Talk:Tragedy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Lead paragraph etc.

In response to User:Leokenny's comment above, the introduction does look rather odd. A good lede should be a summary of the article. I would expect it to talk about its origin in the late archaic period of ancient Greece; the etymology of the name; its development and refinement by the three great tragedians of classical Athens; imitation by the Romans; revival in the Renaisance and seventeenth century with Shakespeare and Racine mentioned as key practitioners; Then a mention of modern development and one sentence mention of Aristotle as the best known ancient theoretician.

The one other thing I would mention but which doesn't seem to be in the article yet is opera as an attempt to revive tragedy as a blend of the arts. I would have in mind both its origins and, given the mention of Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy, how Wagner's operatic reforms were also with ancient tragedy in mind.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I re-wrote the Introduction a little while ago. I think I've addressed many of the concerns, though a decent section on Wagner is still missing. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've put in a brief paragraph as a new section. If people want to move it up to the influece of Greek tragedy section, or can suggest an alternative name for the section (Italy?) that is fine.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sanskrit drama and tragedy

Hello all. I've just undone the recent edits that introduced the history of Sanskrit drama into the history of tragedy, so I'm copying the note I wrote on the editor's user page here for a wider audience by way of an explanation:

Hello Jagged85. I've just undone your edits to the Tragedy page but wanted to offer encouragement and an explanation. The theatre and drama subject-field articles are pretty shoddy in general, so I'm by no means discouraging anyone who is generous enough to add to them. The majority, too, have major problems with the absence of a "world perspective", in line with much of the dramatic criticism and theory of the West before (and during) the 20th century. I think we've talked before a while back, and your contributions on Sanskrit drama are most welcome in my view. They ought to occupy a significant place in the drama, theatre and history of theatre articles. Tragedy, however, is something different. The dramas that you describe may bear structural similarities to tragedy, but they're not tragedies; the rasas you describe may be present/provoked by similar forms of "art based on suffering", but tragedy is more specific than this. Hermann Oldenberg describing the epic as having "tragic force" is part of the standard critical gesture of understanding the entire world's culture through the categories of the West. Epics aren't tragedy; the form is explicitly defined through that distinction (just as Homer's epics aren't tragedy, and, for the same reason, why the Doric Greeks probably didn't invent it). Tragedy isn't an emotional response (that would be, with a little controversy, catharsis for Aristotle), it's a dramatic genre. I would like to make a request and a suggestion: firstly, if you really want to insist that the Sanskrit drama has tragedy as one of its forms, then this argument needs to be properly sourced; secondly, we might consider a section in the tragedy article called something like "Similar forms in world theatre" that describes the relationships, similarities, and differences between the tragic tradition and forms from as many other cultures as we can. Kind regards, DionysosProteus (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I was previously referring to tragedy in a more general sense, rather than the more specific dramatic genre. I'm not sure if Sanskrit drama had any specific genre for tragic plays, but I'll have to do some more research on the Sanskrit dramatic genres to find out. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead again

I've restored the information recently removed about the relation between the history of tragedy and Western culture at large. The sources say exactly that. Please consult them before removing. DionysosProteus (talk) 11:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

A little curiosa would fit in nicely.

Tragodia, or more accuratley: "Tregon dhia" means "the tellings of the goat" in albanian.--Durim Durimi (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Tragedy is a greek word not an albanian: Tragedy 1374, "play or other serious literary work with an unhappy ending," from O.Fr. tragedie (14c.), from L. tragedia "a tragedy," from Gk. tragodia "a dramatic poem or play in formal language and having an unhappy resolution," apparently lit. "goat song," from tragos "goat" + oide "song." The connection may be via satyric drama, from which tragedy later developed, in which actors or singers were dressed in goatskins to represent satyrs. But many other theories have been made (including "singer who competes for a goat as a prize"), and even the "goat" connection is at times questioned. Meaning "any unhappy event, disaster" is from 1509.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=tragedy

Please correct this error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.9.134 (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This is truly appauling. Any Albanian-English lexicon can be used as a reference, so please dont be obstinate and take a look outside of your narrow minds, there is a language called albanian that has been spoken in the Balkans at least as long as greek. How can you erase my addition with a clear conscience?

And where did you get the impression that i am prooving an alternative etymology? It can just as well be a greek loanword. You guys have still not managed to give even one single valid excuse for not including the albanian translation, so please open your narrow minds and stop being obstinate.--Durim Durimi (talk) 10:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Can someone tell me why there shouldnt be a mentioning of the albanian enterprutation?

Even with the rough translation that is made in Google translate you will see that the meaning of it in the albanian language. I would like to ask for assistance in helping me better the short strip of text that i am adding, thank you in advance.--Durim Durimi (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"Tregoj" is either a)derived from Latin "tradere" or b)a calque on Greek "agoreuo", based on "treg" - market. Nuff said. 87.202.33.48 (talk) 06:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well if you had taken your time to at least translate the word "Tregon" in Albanian then you would have seen that it translates inte "show" or "tell". Now it doesnt stop there, "dhia" translates into "the goat". Now you dont have to be a genius to figure out what "tregondhia" means in albanian (The goat tells/shows). Now is there any valid reason (besides your personal opninion) why this article should not contain the albanian translation?

This is after all an encyklopedia and i belive it to be quite unfair to not include the albanian translation, what do you think? --Durim Durimi (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Cease and desist! Please stop adding your pseudo-etymologies. I clearly explained why yours is one. You don't seem to understand what agoreuo means either, yet you persist in editing ancient greek etymologies! 87.202.48.170 (talk) 04:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

And i clearly explained why you have no right to remove it. Enlighten me or stop the sabotage. --Durim Durimi (talk) 11:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Tragedy is a greek word not an albanian:

Tragedy 1374, "play or other serious literary work with an unhappy ending," from O.Fr. tragedie (14c.), from L. tragedia "a tragedy," from Gk. tragodia "a dramatic poem or play in formal language and having an unhappy resolution," apparently lit. "goat song," from tragos "goat" + oide "song." The connection may be via satyric drama, from which tragedy later developed, in which actors or singers were dressed in goatskins to represent satyrs. But many other theories have been made (including "singer who competes for a goat as a prize"), and even the "goat" connection is at times questioned. Meaning "any unhappy event, disaster" is from 1509.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=tragedy

Please correct this error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.9.134 (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of references take the etymology back to Greek. I see no reliable ones taking it back to Albanian. Let's just have well-referenced etymologies please. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This is truly appauling. Any Albanian-English lexicon can be used as a reference, so please dont be obstinate and take a look outside of your narrow minds, there is a language called albanian that has been spoken in the Balkans at least as long as greek. How can you erase my addition with a clear conscience?

And where did you get the impression that i am prooving an alternative etymology? It can just as well be a greek loanword. You guys have still not managed to give even one single valid excuse for not including the albanian translation, so please open your narrow minds and stop being obstinate.--Durim Durimi (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, a better definition of the art-form

Hello. I must say that this article is very thorough, but it does not do much to tell me what tragedy is. The only definition: "is a form of art based on human suffering that paradoxically offers its audience pleasure." Then the rest of the article tells origin, history, etc. without any clue to help the reader understand that very brief definition; the whole thing is written assuming you already know what it is. All I know is that tragedy is based on human suffering and gives the audience pleasure. Can you tell me ANYTHING more about what it is? Wouldn't torture-porn (which I dislike) fulfill that brief definition. Not sure how to do that, can you give an example or say why one thing qualifies as tragedy and another not. Is tragedy vicarious sadism? What is it? ~~artman772000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.189.33 (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks artman772000 - Please can I endorse this request? A lot of students and other users would find more accessible comments about the overall definition of the genre - perhaps mentioning concepts of the tragic hero, their fatal flaw, and an explanation of catharsis - useful in addition to the more specific and in depth discussion currently in place.Golden-elm (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The introduction attempts to explain why this request isn't a valid one. There is no such thing as a transhistorical and universal definition of tragedy. To offer such a definition would be to "invoke a powerful effect of cultural identity and historical continuity" - i.e., it's an ideological mirage. It is a word that has been used at different times to mean different things. Hence "multiple and discontinuous". "Tragedy" to Aeschylus in classical Athens means something different to Shakespeare writing in Early Modern London, and something different again to Müller in a post-Brechtian East Germany. "Tragedy" can only be defined historically, as a "site of cultural experimentation, negotiation, struggle, and change". The article does give more than merely "art suffering-pleasure", namely a "specific tradition of drama", which excludes the snuff film, for example. It also offers other points of reference, namely the contrast with comedy, with epic poetry, with melodrama, with epic theatre, etc, which is to define tragedy relationally. I understand that you're wanting something like "a story where the hero dies in the end"... but many, many important tragedies simply don't fit that description. What qualifies as a tragedy and what doesn't is an ongoing site of struggle (see Steiner's silliness, for example, where many of the major tragedies in world theatre simply don't qualify as "true" tragedies according to his reductive definition). Few scholars nowadays would endorse the use of "fatal flaw" or "tragic hero" as terms in their criticism--they are terms that belong to specific historical periods of criticism. DionysosProteus (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

So why can't that be put in the article? Have a lead paragraph explaining various suggested definitions of the form, and reasons why they might not be universal. At the moment, the article gives half a sentence for a definition, then rambles on rather unconvincingly for a bit about how (but not really why) tragedies are a really really big deal and then vomits out a list of them. It's hard to see any significance to the genre at the moment from this. Woscafrench (talk) 12:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if you compared my last post to the introduction a little more closely, you'd realise that the posting paraphrases the introduction--in other words, "Why can't that be put in the article?" is a stupid question. It already is there. As explained above, the introduction already offers various definitions of the form. DionysosProteus (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to merge

See the discussion here. DionysosProteus (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Julius Caesar Scaliger

I removed the following bit from the Roman section:

The Renaissance scholar Julius Caesar Scaliger (1484–1558), who knew both Latin and Greek, preferred Seneca to Euripides.

While I understand there is some deprecation of Seneca as compared to the Greeks, and I understand that later tragedy is more Senecan tragedy than Greek tragedy, I'm having trouble understanding why anyone should care what some guy no one has heard of who has been dead some 450 years thought about the relative merits of Euripides and Seneca.Ekwos (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the sentence. I assume you haven't studied drama, otherwise you'd know who Scaliger is and how important his views were. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Collective noun in the introduction

As is clear from the context, the sentence in the introduction that describes "the long line of philosophers" who analysed tragedy involves a collective noun (the 'long line'). The philosophers are not all analysing at the same time, together, as a unified group. Consequently, a plural verb form is the correct form in this case. It should be "a long line [...] have analysed" not "a long line has analysed". DionysosProteus (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Tragedy|p005464v}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Confusing passage

I just wanted to draw attention to a short passage under the heading "Origin of tragedy drama":

"Writing in 335 BCE (long before the Golden Age of 5th-century Athenian tragedy), Aristotle provides the earliest-surviving explanation for the origin of the dramatic art-form in his Poetics..."

I may have missed something, but since 335 BCE is clearly later than the C5th BCE, my reading was entirely confused. Being unfamiliar with the subject, I have not made emendations, but wished to raise the problem for contributors to the article to review and presumably rectify. 114.76.203.41 (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction

In the lead, the etymology from 'he-goat-song' is described as 'previous' and 'refuted by Walter Burkert'. The 'Origin of tragedy' section just goes into detail about the goat etymology with no mention of Burkert's refutation.

Since it seems that the etymology is uncertain, I think that's what the lead sentence should say (which would have the further advantage of letting the reader find out what tragedy is before going into abstruse stuff about the word.) Burkert's refutation, and any more modern scholarly stuff, should go into the 'origins' section. This isn't my field, so it would be better if someone more knowledgeable did it. Cheers, Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)