Today we read "Tragedy and the Common Man" by Arthur Miller. The first part of the essay was very confusing. In fact, I misinterpreted this essay several times before I really understood what was being said.
If you look at this essay on the surface, it seems like Miller is asking why tragedy seems to be only for the highest class. After closer inspection, Miller is actually asking why tragedies aren't written today. He attributes this to the common man thinking it is for the upper class, which is where I made my mistake. This essay isn't really about the common man at all, and is more about what makes tragedies and why we still need them.
According to Miller, tragedies are usually made by a tragic flaw. A tragic flaw is a small, unimportant characteristic of the main character. According to Miller, this trait means nothing, except when it coincides with a challenge to the character's dignity. A challenge to dignity is what really causes a tragedy. This is true in Oedipus Rex, where Oedipus sees the blind prophet's warning as a challenge. This is also true in Antigone, where Antigone sees Creon's demands as a challenge to her dignity and Creon sees her defiance as a challenge to his.
Miller argues that this fact of tragedy is still relevant to us because we see this unflinching willingness to defend one's honor as something to aspire to. In a world where we often change opinions and remain passive rather than challenge the accepted. In today's world we value conformism and passiveness, which is the opposite of what tragedy is. To quote Miller:
"Only the passive, only those who accept their lot without active retaliation, are "flawless." Most of us are in that category."
The true theme of tragedy is the refusal to change or back down in the face of suffering.
Miller argues that this art form is basically absent from today's literature because many problems in today's stories are between the protagonist and himself, which prevents the necessary stand off for a tragedy.
Here's a link to the essay.