The Ted talker makes the point that our brains can be tricked into makeing ilogical decisions. the situation he uses for his most in deapth example is this: there are three options, one of them is a worse version of another. we are mor likely to pick the option that has a worse version, even if the third option is equaly good or better. He ultemently concludes that while we are good at understanding our fisical limitations, we are terible at understanding our mental limitatons.
this ted talk never mentions tragedy, so why did we whatch it? well, it could be seen as a scientifick whay of explaining the tragic flaw. If a caracter has a problom, this ted talk idicates that it makes sence if they cant see it and end up falling victum to it. The ted talk didnt change y vew of tragedy. however, it made me spend a long time trying to think of times when i have fallen victem to such a trick.
0 Comments
Sophocles had a realy twisted mind. this story would have been funny, if only it wasnt so rong.
I say again, i dont like tragety. this story was just supid, you could see its plot twists comeing from a mile away withought knowing annything about it. When Odipus says he will kill whoever is responsible for the plauge, you instantly know it will turn out to be him. The blind seer pritymuch says that Oedipus has killed his father and marryied his mother, and then the rest of the storry is just Oedipus stubornly denying what everyone elts, includig the audience, already knows. but no matter what, Oedipus cant do anything about it exept acept his fate, and this realy robs the story of anny value as a story. So, since the story dosent have a propper plot, what is he point of it? Well, the point is eather "you cant do annything anout profficies, so #%&!* you" Or "dont make promisses you cant keep". First, a warning: this text is written in victorian high sociatalese, which is behind only legalese and Shakesperian in nonunderstandeble forms of English. Some of that will probably bleed though into my annalisys.
The text says that: Tragety applies to the common man just as well as it does to royalty, since the hero of a tragety only needs to be ready to defend his dignety at anny cost. The srisis of dignety is brought about by a change, or percived change, in the "unchainging" environment. The only reason we think of tragic heros as being high rank, is because in the past they usualy were, since almost all heros of the time were. tragety is simply a condition of life, brought about by questioning the existing order of things, finding it wanting, and trying but failing to change it. Of course, the possibility of success must be there untill the very end, otherwise it wont be propperly heartbreaking. this all makes sence to me, for the most part. i think there are some trageties that break the pattern. however, Miller wuld probably just say those are bad tragetyeis. Also, wile i agree with Miller in his descriptions of tragety, i still dont like tragedy. Acording to the ted tallker, The heros of tragitys would be the raged on loozers of todays society. I agree with this.
Tragety is those stupid stories withought a happy ending. What is the point of a story withought a hapy ending? Well, unless its the next to last story in a series? otherwise I could just read a history book. I do know that the clasical Greeks devided their plays between tragitys and comidys. The tragitys were the ones withought a happy ending, and the comedies were the ones with happy endings, even if they wernt all that funny. None of that's particularly in depth, so lets see what the internet has to say.
Acording to wikipeadia, tragedy is "is a form of drama based on human suffering that invokes an accompanying catharsis or pleasure in audiences." It also says that while manny cultures have their own versions, the earliest origens of our version come from the Greek theaters of 2500 years ago. So, basicaly what i said, exept they think it can be enjoyable. Lets see if i can find some reasoning behind that. Nope. aparently most people are just weird. |