Printable View
I'm doing an english assignenment and I'm stumped. We have to write an in-class essay on a tragic hero soon, but I can't think of any.
Can any one think of any (and maybe just a brief summary of them), whether they are real or in a book (preferably real though). Oh and it can't be someone like Oedipus, because they have to be a modern tragic hero.
Thanks!
Here are three I think of in that light.
Howard Hughes
John Delorean
Scott of the Antartic
Remember that Tragic Hero in the traditional sense is an already great man who over-reaches himself and falls, It is his own ambition that causes his fall.
The modern idea is someone to whom tragedy occurs randomly, especially when they dont deserve it.
eg, Christopher Reeve.
I can't think of any real ones.
From a modern book, how about Severus Snape of the Harry Potter series? He's larger than life, tragic, the tragedy mostly brought about by his own actions and because of the way he is.
Don Juan/Giovanni is a modern myth and you could argue, tragic hero (he has a flaw, and rushes towards certain death). The Frankenstein monster and I suppose Frankenstein as well, are other modern myths and possibly tragic heroes (there again, you can argue it), like Faustus.
Don Juan is often more of a comic anti-hero than a tragic hero. I think, even in Mozart's version, and especially in Moliere's version, we are meant to laugh.
I think also, any rounded character today has some flair of tragedy about him, it all depends however, on the ending of the book. If the book ends happily, he will cease to be a "tragic hero". Then, we can just say name some books that end of a sad note: long list.
I would think the classic 20th century example though, is Willie Loman from Death of a Salesman.
What about Boromir from Lord of the Rings?
"Remember that Tragic Hero in the traditional sense is an already great man who over-reaches himself and falls, It is his own ambition that causes his fall."
Repeat that, because otherwise the term "tragic" just ends up as a synonym for "sad." The flaw, however, need not be ambition. It could be any characteristic or sin that the gods may use as a lever to bring down any who dares to approach them in perfection. So Oedipus, for instance, destroyed by his, unwitting, incest.
Nostromo.
Tragic hero in that he is almost perfect, but undone by one "fatal flaw."
Modern in that he is of the modern world, albeit written a century ago, and that he is a man of the people, not a king or noble as classical, and even renaissance, tragic heroes had to be.
I've always thought that Falstaff was a beautifully tragic figure. He was the most wonderfully rounded figure I've ever seen and when he spoke, he seemed to contain the full measure of tragedy and comedy inside himself. The possibility for any action was ever present in his mein. He contained both low and high, nobility and vulgarity, the best and worst man can aspire to. To me, he was more a symbol of humanity than Shakespeare's Caliban, prone to frailty, which is inherently comic, but self-aware which made every action tragic at the same time.
If you want a real life tragedy though, I don't know that I could do better than Hemingway.
Arthur Miller wrote good ones. Eddie Carbone is definitely a tragic hero- his flaw is probably being entirely honest and open. He doesn't settle for half.
I would ask the OP to clarify the definition of *modern* according to the assignment. moral, Falstaff is a 16th figure who is a combination of the Vice and Trickster. If you want to decry modern and contemporary literature, by all means please continue, but don't mislead students who have to meet certain criteria.
Back to the OP: If you can consider mid-twentieth century, consider Faulker's Joe Christmas from Light In August. He is both a victim and and obstinate prideful man who brings his doom on himself by being an outsider, since he fits no racial profile xenophobic white Southerners can reference, being that he is neither black nor white. The novel is at once fairly easy to read but complex to negotiate, however. Depends how much you enjoy your own efforts at scholarship.
John Proctor from Miller's The Crucible is an idea.
If JBI and Bitterfly can reference Don Juan, then Falstaff is on the table. Besides, Falstaff is less a combination of Vice and Trickster than he is a culmination of Plautus' Miles Gloriosus character the boastful soldier run through Commedia dell'Arte. There is so much more to him than you imply. He has noble aspirations, a keen mind, and wit. He loves, and tragically is destroyed not by his many vices but by the very thing he loves. It was Prince Hal who killed him, banished him from the land, denied him like Peter denied Jesus. I think that's how we are supposed to interpret that scene. Finally, Falstaff dies not through the weight of years, or a life misspent, but from heart ache. He joins the ranks of tragic clowns like Rigoletto, and Pagliacci. Valiant, sensitive souls who hid their virtue under a veneer of buffoonery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
Would Rigoletto(1851) or Pagliacci(1892) be better for you? They are more recent examples than some of the others so far proffered: Frankenstein(1818) for instance.
It is the young who are guilty of imprecise use of language, but I am assuming *modern* means a twentieth century figure, fictional rather than real.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Regardless of implication, Falstaff may be a human farce, but he still has a direct lineage to the morality play and its limited stock.
I see Faust here. I see Oedipus. Nostromo came out in 1904, Light in August in 1932. The latest Miller referenced so far is 1953 so we're getting closer. How modern is modern? I don't think any of those is more helpful than what I've offered, and to single me out is disingenuous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
From what I can tell, the man means contemporary tragic heroes of the last fifty years or so. The only person who seemed to actually help the OP was mona amon with her Harry Potter characters. I might add that Into the Wild's real life protagonist Christopher McCandless would also fit his criterion.
I read modern, not contemporary. Generally when I read I instinctively read modernist. On the Don Juan myth, I merely thought the poster was talking about some rehashing, or perhaps even the archetype in general A good contemporary example is Greyon from Autobiography of Red, or essentially any Atwood heroine.
A slightly older example, though a potent one, the narrator from Aquin's Next Episode, who is an almost perfect example.
It is also common today to see rehashing of the Catcher in the Rye tragic-hero, especially in light of the teenage angst ever present in contemporary fiction.
Heath Ledger, Overeaches himself with one of the most difficult roles in memory, and it killed him.
You just beat me to this!Quote:
Heath Ledger, Overeaches himself with one of the most difficult roles in memory, and it killed him.
This seems like an obvious choice, to me. And, also, going with the Batman theme, I suppose Harvey Dent would count to a certain extent. It depends which Batman you read, though, and how you interpret it. Certainly, in the Dark Knight, he's a bit of a fallen hero.
My error on the real over fake. Real: Malcolm X Why? He knew he would be killed because he was a black militant with too much power at his command.
Good luck.
I hadn't really thought of that. I think of Lord of the Rings off of the top of my head, but then on second thought, none of the characters were truly tragic, since they either ended up magically coming back to life, Gandalf, or with an ultimate victory despite their hardships, Frodo etc..
I see a few people mentioning modern 'teenage' angst driven characters. But then are they truly tragic characters or are they merely stereotypes of the modern teenager? Or merely a heightened reality thereof?
That said, I cannot truly consider such characters to be tragic, since they are in truth little more than 'seriously' toned parodies.
hey thanks everyone who replied :D
I decided to do Howard Hughes, though it was a toss-up between him and Heath Ledger.
thanks again.
and fyi by modern I think the teacher means... since 2000.
[QUOTE=JBI;640969]Don Juan is often more of a comic anti-hero than a tragic hero. I think, even in Mozart's version, and especially in Moliere's version, we are meant to laugh.
QUOTE]
Yep, it depends on the interpretation. I've seen Molière's Dom Juan variously pigeonholed as a comedy, a tragi-comedy, or a comedy with a tragic ending, or a tragedy!! But you can laugh, and feel the tragic dimension - I think one does not exclude the other, especially in Don Giovanni.
There is a difference between "contemporary" (usually 20th century) and "modern", which if you're going to be really precise is not modernism but the period that runs roughly from the end of the Middle Ages to the French Revolution. Falstaff is thus in (wouldn't have said he was tragic, but like the argument!), and so are Faustus and Dom Juan. I've seen less nitpicking critics let modern myths run on until the nineteenth century - thus my choice of Frankenstein and his monster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
SarumanQuote:
Originally Posted by Geheris
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geheris
Boromir.
sauron
Yes, elaborate: how modern? Shakespeare flies if by modern you mean the period of modern English, which would include Shakespeare.
However, I highly doubt the OP meant such a specific reading of "modern". He most likely meant contemporary, or at least 20th century.
Classic examples of 20th century tragic heroes could include: Jay Gatsby (The Great Gatsby), Quentin Compson and Darl Bundren (The Sound and the Fury, As I Lay Dying, respectively). As for Hemingway, his stories are definitely "tragic" and pessimistic, though I wouldn't describe his heroes as tragic heroes. Neither Jacob Barnes, nor Fredrick Henry die at the closure of either of their novels, but what happens to them could be described as awful and tragic. I'm not sure For Whom the Bell Tolls.
My knowledge of 20th century literature ends largely around the 50s, so anything later than that I'm not entirely sure.
Definitely Gatsby though.
I could not say whether or not Robert Jordan is a tragic hero in the sense of *fatally flawed*. The novel is still fresh for me since I had just finished a reread when I started getting chatty in the forum. He may lack the corruption of the Gaylord crowd, and does come off as the quintessential American, single-minded and naive.Quote:
Originally Posted by mayneverhave
The reader is left with the sense that his impending death will be horrifying, but how Shakespearean that makes him? It could be something to ponder.
Being American, I'd have to say "single-minded" may be a generalization - but one that fits Hemingway more than other American novelists. Naive I'm not so sure, but it is true that Hemingway's protagonists tend to lack emotional depth (or, more probably, don't show it outwardly), but single-minded and action-minded, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
Surely you cannot make such generalizations about the other great novelists of this period, like Faulkner and Fitzgerald.
Well, I see Jordan as single-minded. The lovey-dovey with Rabbit comes off, to me, like eye candy in a typical Hollywood script, its only importance being that it shows Jordan is of a *duty-first* mentality to the end. His job is to blow that bridge. Pablo is the foil, the loutish cunning obstacle in the way of duty to the idea of the Republic, and for Jordan, the fidelity to that idea means excuting his orders, however futile they may ultimately be--perhaps this defines his tragic heroism.Quote:
Originally Posted by mayneverhave
I am not sure what your quibble is though, with my original description of Jordan. The term tragic hero itself is a type of generalization, with its own conceits, conventions, violations. It has been some time since I wrapped my head around Fitzgerald and Faulkner, but their protagonists are much more nuanced than Hemingway's. I can barely remember Gatsby, but I did read Tender Is The Night more than once, and one could argue about Dick Diver's *fall* and what it really amounts to. He isn't Hamlet, but he is doomed, none the less.
I think Jordan is a tragic figure.
But his timing is out. Heros are all about timing.
Prendrelemick, I've just noticed your sig(?). Nice :lol:.
Sorry, I just had to comment about Mr Darcy's Trousers.
Back to the debate everyone!
Jordan dies saving everyone he loves or cares about, nobly sacrificing himself in a cause he believes in, not giving up, fighting to his last breathe. How could that be tragic? That ending is incredibly life affirming, and Jordan is showered in glory. I can't think of a more heroic way to go out. He's one more of Hemingway's Christ figures who are physically beaten but unconquered in spirit, who grasp a moral victory from the jaws of inevitable defeat by virtue of their being true to themselves. Sure, it sucks that he's got to die just as he's found the woman of his dreams, but he was never so ready to die now that he has something to believe in, someone to protect. Tragic heroes are destroyed internally and externally. The things they are hoping for are denied them. In Robert Jordan's case, he is sure of himself. He knows what he is doing is right, and serenity pervades everything he does. Life and time are the last gifts he can offer to the woman he loves, and he gives them gladly. Moreover, the final stand is a gift to himself, a commitment to die as he had lived, justifying everything he had done before. He is not like the protagonist of All Quiet on the Western Front who's death is meaningless and absurd, who dies last of his companions, in a war that's already lost, in a cause he knows is wrong.
I thought it was meaningless, The enemy had already crossed the bridge.
I'll have to read it again.
I myself hardly think the Spanish Civil War was *glorious* from what I've read, and the images I've seen. I don't even think that Hemingway's melodrama makes it glorious. What Hemingway does is take one segment and turn it into an artifice, but this isn't the same thing as what we'd find in Beowulf or Homer.
I know mortal loves Hemie, but I think he is misreading what Jordan's death amounts to, and that is a vainglorious waste. It is embedded well within the novel itself that war is often a tragic and petty vendetta, never mind ideology. The two narratives competing in the novel are Jordan's and Pilar's, with minor asides from the other supporting characters, and Pilar isn't about *glory*; she is about the reality and anguish of a conflict which kills human beings, where fascism and socialism are little more than labels for class resentments.