In the article "The Tragic Fallacy" Joseph Krutch presents the argument that tragic events and tragic literature aren't really tragic at all. "…tragedy is essentially an expression, not of despair, but of triumph over despair and of confidence in the value of human life." I agree. But I do take issue with the article completely skipping over the fact that tragedies are incredibly sorrowful. "Juliet died, but not before she had shown how great and respondent a thing love could be…" Again I agree, but it is not that simple. Juliet was a young girl who took her life and before the readers jump to the redeeming factors in the plot they must first wallow in the heartbreaking nature of the action. Her unrealized potential has been buried for eternity. When the tragic nature of tragedy is acknowledged I agree with Krutch. He claims that tragedy is the most hopeful of the genres. "…the idea of nobility is inseparable from the idea of tragedy, which cannot exist without it." This is because without tragedy there would be no need for characteristics such as integrity, honor, honesty or a drive for justice. Without failure there would be no success. All of those words are based on a comparison to something else and without that something else we would have no reference point. Anguish is agonizing when we experience it in the moment but eventually anguish provides us with hope. Hope for the future, hope that things will get better, hope that we can be better, hope that someday we will no longer suffer. Maybe that is a foolish hope, pain and suffering will never completely subside. But perhaps it is the hope we need to survive rather than the comfort.