Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 9626947" data-attributes="member: 177">Which brought me around to realizing that there's a difference between tragedy and pathos. To quote Arthur Miller:&quot;There is a misconception of tragedy with which I have been struck in review after review, and in many conversations with writers and readers alike. It is the idea that tragedy is of necessity allied to pessimism. Even the dictionary says nothing more about the word than that it means a story with a sad or unhappy ending. This impression is so firmly fixed that I almost hesitate to claim that in truth tragedy implies more optimism in its author than does comedy, and that its final result ought to be the reinforcement of the onlooker's brightest opinions of the human animal.For, if it is true to say that in essence the tragic hero is intent upon claiming his whole due as a personality, and if this struggle must be total and without reservation, then it automatically demonstrates the indestructible will of man to achieve his humanity.The possibility of victory must be there in tragedy. Where pathos rules, where pathos is finally derived, a character has fought a battle he could not possibly have won. The pathetic is achieved when the protagonist is, by virtue of his witlessness, his insensitivity, or the very air he gives off, incapable of grappling with a much superior force.Pathos truly is the mode for the pessimist. But tragedy requires a nicer balance between what is possible and what is impossible.&quot;So, if you are a witless and weak and always make the wrong choices, we are probably looking at pathos.&nbsp; If there is a fundamental admirable strength to you, and you end badly despite that, that's tragedy.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 9626947, member: 177"] Which brought me around to realizing that there's a difference between [I]tragedy[/I] and [I]pathos[/I]. To quote Arthur Miller: [I]"There is a misconception of tragedy with which I have been struck in review after review, and in many conversations with writers and readers alike. It is the idea that tragedy is of necessity allied to pessimism. Even the dictionary says nothing more about the word than that it means a story with a sad or unhappy ending. This impression is so firmly fixed that I almost hesitate to claim that in truth tragedy implies more optimism in its author than does comedy, and that its final result ought to be the reinforcement of the onlooker's brightest opinions of the human animal. For, if it is true to say that in essence the tragic hero is intent upon claiming his whole due as a personality, and if this struggle must be total and without reservation, then it automatically demonstrates the indestructible will of man to achieve his humanity. The possibility of victory must be there in tragedy. Where pathos rules, where pathos is finally derived, a character has fought a battle he could not possibly have won. The pathetic is achieved when the protagonist is, by virtue of his witlessness, his insensitivity, or the very air he gives off, incapable of grappling with a much superior force. Pathos truly is the mode for the pessimist. But tragedy requires a nicer balance between what is possible and what is impossible."[/I] So, if you are a witless and weak and always make the wrong choices, we are probably looking at pathos. If there is a fundamental admirable strength to you, and you end badly despite that, that's tragedy. [/QUOTE]

Verification