Let us remind ourselves of Aristotle's definition of a
tragedy, which I think your question is referring to. He argued that tragic dramas
should be focused on a single protagonist, or hero. This protagonist should
be:
[a] character between ...
extremes--[one] who is not eminently good and just, yet whose misfortune is brought
about not by vice or depravity, but by some error or frailty. He must be one who is
highly renowned and prosperous--a personage like Oedipus ... or other illustrious
[persons]. ( href="http://ethics.sandiego.edu/Books/Aristotle/Poetics/Aristotle_Poetics_IE&NS.htm">Poetics
13)
Often this
frailty takes the form of arrogance. Now, if we examine A Doll's
House considering these categories, we can see that it doesn't have much
correlation with Aristotle's definition of a tragedy. It does indeed focus on one
character, but as we get to know Nora more as the play progresses, we see that her
tragic frailties are the result of other people keeping her in a childlike state. In
fact, I would want to question whether we can actually consider this play a tragedy at
all.
Maybe this is a controversial view, but what we
actually see during the course of the play is that Nora finds herself and matures. Her
shocking decision to leave her husband and children at the end of the play has actually
been viewed as a triumph by many critics through the years. Normally, in tragedies
beginning with the Renaissance, the protagonist dies as a result of their tragic frailty
and this brings the play to a close. With Nora, the play ends with her slamming the
front door shut as she goes out to begin a new life, with all the possibilities that
this can bring her. I think it is hard to view this in tragic terms, though her exit can
be seen as a form of exile, which was an option for Aristotelian tragic
protagonists.
No comments:
Post a Comment