Oh, Arthur Miller. This left-pictured dreamboat had already stolen my heart with "The Crucible," but how can you not fall into a deep infatuation with a man that wrote the phrase "paucity of heroes among us," or uses the word exalt so often that it's like he's Mozart writing a Requiem for the Vatican?
In all seriousness, however, I loved this essay. Not only did I love it because Arthur had suddenly decided to take issue with an ancient literary genre, but that it was so gosh-darn clever, and not to mention well written. It was the kind of work that makes me feel reverently inferior to such a great mind. I had a similar revelation when, in US History, we learned about Fredrick Jackson Turner and his frontier thesis. How does a mind grasp such already-complex concepts, and use them to expand and create genius?
Anyway, I enjoyed this essay for several other reasons, can you believe, beside its epic eloquence and inherent ingeniousness. I really enjoyed Miller's implication that the "exaltation of tragic action" is not property of kings and noblemen alone. He explains that the common man need only to posses the unwillingness to be passive. Romeo and Juliet, two famous subjects of tragedy, would not be struck with their tragic circumstances had they been passive about their love. Instead, they committed to their love until their tragedy ends. The poison, the dagger, the secret marriage, and ultimately their deaths are all results of the lovers' unwillingness to be passive.
As someone who would definitely be classified as a common man, or less because of my gender, if described in a Greek tragedy, I greatly appreciate this definition.
In all seriousness, however, I loved this essay. Not only did I love it because Arthur had suddenly decided to take issue with an ancient literary genre, but that it was so gosh-darn clever, and not to mention well written. It was the kind of work that makes me feel reverently inferior to such a great mind. I had a similar revelation when, in US History, we learned about Fredrick Jackson Turner and his frontier thesis. How does a mind grasp such already-complex concepts, and use them to expand and create genius?
Anyway, I enjoyed this essay for several other reasons, can you believe, beside its epic eloquence and inherent ingeniousness. I really enjoyed Miller's implication that the "exaltation of tragic action" is not property of kings and noblemen alone. He explains that the common man need only to posses the unwillingness to be passive. Romeo and Juliet, two famous subjects of tragedy, would not be struck with their tragic circumstances had they been passive about their love. Instead, they committed to their love until their tragedy ends. The poison, the dagger, the secret marriage, and ultimately their deaths are all results of the lovers' unwillingness to be passive.
As someone who would definitely be classified as a common man, or less because of my gender, if described in a Greek tragedy, I greatly appreciate this definition.