In Arthur Miller's article, Tragedy and the Common Man, he addresses the misconception classic tragic literature can give us that tragedy only strikes individuals of status or royalty. Miller says "For one reason or another, we are often held to be below tragedy---or tragedy about us." I think this still holds true in modern literature and everyday life. Although, we do not observe the tragedies of kings and queens very often we do observe the tragedies of a stereotype or two. When I turn on the TV I will often spend a few hours watching the trials and tribulations that rack the lives of honorable detectives or successful businessmen. When I walk the halls of my high school I see the suffering that some of my peers are dealing with. I hear stories of people who don't have a safe place to go home to or food to eat. I am neither particularly honorable or in an disproportionate amount of pain. I, like many others, have a fear of sounding like a whiny weakling if I were to talk about any tragedy in my life. Miler challenges this by insisting that tragedy doesn't discriminate, it can strike royalty or the common man, a person of integrity or a man without morals, a person living in poverty or a man of wealth.
Miller also questions the traditional definition of tragedy. He claims that tragedy occurs when an individual is willing to make a sacrifice in order to preserve his dignity or reputation. This is seen repeatedly in classic tragic characters such as Orestes, Hamlet, Medea and Macbeth. Each of these protagonists are struggling to gain or regain their rightful place in society. This article claims that a hero becomes tragic when he questions the unquestionable. This stand may result in the reaffirming of an accepted fact but for a moment things are in turmoil. Anyone can try to change the things believed to be unchangeable, that is not a right reserved for royalty. When a character refuses to accept what has been dealt to him, insists on "evaluating himself justly" his "tragic flaw" has been found. The term "tragic flaw" is used to describe an indescribable characteristic. Miller says "Only the passive, only those who accept their lot without active retaliation, are 'flawless.'" I believe this statement uses the word "flawless" in an untraditional sense, a sense that means the lack of a "tragic flaw" rather than perfection. A desire to be judged justly is closer to my idea of perfection than passively accepting what has been given to you.
At this point in the article I have decided that a "tragic flaw" is something to be admired, not really a flaw at all. Miller continues to challenge traditional ideas when he disputes the idea that tragedies are inherently pessimistic. "The possibility of victory must be there in tragedy." This is the element of the article that impacted me the most. It made me consider tragedies as much more than sad stories. Tragedies can be considered even more optimistic than comedies because tragedies encompass hope. Hope that the surrounding will improve or at least change, hope that we have to power to inspire that change, hope that we don't have to accept the situation dealt out to us at birth. "And it is curious, although edifying, that the plays we revere, century after century, are the tragedies. In them, and in them alone, lies the belief--optimistic, if you will--in the perfectibility of man." Tragedies say to us that we have the capability to improve ourselves, to preserve our dignity and to not only survive tragic events but emerge stronger than ever.