twitter
25
edits
Tragedy: Difference between revisions
→Modern
No edit summary |
(→Modern) |
||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
* On a level quite above the immediate values of the play [''Antony and Cleopatra''] feeling is the quality most affirmed by it, indeed by all the tragedies. For this reason, Aristotelian categories seem to me quite irrelevant to Shakespeare — and even to Greek tragedy. A [[peripeteia | fall]], a [[hamartia | flaw]], a [[anagnorisis | recognition]]: the pattern must be stretched into a one-size-fits-all dimension to fit the plays. —Marilyn French, ''Shakespeare’s Division of Experience'' (1981)<ref>French, Marilyn. Shakespeare's Division of Experience. New York: Summit, 1981.</ref> | * On a level quite above the immediate values of the play [''Antony and Cleopatra''] feeling is the quality most affirmed by it, indeed by all the tragedies. For this reason, Aristotelian categories seem to me quite irrelevant to Shakespeare — and even to Greek tragedy. A [[peripeteia | fall]], a [[hamartia | flaw]], a [[anagnorisis | recognition]]: the pattern must be stretched into a one-size-fits-all dimension to fit the plays. —Marilyn French, ''Shakespeare’s Division of Experience'' (1981)<ref>French, Marilyn. Shakespeare's Division of Experience. New York: Summit, 1981.</ref> | ||
=== | === Contemporary === | ||
* In the sense of having been initiated by the hero himself, the tale always reveals what has been called his “[[hamartia | tragic flaw]],” a failing that is not peculiar to grand or elevated characters. Nor is it necessarily a weakness. The flaw, or crack in the character, 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, his image of his rightful status. Only the passive, only those who accept their lot without active retaliation, are “flawless.” Most of us are in that category. —Arthur Miller, “The Tragedy of the Common Man” (1941)<ref>Miller, Arthur, and Robert A. Martin. The Theater Essays of Arthur Miller. New York: Viking, 1941.</ref> | * In the sense of having been initiated by the hero himself, the tale always reveals what has been called his “[[hamartia | tragic flaw]],” a failing that is not peculiar to grand or elevated characters. Nor is it necessarily a weakness. The flaw, or crack in the character, 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, his image of his rightful status. Only the passive, only those who accept their lot without active retaliation, are “flawless.” Most of us are in that category. —Arthur Miller, “The Tragedy of the Common Man” (1941)<ref>Miller, Arthur, and Robert A. Martin. The Theater Essays of Arthur Miller. New York: Viking, 1941.</ref> | ||