‘In tragic texts the protagonists are
exceptional characters who fall from good
fortune to misery.ʼ [Second Attempt]
‘In tragic texts the protagonists are exceptional characters who fall from good fortune to misery.ʼ
In Aristotleʼs Poetics, Aristotle stated that the tragic hero must be initially “highly renowned and
prosperous” so that their fall from greatness after their peripetia is much more cathartic for
audiences. In Tess of DʼUrbervilleʼs and Death of a Salesman, both Miller and Hardy subvert
this, presenting audiences and readers alike with ‘every-manʼ characters whose
‘exceptionalismʼ can be interpreted in various different ways aside from tragic kingship and
nobility. Their fall from good fortune to misery can also be argued, based on whether the tragic
hero was ever in a position of good fortune. In this essay I will therefore discuss to what extent
the ‘protagonists are exceptional characters who fall from good fortune to miseryʼ in both
tragedy texts.
After Miller published Death of a Salesman the criticism on whether the play was a true tragedy
led him to publish his essay ‘Tragedy and The Common Manʼ where he stated that he believed
that the “common man is apt subject for tragedy in the highest sense as kings are”. In an age
where “God is dead” (Nietzsche) and the Gods present in previous Ancient Greek Epic
tragedies have “metamorphosised into the fat Godʼs of consumerism” (Rite Di Giuseppe), Miller
presents Willy as an un-exceptional character relatable to audiences for centuries. This
introduces the true tragedy of the play which contradicts the question entirely. Willy never had
good fortune and therefore had no peripetia in which his luck changed, his only fall being from
the high-status position in was in, in his mind.
As Willy enters the play “tired to death” rubbing his sore palms together muttering something
along the lines of ‘oh boy, oh boyʼ, critics have stated that where Hamlet and Oedipus may have
ended, the tragedy of Willy Loman begins. We are introduced to the quintessential figure of the
broken proletariat who has completely internalised the system which has oppressed him. Linda
in her ‘small menʼ attention must be paid speech emphasises this lack of good fortune as she
states, “I donʼt say heʼs a great man. Willy Loman never had a lot of money, his name was never
in the paper, heʼs not the finest character that ever lived”, making Willyʼs position of un-
exceptionalism very clear. She directly lists in a lexical field of negatives and achievements all
that Willy ever wanted contrasting with what he never obtained. She mentions the idea of being
a “great man” yet what the characters fail to see is that those she describes as “great” men are
the upper class bourgeoise who Willy wants to be like, showcased in how he admires Howard
during the office scene. Willy however is the worker, and his tragedy is that of being neglected
in a system which seeks to benefit itself only. The characters and tragic hero Willy do not see
the fundamental class divide which prevents them from reaching this idea of exceptionalism
exceptional characters who fall from good
fortune to misery.ʼ [Second Attempt]
‘In tragic texts the protagonists are exceptional characters who fall from good fortune to misery.ʼ
In Aristotleʼs Poetics, Aristotle stated that the tragic hero must be initially “highly renowned and
prosperous” so that their fall from greatness after their peripetia is much more cathartic for
audiences. In Tess of DʼUrbervilleʼs and Death of a Salesman, both Miller and Hardy subvert
this, presenting audiences and readers alike with ‘every-manʼ characters whose
‘exceptionalismʼ can be interpreted in various different ways aside from tragic kingship and
nobility. Their fall from good fortune to misery can also be argued, based on whether the tragic
hero was ever in a position of good fortune. In this essay I will therefore discuss to what extent
the ‘protagonists are exceptional characters who fall from good fortune to miseryʼ in both
tragedy texts.
After Miller published Death of a Salesman the criticism on whether the play was a true tragedy
led him to publish his essay ‘Tragedy and The Common Manʼ where he stated that he believed
that the “common man is apt subject for tragedy in the highest sense as kings are”. In an age
where “God is dead” (Nietzsche) and the Gods present in previous Ancient Greek Epic
tragedies have “metamorphosised into the fat Godʼs of consumerism” (Rite Di Giuseppe), Miller
presents Willy as an un-exceptional character relatable to audiences for centuries. This
introduces the true tragedy of the play which contradicts the question entirely. Willy never had
good fortune and therefore had no peripetia in which his luck changed, his only fall being from
the high-status position in was in, in his mind.
As Willy enters the play “tired to death” rubbing his sore palms together muttering something
along the lines of ‘oh boy, oh boyʼ, critics have stated that where Hamlet and Oedipus may have
ended, the tragedy of Willy Loman begins. We are introduced to the quintessential figure of the
broken proletariat who has completely internalised the system which has oppressed him. Linda
in her ‘small menʼ attention must be paid speech emphasises this lack of good fortune as she
states, “I donʼt say heʼs a great man. Willy Loman never had a lot of money, his name was never
in the paper, heʼs not the finest character that ever lived”, making Willyʼs position of un-
exceptionalism very clear. She directly lists in a lexical field of negatives and achievements all
that Willy ever wanted contrasting with what he never obtained. She mentions the idea of being
a “great man” yet what the characters fail to see is that those she describes as “great” men are
the upper class bourgeoise who Willy wants to be like, showcased in how he admires Howard
during the office scene. Willy however is the worker, and his tragedy is that of being neglected
in a system which seeks to benefit itself only. The characters and tragic hero Willy do not see
the fundamental class divide which prevents them from reaching this idea of exceptionalism
