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

Aristotle, Antigone and Billy Budd  In Poetics, Aristotle explains catastrophe as a kind of faux of a certain magnitude, using direct action instead of muniment to achieve its desired affect.  It is of an extremely serious nature.  disaster 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 compassion 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 poetise and song.  Aristotles definition is clearly applicable to both Herman Melvilles Billy Budd and the famous classical tragedy Antigone by Sophocles.  Antigone is definitely a good example of a Hellenic tragedy.  It contains all of the elements of Grecian tragedy as defined by Aristotle.  Billy Budd has also been interpreted by some critics as a Greek tragedy.  This seems true in that it contains umpteen of the requirements in a Greek tragedy.  However, as we look closer, there ar many factors that are non found 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 can 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 have been interpreted in many different ways.  Each way could lead to a different compare of these two works.  Therefore, the reader must decide which interpretation is most slide down and conclude whether the similarities are sufficient to call Billy Budd a Greek tragedy.    Aristotle states that For Tragedy is an imitation, not of men, but of an action and of life, and life consists in action, and its kibosh 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.