This article was an interesting read because a lot of what Miller said made complete sense, but I had never thought of it in that way before. It's always weird to read one article and have (this is the only way I could come up with to describe it) a mini-epiphany about your thought process on that subject.
One of Miller's main points was that we are a very prideful lot. One passage that really stuck out to me was in lines 31-36 when he says "In the sense of having been initiated by the hero himself, the tale always reveals what has been called his "tragic flaw", a failing that is not peculiar to grand or elevated characters. Nor is it necessarily a weakness. The flaw, or crack in the character, is really nothing -and need be nothing- but his inherent unwillingness to remain passive in the face of what he conceives to be a challenge to his dignity, his image of his rightful status. Only the passive, only those who accept their lot without active retaliation, are "flawless". Most of us are in that category."
I feel like a lot of the more famous tragic works are from way back in the day (because they are) when knights and royal families were more common. Shakespeare was really good at writing tragedies. Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet are both prime examples of a Shakespearean tragedy.
Hamlet shows the basic outline of a tragedy more easily than Romeo and Juliet, I think. Hamlet's father is murdered, and his irrational decision making turns out to be his fatal flaw. Hamlet was super single-minded. When he set his mind on something, that's all he could think about. The feeling within him to avenge his father, and take the thrown back from his uncle (who was having an affair with his mother), leads to his ultimate downfall. The feeling that he has to defend his honor, and spot in the royal family, is that "inherent unwillingness" that Miller was talking about. Hamlet just couldn't let a tragic event stay a tragic event.
One of Miller's main points was that we are a very prideful lot. One passage that really stuck out to me was in lines 31-36 when he says "In the sense of having been initiated by the hero himself, the tale always reveals what has been called his "tragic flaw", a failing that is not peculiar to grand or elevated characters. Nor is it necessarily a weakness. The flaw, or crack in the character, is really nothing -and need be nothing- but his inherent unwillingness to remain passive in the face of what he conceives to be a challenge to his dignity, his image of his rightful status. Only the passive, only those who accept their lot without active retaliation, are "flawless". Most of us are in that category."
I feel like a lot of the more famous tragic works are from way back in the day (because they are) when knights and royal families were more common. Shakespeare was really good at writing tragedies. Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet are both prime examples of a Shakespearean tragedy.
Hamlet shows the basic outline of a tragedy more easily than Romeo and Juliet, I think. Hamlet's father is murdered, and his irrational decision making turns out to be his fatal flaw. Hamlet was super single-minded. When he set his mind on something, that's all he could think about. The feeling within him to avenge his father, and take the thrown back from his uncle (who was having an affair with his mother), leads to his ultimate downfall. The feeling that he has to defend his honor, and spot in the royal family, is that "inherent unwillingness" that Miller was talking about. Hamlet just couldn't let a tragic event stay a tragic event.