Hey folks,
I had the pleasure of going through this passage recently. Here are some notes from my analysis - based on my understanding. The questions of this passage are of course fairly easy. It is the passage that can be tricky if we rush through. Hope these rough notes are useful.
1.
Two theories of tragedy a. On one side - Both do not properly explain the complexity of the tragic process/tragic hero
b. On the other side
(But) - each is able to explain some important elements of tragedy
c. Their conclusions are contradictory
i. Because of this, they represent 2 extreme views
2.
Theory 1 a. All tragedy is an exhibition of the workings of external fate (external fate is what creates tragedy)
b. Support/Explanation for above theory
(of course) i. MOST
(majority) of tragedies do indicate that something beyond our power (impersonal power, limitation of human effort) is at work (external fate)
c. BUT, this theory is an oversimplification
i. Mainly
(primarily) because it confuses the tragic condition with the tragic process
1) Explanation for the above:
a) Fate becomes external only after the TP has been set in motion. Theory 1 does not take this aspect into account
b) Example - Ancient Greek tragedy. Fate is initially internal, becomes external only after it has been violated
i) Parallel example provided
(just as): Justice is internal for a honest person, becomes external upon violation (as seen in the case of a criminal - someone who has violated fate)
ii. Second Reason
(secondarily) why Theory 1 is an oversimplification - it does not differentiate between tragedy and irony
1) Irony
a) Does not need an exceptional central figure (HERO figure)
i) In fact, the less prominent (ignoble: humble, not prominent, exceptional in any way types - non Hero), the better for irony
ii) Why: because the irony becomes sharper, in other words, a prominent hero distracts from the core message of irony. Having a non prominent character keeps irony in sharp focus
2) Tragedy on the other hand normally has exceptional, extraordinary HERO type character.
a) Destiny almost within grasp, just failed, adds to the tragedy feel (the fact that He/she was so strong and so close, but fell short)
b) Heroism creates the exhilaration feel of tragedy therefore. Unlike in Irony where we don’t want a prominent hero.
3.
Theory 2 a. What triggers the tragic process is mainly
(primarily) a violation of moral law
i. The Tragic Hero must have a sinful flaw
ii. Example (
again it is true - building the above point) - hubris, pride, passionate mind
iii. Tragic Hero - great person with a major flaw
iv. Him/her acting on this sinful flaw triggers the tragic process
b.
BUT such a flaw (ex - hubris) is only the agent that triggers tragedy, it does not explain any other aspects
i.
Just as, example - in comedy, the cause of the happy ending is only an act of humility performed by a noble character, disguised as a mean character
ii. The trait of humility can only explain the happy ending. Cannot explain the whole of the comedy. Similarly, the sin (say hubris) can only explain what causes/triggers the tragic process, not other aspects of it.
iii.
Only implies that this explains only some things, not everything!
What has the author done in this passage? 1. Introduced 2 theories of tragedy
2. Stated that while both cover some aspects, both also have issues
3. Discussed theory 1, criticized it
4. Discussed theory 2, criticized it
SummaryIntroduced two theories of tragedy and criticized bothI have highlighted specific Keywords in Bold - which can help in understanding the passage better.
Cheers!
Harsha
_________________