Heath Ledger, Overeaches himself with one of the most difficult roles in memory, and it killed him.
Heath Ledger, Overeaches himself with one of the most difficult roles in memory, and it killed him.
You just beat me to this!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
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.Originally Posted by Jozanny
Saruman
Boromir.
"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Jozanny; 11-21-2008 at 06:53 AM. Reason: added paragraph
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.
Sorry, I just had to comment about Mr Darcy's Trousers.
Back to the debate everyone!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
