Way Deep Man...

I know that I was supposed to write this blog about some topic or idea that arose in our class discussions; however, after reading Arthur Miller’s essay on tragedy, how can I avoid commenting on such a complexly meaningful, yet incredibly simple, theory of literature?
Although I have never viewed tragic work as a whole as having a common thread of personal evaluation, struggle, and perfection, I absolutely agree with Miller’s definition of the genre. As I reflect upon the tragedies that I have read through middle school and high school, I now see that every work indeed involved the protagonist struggling first and foremost with himself to understand himself and to reach some level of “personal dignity” and his “’rightful’ position in his society.” Macbeth’s demise comes in his realization that he has fallen from his position as a scrupulous and honorable man, effectively destroying who he was and stripping him of his dignity. Othello loved too well, and in doing so lost the part of himself that he most cherished; his demise was induced by his moral crusade to correct his wrongs. Hamlet of course struggles with many aspects of his character that he views as flaws; he could accept them and live with them, but instead he strives to perfect himself and ultimately give his life to do so. Oedipus blinds himself in his struggle to right what he views as his moral fault, and Creon effectively looses his life (and becomes, in a way, nothing) in his final correction of his tragic flaw. Of course this applies to Death of a Salesman as well. Ok… I think you get the picture. I was well aware of the notion of the ‘tragic flaw,’ but reading such a unifying statement induced a brief ‘A Ha!’ moment of elucidating clarification. It was like suddenly stumbling into the Grand Unified Theory, only with literature.
So that was kind of cool, but what most struck me was Miller’s idea of the flaw as a self-defined presence in the protagonist’s life. All those characters that I just mentioned could choose to just get on with their lives and ignore whatever personal indignation that had disrupted their lives; however, they choose to identify and to confront their personal flaws and, in doing so, address who they are and where they stand in their own context in order to somehow cleans and perfect themselves. They could remain flawless in their own view, but they choose not to be. Consequently, in our own lives, we can ignore our faults and be flawless, or we can confront ourselves and everything we view as given and immutable in our lives in order to acknowledge our faults and overcome them. Tragedy therefore is not just a sad story, but an inspiration for the perfectibility of man. It is up to each of us to decide whether we heed the call of such inspiration…
(485)