trgedy

In essence, tragedy is the mirror image or negative of comedy. For instead of depicting the rise in circumstances of a dejected or outcast underdog, tragedy shows us the downfall of a once prominent and powerful hero. The most influential theorist of the genre is Aristotle, whose Poetics has guided the composition and critical interpretation of tragedy for more than two millennia. Distilling the many penetrating remarks contained in this commentary, we can derive the following general definition: Tragedy depicts the downfall of a basically good person through some fatal error or misjudgment, producing suffering and insight on the part of the protagonist and arousing pity and fear on the part of the audience. To explain this definition further, we can state the following principles or general requirements for Aristotelian tragedy: A true tragedy should evoke pity and fear on the part of the audience. According to Aristotle, pity and fear are the natural human response to spectacles of pain and suffering--especially to the sort of suffering that can strike anybody at any time. Aristotle goes on to say that tragedy effects "the catharsis of these emotions"--in effect arousing pity and fear only to purge them, as when we exit a scary movie feeling relieved or exhilarated.
The tragic hero must be essentially admirable and good. As Aristotle points out, the fall of a scoundrel or villain evokes applause rather than pity. Audiences cheer when the bad guy goes down. On the other hand, the downfall of an essentially good person disturbs us and stirs our compassion. As a rule, the nobler and more truly admirable a person is, the greater will be our anxiety or grief at his or her downfall.
In a true tragedy, the hero's demise must come as a result of some personal error or decision. In other words, in Aristotle's view there is no such thing as an innocent victim of tragedy, nor can a genuinely tragic downfall ever be purely a matter of blind accident or bad luck. Instead, authentic tragedy must always be the product of some fatal choice or action, for the tragic hero must always bear at least some responsibility for his own doom.
To come to a true conclusion as to whether Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman can be considered a tragedy in the truest sense of the word, it must first be understood what this sense is. In ‘The Poetics’, which is the earliest work of dramatic theory on record, Aristotle shows his belief that tragedy relies on the relationship between plot, audience and character. The key ideas of this are that for a tragedy to be a tragedy, there must be a tragic hero, a ‘man who enjoys prosperity and a high reputation’. This hero would often be someone of noble birth; for example a king, or someone who has the potential to achieve greatness. The tragedy would then be centered on the heroes ‘fall from his initial high status, in a reversal of fortune’. Aristotle named this term Peripeteia. This fall from grace would be brought about by the hero’s fatal flaw. This fatal flaw led to the series of events in which the hero’s demise would occur called Hamartia. The hero of the play eventually suffers a moment of insight, where he ‘realises what he has done and gains a new perspective on the truths of human existence’. This moment of enlightenment is called Anagnorisis. This, is then by Aristotle’s terms, supposed to give the effect of ‘a purging of the emotions that draws out feelings of pity and fear’ in the audience. Aristotle termed this Catharsis, and this moment of purging usually occurred at the end of the play. As this is considered the truest sense of the term ‘tragedy’, it is arguable whether Death of a Salesman really fits these parameters.
In some ways it can be seen that Death of a Salesman does fit some of these ‘rules’ set out by Aristotle. Willy does show a fatal flaw throughout the play: his self-delusion. He is so obsessed with being successful; he does not understand that he himself is the opposite. In his blindness he refuses to see that he is working for no wage, and that in the process he is damaging his children, in that he is deluding them as to what is needed to succeed in a capitalist community. His self delusion leads to him being fired, acquiring the scorn of his son Biff and his eventual death, which shows that his fatal flaw leads to his eventual Peripeteia.
However, he can also be seen not to fit with this view, as many believe he is merely trying to achieve the best he can for his family. Willy strives throughout the play to secure his families place in society, wanting more than anything else to make sure his sons is financially stable, and grow to be big successes. He also wants to make sure his wife, Linda, who, however harshly is treated by Willy, he really does care about is happy in life. This is shown in the play where he says ‘ you are my foundation and my support Linda’, showing he cares more than he lets on, and in that. Willy, also can be seen to fit with the idea of Peripeteia. His reversal of fortune is evident in the fact that he ends the play dead. His fortunes are obviously reversed as he starts the play in a position in which he still has a job, has some respect from his family and is hoping to see his sons start a business together and see them finally make a success of themselves. His eventual death is also tragic, in the fact the he, the salesman, sells his life in order to make his life worth living. He feels that in death he is worth more than in life, and so sacrifices himself so that his sons can have a helping hand as they would inherit the money from his insurance in event of his death.
However, it can also be viewed that Willy does not show Peripeteia. It is argued that this is the case, as he does not have a place to fall from, or a fortune to reverse. If the view that Aristotle’s views on tragedy were to be considered the true form of the word then Willy’s status in society, and his lack of nobility would mean that he does not qualify as someone capable of tragedy. His ‘fall’ is not viewed as a fall, as he had no status to fall from and has not lost enough as to be compared to that of a King losing his kingdom. But, Arthur Miller argues that, ‘insistence upon the rank of the tragic hero, or the so called nobility of his character, is really but a clinging to the outwards forms of tragedy’. He effectively states that he feels that you do not need to be of noble birth to experience tragedy, and if we cannot accept this view then we are clinging to the past.
Catharsis is also apparent in Death of a Salesman and is shown in the requiem at the end of the play. It is here that the audience and the characters on set release the emotions that have built up during the course of the play and feel pity and fear at what has befallen Willy. When the play was first aired in America, it is noted that grown men in the audience broke out in tears, as the play was so realistic they could relate to it in such a way, that they could see themselves in willys’ shoes, and could see what could possibly lay ahead for them.
Willy, however does not fit with some aspects of the poetics, such as him starting in a position of high status, or being nobility. His social status could not infact, be more dispatched from this, as he is merely a common man, struggling to make a living in the harsh, modern world, and is not born into a life of riches, power and influence. It can be seen however, that Miller simply thought this view of what makes a tragic hero a tragic hero outdated, and that if he bought his own spin to it, that he would be able to relate on a deeper level with the modern day audience.
Willy also does not have a moment of insight within the play, or at least not one that the audience is directly notified of. Even to the death, Willy thinks that wealth and material possession is all that matters in life, and this can be seen in the fact that he takes his own life to make a worth of it. He feels that in death, he is of more worth to his family, as he can provide for them in life that which he could not, and with the money they would receive, hope to give them the start they needed.
It therefore may be seen that Miller was not trying to fit with the conventional, Aristotelian view of tragedy, nor did he plan to write a play that fitted with tragedy in its truest sense of the word, and that instead, he wanted to make a tragedy that fitted with the views, worries and concerns of the modern proletariat. The very name, ‘Loman’, indicates to the audience his everyman, universal appeal. Miller wanted to show that tragedy can affect us all, and not just in the way that Aristotle shows. Tragedy for Miller can be experienced by anyone, albeit a King or a simple worker in a situation similar to that of Willy.
In conclusion it can be viewed that Death of a Salesman does not fit with the truest sense of the word, of which the definitions were laid down by Aristotle in his poetics. However, this does not mean that the play itself isn’t a tragedy, as Miller has gone further than to write within the constraints of an outdated definition, and created a play that speaks to everyone, and not just the select few.