The question of what defines tragedy has been an issue addressed by several different literary minds since the day of Aristotle, the first person to define tragedy. When Aristotle first defined tragedy he believed tragedy was something reserved for a person of noble stature. He said this person was eventually brought down by a tragic flaw, hence the term tragedy. Robert Silverberg agrees with Aristotles views on tragedy, but other authors dont accept Aristotles view so easily. Arthur Miller for example Believes any common man can be tragic, not just the nobility. And Richard Sewall, takes a view thats a bit different all together.Aristotle was, as far as we know, the first person to define tragedy, and his definition has been forced down school kids throats year after year ever since. Aristotle said a hero was a person of noble stature that was good, but far from perfect. A tragic flaw in the persons character then led to misfortune that they didnt completely deserve, and eventually the characters complete downfall. Aristotle said that the character accepted his fate, and that it wasnt all bad. Aristotles view that the characters misfortune was not fully deserved, but that the character was responsible for their downfall seems slightly hypocritical, but who am I to criticize Aristotles opinions.Robert Silverberg describes a tragic character as, a man (or sometimes a woman) of great capability and attainment and ambition, who attempts great things and ultimately fails in his attempt, overreaching himself and loosing all because of some inherent fundamental flaw in his character (Silverberg, 6). Robert Silverbergs opinion of tragedy completely coincides with Aristotle. He doesnt form any new opinions, and his lack of creativity and originality really makes his article Roger and John undeserving of mention in this paper.Of the four opinions reviewed here I like Arthur Millers the most. In Millers Tragedy and the Common Man Miller states,...
