Death of a Salesman Fails

Death of a Salesman Fails as aTragedy

Death of a Salesman is a tragic tale but it is not a tragedy according to Aristotle's definition of true tragedy.

Aristotle's definition is clear.

A tragic hero must be of great stature

Willy Loman is not of great stature

Critics claim the play is a modern version of "tragedy"

Our modern world does have kings, queens, and princes

Our society does have persons of great renown

The character of Willy is flawed in such a way that he fails himself and the audience

Willy is a liar and never attempts to change

While we think of Arthur Miller's play, Death of a Salesman as tragic, we cannot define it as a tragedy according to the guidelines set forth by Aristotle. The play is no doubt filled with tragic events and at the end of the play we do walk away with the notion that Willy Loman's life was indeed a tragedy.

However, while the play might evoke certain emotions in us, the hero of the play is not of great stature, which excludes it from Aristotle's definition of a true tragedy. Willy Loman's life end tragically but the play itself falls short of meeting the requirements of a true tragedy according to Aristotle.

Aristotle was clear with his definition of a true tragedy. He stated that tragedy was an "imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude" (Aristotle qtd. Barranger 687). Other elements, such as plot, character, pity and fear also fall into Aristotle's definition. In regard to the hero of the play, Aristotle was very clear and maintained that for a true tragedy, the hero needed to "be one who is highly renowned and prosperous" (691) and "not eminently good or just, yet whose misfortune is brought about by... some error or frailty" (691). Willy does not fit Aristotle's description in that he is not of great renown or stature. While part of the magic of the play is that Willy is an ordinary man, that is not the point of debate here. Many critics like to claim that Death of a Salesman is a tragedy of our modern world. One aspect of the modern culture is the fact that Willy is, for all intents and purposes, an ordinary man. Milly Barranger claims that the play does fits the definition of tragedy because the human desire to obtain an impression of self-respect "belongs to all of us, not just an Oedipus or Hamlet" (Barranger 312). While she may be correct in her assertion, she is missing the point - that Willy Loman is not Oedipus or Hamlet and that makes all the difference in the world. Willy is no doubt a great and a quite memorable character. Foster notes, "There are many fine elements in the play... perhaps the finest of them Willy himself. In Willy, the pathetic bourgeois barbarian, Miller has made an intense and true character, perhaps a nearly great one" (Foster). The fact that the audience can relate to Willy is exactly what makes the play such a tragedy. Jean-Claude Van Itallie put it succinctly when he said, "Willy Loman (Low man) is not, like, say Agamemnon in Aeschylus, larger than life" (Van Itallie). However, Aristotle would have rejected the notion that the play operates as a true tragedy because Willy is not of great stature.

While there has been much debate about this topic, the primary thing to remember is that we are not commenting on whether or not the tale is tragic. The question we are addressing asks if Miller's play conforms to the definition of true tragedy according to Aristotle. Many critics, in defense of the play, urge the modern audience to look at the play through a modern lens and come to terms with the notion that times change. Since art does imitate life, we can accept the notion that we as people, and characters, evolve.

After all, Aristotle did note that another aspect of a true tragedy was that they reflect real life. In all fairness, some claim that we do not see many persons of nobility walking the earth today. Concerning this issue, Miller wrote, "Insistence upon the rank of the tragic hero, or the so-called nobility of his character, is really but a clinging to the outward form of tragedy" (Miller qtd. In Wilson 132). He also believed that the "common man is as apt a subject for tragedy in its highest sense as kings were" (Miller qtd. In Wilson 132) and he defends the play noting that the "tragic feeling is evoked in us when we are in the presence of a character who is ready to lay down his life, if need be, to secure one thing - his sense of personal dignity... Tragedy, then, is the consequence of a man's total compulsion to evaluate himself justly" (Miller qtd. In Wilson 132). While defending the play, Miller seems to be proving the point why the play does not fit Aristotle's definition of tragedy. While it is true that we do not live in a world that is run by kings, queens, and mighty princes, we do have individuals that are great in stature. There individuals of whom we respect. Wilson tends to support Miller's idea, noting that there are few persons in our modern world that can "stand for other people, or symbolize a group or culture" (Wilson 132). This statement is actually incorrect. In politics, business, religion, and virtually all walks of life, we have persons that can and do speak for others and do symbolize groups and cultures and some of these people are renowned in their accomplishments. Certainly, if we wish to alter Aristotle's definition of tragedy, then the play certainly can be called a true tragedy.