Comparing Tragedy And The Common Man

In my opinion, both the quotes from Aristotle and Miller help to appropriately define tragedy in the twenty-first century. Aristotle, a Greek philosopher, produced a definition of tragedy upon which almost all tragedies are primarily based. He states that tragedies need to follow a series of principles in order to be considered tragedies. These principles are explained in Aristotles’ ‘Poetics’. Arthur Miller revolutionized the appearance of tragedies in his articles ‘Tragedy and the Common Man’ in 1949. Miller introduced features of tragedy that can be seen in modern film and drama. In his famous work ‘Poetics’, Aristotle defines tragedy as:

‘an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude; in language embellished

Aristotles’ protagonists revolve around kings, gods and people of high standing, but how can a normal audience of no noble standing relate to a king or a god? Therefore, Millers introduction of the ‘common man’ is almost revolutionary in the world of tragedy. Miller creates a central character to whom the audience can relate. The tragedy is instantly more appealing to the audience. The common man has faults just like the people watching in the audience, the most important of which is the characters tragic flaw, the fault that will inevitably lead to his downfall. Macbeths’ downfall, for instance, is as a result of his ‘vaulting ambition’ (Act One, Scene Seven, 27). Miller believes that in order to be a good tragedy, ‘the possibility of victory must be there’ (Tragedy and the Common Man, 1949). The tragic hero, must be willing to take on challenges and fight a battle that "he could not possibly have won,"(Tragedy and the Common Man, 1949) this is what makes the audience accept him as a hero who is worthy of their attention. Miller is of the opinion that twentieth century tragedies contain more optimism than those under Aristotles’ definition. There must be a brief moment when the hero has the possibility of overcoming his