Modern Tragedy

In my opinion the ancient Greek’s position, as expressed by Aristotle, on tragedy and their emphasis on structure is extremely limiting as compared to modern forms of theatre and literature.  Specifically, the “contained” nature of to the Greek tragedy is interesting compared to modern drama, which perhaps to the downfall of many contemporary pieces of theatre, leaves room for the possibility of a sequel.  Furthermore the importance of plot over characters is hardly relatable to the present day where many pieces of prose spend more time with character development than with plot structure.  Whether this situation is preferable remains uncertain, however it is nearly impossible to imagine a tragic play whose characters are undeveloped or nonexistent, as this is what connects us to the chain of events being preformed and helps convey emotion.  However, what is the most alienating about Aristotle’s opinion on tragedy is his discussion of the appropriate selection of characters for the art form.  In particular his view of women as being unsuitable, as their as acts of braveness were considered tasteless in the society of the ancient Greeks is hard to fathom and seems quite offensive to a modern woman.

             

Author Miller’s “ Tragedy of the Common Man” is much more accessible to me, seeing as he viewed the common person as being just as capable of displaying tragedy as the kings were.  Miller’s conception of tragedy also appears to be much more free-flowing than the Greek structure, making it all-around more relatable to the present day.

[I did not wish to appear ignorant to Greek society and the institutional framework responsible for differences in structure/characters.  Instead it was my aim to diagnose to what extent these structural guidelines were adaptable to the present day.]