Tragedy: Aristotle Versus Miller

I believe that Aristotle has the better basis for tragedy simply because it is simplistic yet in depth at the same time. His seven elements embody a tragedy that has a single story flow without other sub-stories to interfere with the main one. All of the Aristotelian tragedies feature the fall of a good, believable and consistent character. That character is usually male and of noble birth. I believe this so be one of the most important features. Even today people flock to anything involving royalty. Whether it be the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton, the birth of their son, or the new Disney movie Frozen, there has always been something about royalty that has captured people's attention. From Arthur Miller's perspective, tragedy should be available to the common man. I disagree with this because the common people suffer everyday. If we were to be surrounded by plays and books filled with the everyday mans woes, no one would ready them because they have enough troubles of their own. People much rather hear about the newest scandals of the rich and famous because they remind us that even though these people are movie stars or singers, or even royalty, they still have problems and make mistakes just like the common people.

Fighting Fate

Through out the reading of Oedipus the King, we were recently confronted with the idea of Fate. In Oedipus none of the characters have any contr over their Fate. The more they try to struggle against it, the harder they push themselves into it. By learning the Fate of the their son the king and queen of Thebes decide to leave their son in the mountains. This leads to Oedipus being given to one Shepard by another and then making his way in the hands of that Shepards king. At one banquet a drunkard tells Oedipus that his fathe is not really his father which then leads Oedipus to see an audience with the oracle of Delphi. She tells him he will kill his father and marry his mother but does not answer his true question. Oedipus is searching for his identity. In trying to discover is what the drunkard says is true, he is learns his Fate which causes him to flee his home. During this process he kills his true father unknowingly and, after solving the Sphinx's riddle, he becomes king of Thebes like his father before him. This entitles him to all that was the previous kings, including the Queen of Thebes, Oedipus' mother. Both Oedipus and his mother/wife spurn the Seers because they believe that they have changed their fate when, in actuality, it was tw struggle to avoid their fate that led them right to it. Oedipus left who he thought was his parents in order to avoid killing his father and marrying his mother so it stands to reason that if his parents had never abandoned him in the first place there is a very high chance that none of this would have ever happened. The plan of Fate in Oedipus the King seems to be a final ending that cannot be escaped.

Roark Versus the World

When viewing Howard Roark  in comparison to the other architects in Rand's The Fountainhead, we are shown a stark difference between them. Architects such as Peter Keating spend their whole lives trying to please others. They want nothing more that recognition and fame. They do not even really care much for there own work, at least not the way Roark does. They do what they must to please the client. They want money and power from their work and they get this from being well known for what they achieve. Roark cares not for the monetary gain he could achieve. He is firm and unmovable when it comes to his designs. Howard could honestly care less about what the client has to say. He does not care what they want, he is giving them what they need.
The other architects compromise their work and make changes to suit other people. Keating even goes as far as asking Roark to make designs for him. Pete believes these designs to be fantastic but when he mentions this to Roark, Howard tells him to never associate him (Roark) with these disasters. Roark does not see beauty they way the rest of the world does. He does not gaze in awe at the traditional works and finds no amazement when viewing the Parthenon.
The classical architecture that is so beloved by the world and favored by, in Roark's eyes, lesser architects is pathetic to him. Roark sees the land, the rocks, and the trees as if they are waiting there for him. Waiting for him to mold them into a masterpiece. This reveals to us Roark's ego yet at the same time he is shown to have almost no pride in himself. His ego is so large that whereas all the other architects in the novel would make changes in order to keep a commission, Roark rather lose his practice and work in a quarry than make a slight change in one of his designs. He is an egotist yes, but he has pride only in his work. This is perhaps the largest difference between Roark and everyone else. They are to proud and to scared to sacrifice anything for themselves. They must have the money and power in order to survive whereas Howard Roark needs only his buildings, his designs, and himself.