This is a short essay I wrote for AP English Literature, proposing that Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot does not fit either Aristotle or Arthur Miller's definition of tragedy. I just want to know if it's any good. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tragedy, as defined by Arthur Miller and Aristotle, has a clear, empirical set of finite characteristics that are used to instill a sense of pity and fear in the audience regarding the artist’s rendition of an action. According to these clear-cut definitions, Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot is not tragic; in fact, it is quite far from it. The nature of the action and characters in Waiting for Godot do not fit either Miller or Aristotle’s description of tragedy. Aristotle states that tragedy is, “the imitation of action that is complete and whole, and of a certain magnitude.” (Aristotle, VII) As it stands, Waiting for Godot is not an imitation of action nor is it in any way complete. Simply put, GoGo and DiDi do nothing. It is not a matter of plain indecisiveness: Hamlet, one of the most tragic characters in the whole doleful pantheon of tragic characters was marred by indecisiveness that became his downfall. No, GoGo and DiDi are not indecisive. They are just there, as featureless and decaying as the tree that stands behind them, off the gravel road. There is no magnitude in their breathing. Even Miller, more focused on the nature of character then action says that a tragic action is created by, “the underlying struggle… of the individual attempting to gain his "rightful" position in his society.”(Miller 1) GoGo and Didi are not attempting to do anything: they neither have nor lack dignity, they are truly enigmatic. So, without action GoGo and Didi are not pitiful, they are pathetic, and the audience feels no fear when hearing about their existence. The nature tragic character, while not as important as plot to Aristotle and paramount above all to Miller, disqualifies GoGo and DiDi as tragic. On tragic character, Aristotle had a few, specific qualifications: First, the character must be of the nobility. Second, their downfall must not come from vice. Finally, they must not be detestable or evil, but not so good as to not just have shock value alone. GoGo and DiDi fit none of Aristotle’s prerequisites to being a tragic character. They are not noble: Estragon spends the night beaten in a ditch. Even if they were noble, his sleeping conditions imply vice, which also would disavow him of being a tragic character. Additionally, while they are not evil they are certainly not good enough to be pitted. No, their nature makes them scorned by the audience. Now, it could be conceived that Arthur Miller, champion of the common man, would define the less-than-dynamic duo as a perfect example of the tragedy of the common man. Not so, however. First of all, Miller describes his common tragedies as, “those who act against the scheme of things… and in the process of action, everything we have accepted… is shaken before us and examined.”(Miller 2) While Waiting for Godot does force self-social examination upon the audience, it is through the absurdist, and not any kind of tragic, nature of the play that initiates this self-examination. Miller requires action on the part of his tragic character, which neither GoGo or DiDi portrays. Although Vladamir does examine and challenge the nature of the world in the second act, it is in his mind only and never passes beyond the realm of thought. Secondly, Miller describes the “optimism” in tragedy. He states that tragedy is optimistic because it portrays man, animal though he may be, standing up to the order of the universe. While not happy, it does inspire. Waiting for Godot is not inspiring. Vladimir and Estragon quail in the face of the universe, forever waiting for a saviour that will never come. The most profound sense of pessimism is echoed in the last line and stage direction, “Estragon: Yes, let’s go.” They do not move.
It depends. I've always been taught to structure a number (generally between two and four for these kinds of essays) of distinct, separate arguments with a separate paragraph at the top and bottom for an introduction and conclusion. You might have been taught something else, however, and I don't know the specific task you were given and how long the essay is supposed to be. I'm going to critique it how my teachers would have, yours might do it differently, so keep that in mind as you read this. Your introduction is superb, succinctly states the topic and who/what is involved, and more importantly it contains your very clear contention. With your second paragraph, your first few sentences are a little incoherent and not as "to the point" as they could be. The use of an example from Hamlet is fine, but you need also to PROVE that Go and Di are featureless and decaying, by using an example from the text, preferably a quoted one. The exact same thing should be done for the third paragraph, use a quote to suppourt your argument. If you can't, mention something like an action that supports your point that they aren't worth pity. Your final paragraph is a bit of a mess. I always have a conclusion that is separate to my other body paragraphs. Your final paragraph has elements of a conclusion, but it is also where you introduced another argument. Anything that ties together, leave for the conclusion. The conclusion should contain no new arguments or quotes. You link your arguments to your contention in the conclusion. Otherwise there are a few minor proof reading errors (ill do this later when I can look at it properly, right now I'm on an iPad) and things you should avoid. I'm not sure whether you guys use italics in essays, but we're not supposed to. In your final paragraph you start with "Now,". Don't. When you are quoting, don't put commas before the quote unless it's grammatically correct, which was not the case every time you did it here. I've always been quite good at English, but one thing I've always hated about English is how ambiguous the marking can be. Once my friend let another friend copy his essay, word for word and on the exact same topic. The teacher who marked the original gave it a 13/20, the other got a 19/20. Both teachers had been teaching English for over 15 years at prestigious schools, and both teachers are VCAA accredited, which basically means they mark essays that have a great bearing on a students final score after 12 years of education that greatly affects their future career prospects. I've heard of several similar cases. Hope this helps. Edit: Wow after posting this and seeing them next to each other, I wrote almost as much as you did XD
Thanks, but a piece of advice. As you move on in school, they tell you to stop using that structured nonsense and to 'be creative'.
I have a friend who is a university/college English tutor, and this is based off what he tells me. Essays do have to be creative, but also elegant, succinct and effective. As I suspected, things are done differently here. I have noticed American essays tend to value elegance and structure less than those of the British (and thus Australians), but are more emotive and, being less tied down, more creative. Anyhow, I suspect this essay is supposed to more expository and informal in the first place. Despite that, I have never known using quotes to suppourt your arguments to be a bad thing. And are you sure putting commas before quotes is right? I'll try to give more general and relevant feedback. You are keeping a steady voice/tone throughout, which is good. I still think the first few sentences of your first body paragraph aren't coherent enough, and don't flow well. However you should keep the rather illustrious style. Your sequential writing pattern was maintained well. Overall it is a strong essay.
Of course it does. On topic: I think it's pretty good essay, except you spelled "pitied" as "pitted" in the third paragraph, and it's bugging the crap out of me.
There a few of these, but I keep finding and loosing them. "Nature tragic character" is obviously wrong, and I remember seeing one or two time where you followed a colon with a capital letter which you're not supposed to unless it's a proper noun or something. "nature of character then action" should be than instead of then, and action should be followed by a comma. "Dignity, they" should be semicolon instead of comma "nature of the action and characters" double check this, could be right or wrong depending your meaning. Even if it is right, I would advise rewording it as it could be confusing. And that's just in the first two paragraphs.
Yeah, I kinda tried to do this as fast as possible because I kinda procrastinated. Edit: "Dignity they" works, I think, though it is quite awkward sounding. "Nature of the action and characters" is right: in what we are reading, action is used as a noun. Thanks, though.
Oh poor Lighthouse. It's okay, you could not have expected to have to read much on a forum, especially one full of political and philosophical debates and discussions.
They're not, you just want to be wary of the essay being just long branches of quotes. You want to use the quotes, not state them. I only did about 630 words, so I probably could have only added one more quote. I don't know about Australian English, but at least in American English you put a comma before any quote/dialogue. Actually, I find that forgetting the comma is one of the most common mistakes when writing. Most people either put a colon, which can be used to introduce a quote, but is indicative of a certain manner that most writers are not intending to use.
I think we should all be sympathetic with Lighthouse and force that every post can be no more then 3 sentences. Its the only clear option. I mean could you imagine what it would do to his little brain if he had to read alot......kaboom and then we would get a lawsuit on are hands for killing someone with words and books, and then that would lead to the state banning all forms of media and freedoms of speech to protect poor people like lighthouse form there head's exploding....... .....son of a bitch I went over 3 sentences didn't I.
There ya go, I fixed it for you by removing the punctuation and having it just be one long run on sentence. Should be safe now.
