I suggest you keep in mind the differences between the two, specifically between the "heroes" of both. The Aristotelean hero is someone of imposing stature that has a tragic flaw, such as hubris, that ultimately leads to their downfall. The hero of a revenge tragedy downfall, however, is caused not by a tragic flaw, but instead by actions that the character happens to be thrown into. For example, it wasn't Hamlet's own doing that put him into the situation, it was Claudius and his mother, Gertrude, who killed Hamlet's father. Hamlet got put into a situation that wasn't of his own doing.
That is just one of the differences between the two, but that difference is a big portion of the distinction between the two genres. What other differences can you think of?
3 comments:
This is a great distinction, Ritchie. I’m actually studying right now and just went over my notes on that! A while ago, I was also looking over the difference between a comedy and a tragedy. I will refresh everybody because this may very well come up on the exam. In a tragedy, the protagonist begins in a prosperous state and then declines into their downfall by the end of the play. In a comedy, however, the character begins in a pitiful state and ascends into happiness. Essentially, tragedy is good to bad, whereas a comedy is bad to good.
Thank you for sharing your insights, Ritchie. It’s important to remember the distinctions between these two types of tragedies. I think the fact that Hamlet was thrown into the situation he found himself in (it wasn’t due to his actions) makes his ultimate downfall all the more tragic and improves the FOIL of Fortinbrause. Both were put in similar situations, however they handled them in drastically different ways and, as a result, found themselves with different outcomes.
Thanks for pointing out the distinction, Ritchie. I did not realize that there was a difference between Shakespearean and Aristotelian tragedies. I thought that Medea was different from the other tragedies that we read such as Macbeth. In Macbeth, the tragic protagonist's downfall was not really a result of the situation that he was thrown into but rather his own errors in judgement. However, in Medea, the tragic protagonist was pretty much thrown into the situation and the downfall was pretty much unavoidable. I never realized the concrete distinctions between the two types of tragedies. I just thought that Shakespeare tried to carry the legacy of greek tragedies with his own twist because both share so many similar characteristics.
Post a Comment