Not at all. A tragedy is not characterised by an unlikable protagonist, nor by that character engineering their own downfall or death, nor by the protagonist's death, having the bad guys win, or a downer ending.
Having a flaw does not make a character unlikable. Being a villain also does not make a character unlikable. Nothing prevents the protagonist of a tragedy from being a likable villain. The main character of a tragedy is often portrayed as sympathetic in spite of their flaw, even if they are explicitly a villain. Though it should be noted that sympathetic does not mean blameless.
The protagonist also does not need to engineer their own downfall or death. They must cause it, but they don't have to engineer it, just as pushing over the first domino in a course of dominoes doesn't automatically mean you were also the one who set up the entire thing. Frequently, it's the opposite. A common theme of classical tragedies is the inevitability of fate. And as such, there was no way to avoid the ultimate outcome from the start. Fatal flaws and mistakes caused by such flaws are part of the setup, of the hand that has been dealt. Their fatal flaw tends to be the primary thing the protagonist has no control over. If they did, their fate might have been averted, but it was not to be.
The death of the protagonist does also not necessarily have to mean that the antagonist wins. The antagonist might lose as well. Though, given that in a tragedy the protagonist's nature forms their biggest obstacle, there may not be a central antagonist to overcome. Whether the protagonist is good or bad can also vary. They can also be neither. Not every work has to be black and white.
The protagonist doesn't even have to die. They must always "fall" in some way, but it does not have to be fatal. Oedipus, the main character of what is arguably the most famous tragedy of all, does not die at the end of the play.
Lastly, tragedies end with a catharsis. They're not just a "downer ending" that leaves you feeling empty at the end. The name of the trope might seem to imply that, but an important characteristic of a tragedy is that the ending feels meaningful in some way. Even if it all comes to nothing, that doesn't mean it was for nothing.
Tragedy is a complex genre and one that is more alive than ever. If your typical tragedy really fit the description you provided, it would not have any real relevance today. Fortunately, most tragedies are not like that in the slightest.
Is it really correct to say that Tragedy is a dying genre? Pretty much every critically acclaimed cable drama of the past ten years (The Sopranos, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Boardwalk Empire, and to a lesser extent, The Wire) has been a Classical Tragedy.
SaltyWafflesPD
How is tragedy solely about the fall of a great man? A vast majority of tragedies in real life are about the suffering of innocent people due to natural disasters or the actions of other people.
Hide / Show Replies
I think you are confusing "tragedy" in the narrower sense of the literary genre with the more common modern usage of the term as "something really sad". Classical tragedy, by its nature, involves the downfall of a person through their own flaws and mistakes. Often, the character in question will be a male aristocrat, since the "fall" in his case will be greater and more pronounced. The character need not be a sympathetic one, nor must his downfall be seen as a Downer Ending (cf. Macbeth).
Only later did it come to mean any story with a sad ending and, by extension, unfortunate events in real life.
Edited by KorKhan
Teapot
Heavily abridged a natter-filled entry. Here is the original version, for reference.
- William Shakespeare wrote quite a few: Macbeth, Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, and Titus Andronicus (just to name a few). Romeo and Juliet, though commonly labeled as one, isn't actually a tragedy per se, as the ultimate unhappy ending comes as a result of bad luck, not any particular character's flaw.
- No character flaws? Romeo was a teenage boy who had just broken up with a girl who he chased into chastity with his obsessive love, when he met 13-year-old Juliet, who needed to pick a husband soon by her mother's pressure. The entire point of the play is the folly of rushed love and rushed action.
- Of course, the ending probably could have been prevented if the titular characters were not quite so impulsive, especially Romeo committing suicide right after Juliet's supposed death before thinking things through. Even if she was dead, life still goes on.
- But then would the play have been half as interesting or merely pointless?
- It's not so much a question of whether his lack of flaws would make the play interesting. A Tragedy isn't a Tragedy if its tragic hero doesn't have a tragic flaw. Romeo's was his impulsiveness. His immediate love for Juliet, and immediately wanting to marry her and being willing to die for her drives the whole story of the play. And his impulsive murder of Tybalt for killing Mercutio leads to his downfall in his banishment. He even comes close to killing himself in front of Friar Lawrence when he hears this news. And then, of course, his suicide when he's heard Juliet is dead. Had he waited even a day to think about things, he would've been spared his and Juliet's death and they would've lived happily in Mantua. While the play does have the message of not being able to escape fate and tragic coincidence, Romeo drives the story through being brash and impulsive, his fatal flaw.
- But then would the play have been half as interesting or merely pointless?
- Romeo and Juliet is often classified a tragicomedy or a problem play, because, while it has a tragic conclusion, it more closely follows the comedic form.
Do tragedies always have to involve an unlikable protagonist engineering his own downfall and death? Isn't killing off the protagonist and having the bad guys win enough of a downer ending?
Hide / Show Replies