One of the things that really struck me in our lessons during November was how we all praise tragedies and their writers to the heavens, and yet nobody seems to have a firm grasp of what tragedy really is. Everyone has a personal, subjective opinion about what makes a tragedy so great, and yet nobody seems to have a clearly defined idea of what tragedy is. Even the various dictionaries have different definitions of what a tragedy is, and each definition is so open-ended that it leaves the true definition open to debate.

Take Oedipus for example. What was his tragic flaw? Seeking the truth, trying to define his own path in life, helping others? In what modern context are those considered "flaws"? Quite the contrary, the very things cited as being Oedipus' flaws are qualities which our modern society sees fit to praise and encourage. Would aiding Haiti, for example, be considered a "tragic flaw"? Not in our modern times. Nowadays it might be considered misguided or low in our list of priorities, but nobody would consider it a flaw to want to help people.

I think that the point that everyone is missing is that there is no such thing as a true "tragedy" in a literary context. People come to bad ends in various books and plays, and obviously there are tragic events in the connotation of the word. However, I don't think anyone has a firm enough idea of what exactly a tragedy should be to say with certainty what is and what isn't a tragic novel or play. The idea of tragedy itself is so nebulous and vague that we use it to apply to many ideas in our modern society. Our society, and modern English as a language, depends far more on connotations than denotations in this time period. What is SAID and what is MEANT are rarely the same thing anymore. I think that because of that, tragedies have lost their appeal to modern audiences, as has analyzing literature in general. And maybe that's not such a bad thing. We spend so much time analyzing in society, looking for hidden meanings. Why? What is the point? Can we not just read a story for the sake of enjoying the story? People who say that are looked down upon by the "educated" among us, the "exceptional students". And yet, how is it that those people are happier in the long run than the educated ones? It's not that ignorance is involved, these people know that the literary elements and characters are included, but they elect to take the work and enjoy it for what it is. In my opinion, that's probably the better way to do it. This includes tragedies. People don't like looking for hidden meanings anymore, and a tragedy is basically a collection of hidden meanings and morals. I think that at the very least if we are going to place such an emphasis on tragedy, we should define clearly what a tragedy is, and then decide if it is a really important contribution to literature in modern times.