Tragedy in the common man

1. In his essay, Tragedy in the common man, Miller describes classical tragic heroes as being “fit only for the very highly placed, the kings or the kingly, and where this admission is not made in so many words it is most often implied”. By this he means that the classical hero must occupy a position fairly high up in the great chain of being i.e.: a noble man or a king. Furthermore, this phenomenon might not always be distinctly stated but it is usually implied. Miller also believes that a tragic hero-modern or classical, must be ready to lay down his life, if need be, to secure his sense of personal dignity. The individual is attempting to gain his place in society.

2. Miller prefers for a common man to be a tragic hero. He believes the common man to be more fit for the position because “if the exaltation of tragic action were truly a property of the high-bred character alone, it is inconceivable that the mass of mankind should cherish tragedy above all other forms, let alone be capable of understanding”. What miller means by this is that if tragedy were exclusively to be something only higher class citizens were capable of being a part of, the majority of the population would not be able to relate- or let alone understand the tragedy itself. ‘If rank or nobility of a character was indispensable, then it would follow that the problems of those with rank were the particular problems of tragedy’, therefore it is more suitable for a common man to be a tragic hero.

3. Miller says tragedy is a consequence of “a man’s total compulsion to evaluate himself justly”. A man’s compulsion to evaluate himself clearly will without a doubt cause flaws in this man to surface. A flaw in this case, not necessarily being a weakness, it is simply a crack in the character. A flaw is a challenge to one’s dignity and only those who act against the scheme of things that degrades them can be considered a tragic hero.

4. Miller claim’s that those who are passive, those who accept their lot without active retaliation are “flawless”. This meaning that those who do not evaluate themselves justly, or simply do not act against the things that degrade them are “flawless”. They are not willing to take any risks therefore tragedy cannot be cast upon them. Miller believes it is better to be flawed because those who are flawed are the ones who will act against the scheme of things that degrades them. In doing so, everything we have accepted out of fear or insensitivity or ignorance is shaken before us and examined. The result of this re-evaluation of everything we have accepted out of fear or insensitivity or ignorance is terror and fear that is classically associated with tragedy. It is better to be flawed because it shows you have guts, you are willing to question things. You must think for yourself and question authority and to question authority you must think for yourself.

5. Tragedy is not necessarily pessimistic in a sense because it reveals a lot about a character himself. The tragic hero will come to a realization(V8 moment) and with this is fulfilled. The tragic hero has done what had to be done and is now content. It may be pessimistic for the readers but for the tragic hero the outcome is optimistic. You must put yourself in the hero’s shoes.

6. Pathos, in a tragedy, and in the sense that Miller uses it is the suffering and experience that a tragic hero goes through in order to achieve their desired result. Whether it be questioning society or questioning oneself, there is always a lesson to be learned. The tragic hero has fought a battle he could not possibly have won but has learned through suffering and experience. Pathos is usually viewed by the pessimist but tragedy needs a balance between what is possible and what is impossible.