In this TED talk, the speaker's main argument seemed to be that people's brains are bad at identifying when they are being influenced. He used examples of people buying newspaper subscriptions. Having an option that nobody wanted, actually increased the demand for a similar, more expensive version. The options were A, for 10$, B for 20$, or A and B for 20$. Obviously nobody would get just B because it's the same price of both of them. However when there are only the options for A for 10$, and A + B for 20$, the popularity of only A increases. Even though the option for only B did not take away from the sales of either option, it still played a role in influencing the buyer's decisions. It seems very easy to influence the human brain.
These faults are a human characteristic, and relates to tragedy because of how the main character always tries his best not to fail, or fix an injustice, but always fails. In Oedipus, he tries the best he can to not fulfill the prophecy, but even in his best effort, fails. Tragedy is not something that the character can control. Everyone always tries their best to avoid tragedy, that is what makes it so tragic, and relatable.
0 Comments
One thing stated in my previous blog for defining tragedy was not having to be king to be a tragic character. While this is true, it often helps if the character is seen as already higher than a normal man, therefore has more of a fall from grace. Oedipus is an example of a tragic character because of his commitment to cure the problems of the city. He is initially a liked character; The people of the city look to him for help because of his reputation. His major flaw as a character (as discussed in the previous blog) is his unwillingness to believe the oracle / his confidence in what he thinks he knows. He doesn't accept what the oracle says as truth, why should he? It is also filled with irony. The irony is that the audience already knows how the story ends. The oracle has outlined it all for us, but Oedipus won't believe what is said, so through all of the events of him trying to find out the truth we already know, it emphasizes the desperation in Oedipus trying his best to overcome this "unchangeable environment". Miller's first point is that the character must have a "tragic flaw". The flaw cannot be simply a physical defect, but a flaw that is out of the control of the hero, or maybe doesn't even know exists. The main character's unwillingness to remain passive in conflict is also necessary to show us how "unchangeable" the environment is, and how even though he tried his best, could not overcome. This is where, he argues, "--comes the terror and the fear that is classically associated with tragedy. That this "revolutionary questioning of the stable environment is what terrifies". Another argument he makes is that even though often they are kings, the main character doesn't have to be royalty to have weight. He states that the character gains size when "everything is in suspension", and nothing is accepted. "The commonest of men may take on that stature to the extent of his willingness to throw all he has into the contest". The argument is basically that tragedy can happen to anyone as long as they are unwilling to stay content with their situation, and act. "the underlying struggle is that of the individual attempting to gain his "rightful" position in his society." In his talk, Botton began with how the world perceives others. How people judge people based on many things that are mostly out of the person's control. He supported his argument with a comparison with the past. He said that in the past, the poor or the lower in society were called "unfortunates", and it was perceived as out of their control. That they were born into it. In modern society, he said you would be called a "loser". People feel like it is easier to move through "castes", and that anyone can become rich and famous. You are heavily judged by what your occupation is, or how successful you are. He also compares how a newspaper article would portrait tragedy, and how an Elizabethan play would portrait tragedy. A newspaper would headline it in a way where the unfortunate is in the wrong, and the reader shouldn't feel bad for him because of the outcome. A tragic play would show the unfortunate's story, and attempts to make the observer feel an understanding for his failure. For example, he used Hamlet. No one would think Hamlet a loser, because of how the story is told. You get to understand Hamlet's motives, feelings, and reason for actions rather than just judging him based on the result. My initial reaction to defining tragedy is that it's anything that evokes despair. I also think of the elizabethan plays like shakespeare. For now, this is all I can really say about tragedy. Looking at this wikipedia page, I see that there is probably many different categories of tragedy. This one is about a specific type of play, in which as the name "revenge tragedy" suggests, is a story based around the revenge of the main protagonist. The revenge tragedy purpose seems to be to make the watcher question justice. It seems that often the protagonist takes justice into their own hands, and "plays openly question the morality of revenge. In general, I think this is exactly what I expected to find, especially from just a wikipedia page. It just gave examples of tragedy, and a broad definition. I still do not think that tragedy is something that is that ambiguous. (Image is King Lear) |
|