think is right and necessary, whether it be truth, justice, or love. They fight like any other human would fight, making mistakes and committing questionable acts for the sake of their goal. In the end, they fail, but to the readers, they give a sense of hope. For in every failure lies the possibility to succeed.