Talk:Tragedy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Theatre Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Rewrite it

This article needs to be rewritten, bad. Sadly, I'm not the man to do it.

[edit] Tragedy on Film

I think we should discuss how we are to take entries on tragedy on film before they go into the article. I've deleted the entire list, not because I'm a deletest but because I think we need to start from scratch. What seems to have been happening is anyone with a favorite movie they consider to be tragic edits the page and adds it to the list. The list of movies with "sad endings" which is the current Hollywood definition of a tragedy would be too numerous to list. Instead of a list, can we say that any movie listed must have prose included to explain its presence on an article about tragedy? --In Defense of the Artist 17:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Vadim Perelman's 2003 film "House of Sand and Fog" is subject to being labeled as a tragedy; a reasonable classification, but it truly depends on the viewer's opinion of who the protagonist is. If one identifies Ben Kingsley as the main character, it comes close to being a perfect tragedy (going by Aristotle's definition).--71.202.42.118 15:36, 31 March 2007 I Still dont know what Greek Tragedy is!....

[edit] Customized classics

I've tried to remove these links everywhere I've found them. "Customized classics" are a range of "gift" editions that put your picture on the cover, add a happy ending to Romeo and Juliet, and replace the names in the texts with the names of your choice: "Oh, Brad, Brad, wherefore art thou Brad?" Rather than "editions", they're toys and, well, gifts. Try if you will to imagine EB referring to this type of product in its articles about literary classics. You can't? Well, Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia too. Bishonen 07:18, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Aristotle's definition of a tragedy

To define tragedy as something with a sad ending is to trivialise the great tragedies in which the protagonist struggles with a fatal flaw in personality which ultimately contributes to or causes downfall. This is very much what happens in the great Shakespearean tragedies. Historically though, the opposite of the fatal flaw has never been celebrated, the vital virtue, the operation of which has a positive life effect. Modern advances in psychology and developments beyond theism in theology have pointed towards this possibility in dramatic expression.[Lyall Chittleborough, 25 September 2005]

  • No offence but how is that relavent?! create your own page about the 'vital virtue' if you feel the need, but that is not needed on a page about tragedy.
    • Many encyclopedia articles include definitions in terms of opposite, especially in cases when the opposite effect or operator isn't researched or developed enough to warrant an entire article. --In Defense of the Artist 17:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think either works, insofar as that (despite claiming in chapter 13 that good fortune to bad makes for a superior peripateion (reversal) than does bad to good) in chapter 14 he seems to contradict himself, saying that all other things being equal, he prefers happy endings to sad. And with respect to Aristotle's definition, a lot of the terms are ambiguous, or hard to render in English, or both. I think that somebody ought to point these terms out, either in the Aristotle section under "theories of Tragedy" or in the main section, where it offers some the original Greek terms from the Poetics. But I can't because I am unsure myself in several cases which rendering is most accurate. (The terms in question, which I suppose I ought to list, are: "mimesis", which is given as "imitation" here, and usually elsewhere also, but that makes Aristotle's claim that music "mimemata ton ethon". "Spoudaias" is given as "admirable" here, which I think is clearly wrong because it is always used to describe an inherent attribute rather than a relational one; "noble" is used by Else and by Dodds. "eleos" is impossible to get right in english; "pity" is customary & here also, but suggests a widening of the subject/object relation, while Aristotle suggests that the relation becomes less divided, in an identificatory process that enables "catharsis" (also ambiguous: various translators argue over "purgation" vs "purification" & I have no idea) but back to "eleos" for which "pity" is obviously a poor rendering. Bruno Snell likes "sympathy"; Sir David Ross vacillated between "pity" and "compassion;", and Walter Kaufmann assures us that all three are wrong and to use "ruth" (by which he means the thing ruthless people lack, as in Milton's line "look homeward angel now and melt with ruth.")The page does mention the ambiguity of "hamartia," so that one's dealt with already. In Nicomachean Ethics he uses its relative hamartema, but it's sadly a little vague there, too, I think. Also, the explanation regarding "anagnorisis" I think steps somewhat beyond Aristotle's meaning- it's clear in Chapter 11 that he's not talking about profound spiritual recognitions, at least not generally, but of events and things and people; he even says it's best if someone doesn't recognize a long-separated friend or enemy or family member (this is what the "bonds of love or hate" clause is thought to refer to, according to Ross, Dodds, & Kaufmann all.) Can someone good at translating things aesthetically decide whether for our purposes we can decide about the merits of these translations or if not whether it might address the alternatives on the page somewhere? Sorry for the block of text by the way, but I haven't figured out yet how to make it post in appropriate paragraphs. Thanks again. Sincerely, Vyacheslav —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flammantia Moenia Mundi (talk • contribs) 07:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I would propose that discussion of Aristotle in the introduction be removed from that part of the article and integrated with the subsequent discussion of Aristotle under "theories of tragedy." In this respect, he is properly regarded as one among many theorists of tragedy. Especially if we bear in mind that tragedies were written before he theorized about them, and that his take on tragedy is certainly open to dispute, wouldn't it make more sense to restrict discussion of his contribution to the section "theories of tragedy"? Leokenny (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hubris

Shouldn't the section on Greek tragedy also explain the cycle: Hubris; error, downfall; wisdom. Isn't that the core to every Greek tragedy? SOme nice stuff there http://cdis.missouri.edu/studentinfo/coursedata/2210/lesson01/lesson01.asp --Duncan 20:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How do you write tragedy stories?

How would you write them? Thats all i want to know, if anyone can give me any information or help, email Jenifer Tiren at virgochicmain@yahoo.com -k-, thanx!

You need a heroic figure with a character flaw, especially hubris. This hubris or other flaw needs to affect a decision or decision he makes and this leads to his downfall. This is as opposed to comedy where you get the character flaws leading to faulty decisions with a potentiality for downfall, but it all turns out OK in the end.

There are people especially on the continent of Europe who like in their post-Stanislavskian way to pretend that it is about man being the plaything of the Gods, but on the one hand such a theme is not a worthy theme for literature, which plays on questions of the human character and how he can improve himself, and not how helples he is, and on the other hand nobody is making the case that in comedy the main character is "blessed" by the gods.

I refer of course to the classical and original definitions of the words tragedy and comedy, to the extent that we know them. These days those words refer to very different scenarios, usually less specific as to genre. --Uncle Davey (Talk) 23:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tragœdy

Shouldn't this be spelt with a ligature?Cameron Nedland 22:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not my doing, but this is now in the first paragraph of the article. Goyston talk, contribs, play 19:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
OED doesn't record this variant spelling... it does have (closest I could find) "tragÐdie" (16th C) (sorry - that's the oe ligature from below, it just doesn't appear right in my browser) - and the latin should also be a dipthing (LOL!) DIPHTHONG (but since I can't seem to insert it right I shan't make any change)
But why pick just one variant spelling?
NB OED also says some authorities dispute any connection to "goat" and suggest this (which I don't have) as a place to check: L. H. Gray in Classical Quarterly VI. 60 (and references in that article) 89.133.151.74 13:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC) (sorry about the anon IP... switched to IE from Firefox and it didn't log me in..." Julian IDoStuff)

[edit] origins of word

Would it right in stating that tragedy lierally means song of the goat and thus -goats bleat when they are about to be slaughtered even though they may be aware of their fate they are unable to to anything about it? And thus the true meaning of tragedy?Joan Gos 04:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That is the continental European understanding, but we have the Stanislavsky method and the re-interpretation of all drama through the anachronistic prism of absurdism to thank for that. The "song of goats" may just as easily have referred to the payment of a singer or actor with a goat, or the fact that theatre was often performed in conjunction with the sacrificial times. --Uncle Davey (Talk) 23:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Also as to payment of actors in ancient greece. They were very well paid. They were called Hypocrites, (pretending to be something you are not) and they were the first professional actors. Jack mitchell

[edit] Help

Jack Mitchell. The origin of the goat song, Ode to Tragos, or Tragode, is the fact that the Greeks honored the goat for it's sexual prowess. The entire theatrical experience in ancient greece was based on the festival of Dionysis, the god of wine and fertility. Phallic symbols were the order of the day, and although tragedy was serious business, the party leading up to it was all about drinking wine and celebrating the phallus. If you want to know more, read Edith Hamilton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.181.235 (talk) 03:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


Can anybody help me get hold of a coupe of ancient Greek tragedy stories where fate plays a big role? It would be very nice of you, as I need it for a project I am doing. I am sorry if this is the wrong place. 80.213.189.129 11:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You should consult Rush Rehm's book Radical Theatre: Greek Tragedy and the Modern World as the modern concept of fate is ahistorical as it applies to ancient Greek tragedy. He separates the terms into moira and tuché.:
We might understand moira as the circumstances into which we are born. These circumstances include our biological inheritance and endowment; the realities of lengthy childhood dependency; the nature of language acquisition and physical development; the powerful influences of family, culture, and society; and the physical processes of growth, illness, decay and death. […] Tuché indicates the unexpected or unpredictable events that lie along thee way, what we call “chance”, “luck”, “fortune.” (70)
If you don't want to do that much research, Oedipus is the most obvious choice, but The Libation Bearers is more telling of how the ancient Greeks viewed fate.--In Defense of the Artist 20:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

An interesting point regarding fate (either moira, or tuche,or several other words; even "ate" as Aeschylus uses it), or even what various critics have called "tragedy of inevitability" is that Nietzsche is completely wrong about it: Aeschylus' 7 tragedies almost all assert that the tragic is not inevitable. In "The Persians" Atossa laments the foolishness that brought her son & people to defeat at Salamis. "Suppliants" ends happily; with a "tragic" ending averted by good sense; & the Oresteia's Eumenides actually concludes with the establishment of the Areopagietikon (or court on Areopagus)to prevent future tragedy! Prometheus chooses his fate freely again and again. Sophocles is more complex, but almost always places choice rather than fate in the central role (Ajax; Antigone; Elektra; Women of Trachis; Oedipus Coloneus). One might make the claim that "fate" as we conceive it is at work in only 1 of Aeschylus' 7 ("Seven against Thebes") and 1 to 2 of Sophocles' 7. (Oedipus Tyrannus, obviously, & possibly Philoctetes.)--Flammantia Moenia Mundi —Preceding comment was added at 04:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reservoir Dogs

I added Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs to the list because the narrator of the DVD commentary says one of the critics who viewed R. Dogs compared the movie to a Greek tragedy. So, it's at least the opinion of one critic and not of a viewer. I hope those who have the R. Dogs DVD will help me verify this fact. Regards, 199.29.6.2 20:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romeo and Juliet

The play Romeo and Juliet by Shakespeare in not an actual tragedy, it's a common mistake.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.93.117.209 (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

According to the First Folio it is, however its just a silly old book. What does it know? So, what would you define R&J as my friend? 90.207.201.197 13:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

Why the arbitrary links to the texts of three plays by Shakespeare? This is especially odd given how little time and space is dedicated, in the article, to tragedy in the English Renaissance.Brandon Christopher 01:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Satyrs

This article claims without examination that one explanation of the term tragoedia is that it derives from the "Goat-like costumes worn by actors who played the satyrs". This is a common confusion between the Greek satyr who are not depicted in art as a goat but a man with pointed ears and a horse's tail, and the Roman faunus. Twospoonfuls 18:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This is also confusing the issue later in the article about the satyr plays. Although it's is a fascinating discussion on the nature of satyrs, it is one that should go down on the satyr page. Only the reference to the satyr's costume should remain; the link to satyr is sufficient for those researches desiring more information on the nature of satyrs. --In Defense of the Artist 20:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
At the very least it should be pointed out that it is a discredited theory. Twospoonfuls 21:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] etymology

I don't mind the lack of sources, but what would be the consequence of this solution?? Possibly, trag- could refer not to "goat" but to trageîn, the 2nd aorist infinitive of trōgein "to gnaw". --FlammingoHey 19:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And this one is similarly strange: *The "tragic" sound of the goats that were sacrificed on the festival days, thus "goat song"; Scapegoat First of all, a scapegoat has nothing to do with tragedy whatsoever, and as the term had already been explained, a goat can not experience tragic. -FlammingoHey 19:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And I deleted a section confusing epic and tragic (which looked a lot like POV, too) --FlammingoHey 19:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theories of Tragedy

The Theories of Tragedy section had only Aristotle and Bharata Muni (the latter of whom I had never heard of until today but the Rasas page is confusing so I have to go to library). I added Hegel's theory, and Bradley's version of it, but I can't decide if the Hegel theory is made clearer by his general outline or by his comments on Hamlet. (Hegel tried very hard to be systematic about everything, but I tend to find his general theories clear only after I begin the discursive particular insights that he puts after them.) Would somebody who edits these things often enough to tell which quote is less illuminating mind deciding which is less helpful and deleting it? Thanks; sorry for any inconvenience. Sincerely, Vyacheslav —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flammantia Moenia Mundi (talk • contribs) 06:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead paragraph etc.

In response to User:Leokenny's comment above, the introduction does look rather odd. A good lede should be a summary of the article. I would expect it to talk about its origin in the late archaic period of ancient Greece; the etymology of the name; its development and refinement by the three great tragedians of classical Athens; imitation by the Romans; revival in the Renaisance and seventeenth century with Shakespeare and Racine mentioned as key practitioners; Then a mention of modern development and one sentence mention of Aristotle as the best known ancient theoretician.

The one other thing I would mention but which doesn't seem to be in the article yet is opera as an attempt to revive tragedy as a blend of the arts. I would have in mind both its origins and, given the mention of Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy, how Wagner's operatic reforms were also with ancient tragedy in mind.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)