Aristotle, Antigone and Billy Budd :: comparison compare contrast essays

Aristotle, Antigone and Billy Budd  In Poetics, Aristotle explains tragedy as a kind of imitation of a certain magnitude, using direct action instead of narration to achieve its desired affect.  It is of an extremely serious nature.  Tragedy is also complete, with a structure that unifies all of its parts.  It is meant to produce a catharsis of the audience, meant to produce the emotions of pity and fear and to purge them of these emotions and helping them better understand the ways of the gods and men.  Tragedy is also in a language in both verse and song.  Aristotles definition is clearly applicable to both Herman Melvilles Billy Budd and the famous Greek tragedy Antigone by Sophocles.  Antigone is definitely a good font of a Greek tragedy.  It contains all of the elements of Greek tragedy as defined by Aristotle.  Billy Budd has also been run intoed by some critics as a Greek tragedy.  This seems true in that it contains many of the requirements in a Greek tragedy.  However, as we look closer, there are many factors that are not rear in Billy Budd that are required in a Greek tragedy.  There are flaws to the theory.  Analysis of the Billy Budd has shown that enough of these flaws are evident to interpret Billy Budd as not a Greek tragedy.  There are differences in the character, structure, theme, magnitude, tragic heroes, plot, as well as focus.  However, it drive out be argued that these differences can also be similarities.  It can be explained as a variant.  Interpretation has been a key issue in these two works.  The two works cod been interpreted in many different ways.  Each way could lead to a different comparison of these two works.  Therefore, the reader must decide which explanation is most correct and conclude whether the similarities are sufficient to call Billy Budd a Greek tragedy.    Aristotle states that For Tragedy is an imitation, no t of men, but of an action and of life, and life consists in action, and its windup is a mode of action, not a quality. Now character determines mens qualities, but it is by their actions that they are happy or the reverse. Dramatic action, therefore, is not with a view to the representation of character character comes in as subsidiary to the actions. Hence the incidents and the plot are the end of a tragedy and the end is the chief thing of all.