Modern Tragedy: Critical Appreciation

December 2, 2010 neoenglish MA English-Literature

Modern Tragedy is a compilation of 11 essays written on various

aspects of tragedy and a play Koba. These essays were published in
various magazines, later they were printed in book form Modern
Tragedy. Modern Tragedy is the most important 20thc inquiry into
the ideas and ideologies that have influenced the production and
analysis of tragedy. William sees tragedy in terms of both literary
tradition and in relation to the tragedies of modern times, of
revolution and disorder and of experiences of all of us as individuals.
Modern Tragedy has three major parts: the first part is about the
history and criticism of ideas regarding tragedy; the second part deals
with Drama from Ibsen to Eliot as the name suggests.

This part if s revised version of the lectures delivered by Williams at

Cambridge and the third part consists of a play called Koba. The
literature of ideas and of experience is a single literature. Tragedy is
the most important example of this complex and necessary unity. So,
the writer says, the book is about the connections, in modern tragedy
between event and experience and idea and its form is designed at
once to explore and to emphasize these radical connections.
He presented tragedy of experience as contrasted with tragedy of
theory. The essays: Tragedy and the Tradition, Tragedy and
Contemporary Ideas and A Rejection of Tragedy are part of the
syllabus. Like Culture and Society, Modern Tragedy discussed texts
the main tragic texts and texts about tragic theory that had been
written in Europe and the United States since Ibsenand extracted

from them a political message about the inadequacy of individuation

and about the desirability of revolution. Modern Tragedy was written
in a dense, coded prose. Decoded, it manifests the confusion between
the cultural elite and the people which was a feature of Williamss
doctrine throughout his work and which became particularly
troublesome in this book, where dramatic and fictional tragedy were
presented as realizations of the shape and set of modern culture,
and the dramatists and novelists who had produced it were assumed
to represent our minds and experience.
This thesis was both elitist and anti-elitist, nave about the prospect of
bridging the gap between the cultural elite and the people but
emphasizing the affiliations that kept Williams, as a member of the
former, in conscious empathy with the latter. The effect was
nevertheless odd, implying that Strindberg, Brecht, and Arthur Miller,
for example, were not arcane, and amalgamating the we who went to
their plays or listened to Williamss lectures in Cambridge with the
we who had been described appreciatively in Border Country.
However deep Williamss desire was to make critical discrimination
relevant to the people among whom he had grown up, moreover, it
neglected the consideration that critical discrimination was in fact a
minority activity which spoke meaningfully only to those who had
already heard Leaviss voice.

In Drama from Ibsen to Eliot (1952) Williams had criticized the

English theater as a manifestation of literary decline and for failing to
achieve either the communication of an experience and a radical
reading of life, or that total performance which reflected changes
in the structure of feeling as a whole. In Modern Tragedy the central
contentions were that liberal tragedy, while being liberal because it

emphasized the surpassing individual, and tragic because it recorded

his defeat by society or the universe, reflected the inability of the
money-oriented privacy of the bourgeois ethic to provide a positive
conception of society. It was the individual fight against the lie
embodied in false relationships, a false society and a false conception
of man that Ibsen had made central, but it was the liberal martyrs
discovery of the lie in themselves and their failure to relate themselves
to a social consciousness that heralded the breakdown of
liberalism and the need to replace its belief in the primacy of
individualist desire and aspiration by a socialist perception of the
primacy of common desire and aspiration.
Williams wished to give tragic theory a social function. He pointed out
that significant suffering was not confined to persons of rank, and
that personal belief, faults in the soul, God, death, and the
individual will had been central to the tragic experience of the
present. It was the human agency and ethical control manifested in
revolution and the deep social crisis through which we had all been
living that were the proper subjects of modern tragedy, and it was
human agency and ethical control that tragic theory needed to
accommodate.
The first point that had to be explained was the Burkean point that
revolution caused suffering. The second point was the anti-Burkean
point that revolution was not the only cause of suffering, that suffering
was in the whole action of which revolution was only the crisis,
and that it was suffering as an aspect of the wholeness of the action
that needed to be considered. And this, of course, disclosed the real
agenda in Modern Tragedythe use of tragic texts to formulate a
socialist theory of tragedy in which revolution would receive a literary
justification and society would become more important than the
individual.

In all this Williams was moving out from the defensiveness of Culture
and Society and making a central feature of the argument that, when
the revolutionary process was complete, revolution would become
epic, suffering would be justified, and pre-revolutionary
institutions, so far from being the settled innocent order that they
had claimed to be, would be seen to have been rooted in violence and
disorder. This was the route by which tragedy and tragic theory could
remove cynicism and despair, could give revolution the tragic
perspective that Marx had given it, and could show what tragedy had
hitherto failed to show, that degeneration, brutalization, fear, hatred
and envy were endemic in existing societys tragic failure to
incorporate all its people as whole human beings. It was also the
route by which tragedy and tragic theory could incorporate the fact
that further degeneration, brutalization, fear, hatred and envy would
be integral to the whole actionnot just to the crisis and the
revolutionary energy released by it or the new kinds of alienation
which the revolution against alienation would have to overcome if
it was to remain revolutionary, but also, and supremely, to the
connection between terror and liberation.
Williamss rhetoric was ruthless, and yet in retrospect looks faintly
silly. Nor were the tasks that he attributed to tragic theory plausible. It
remains true, nevertheless, that Modern Tragedy, while reiterating the
formal denial that revolution was to be identified with the violent
capture of power and identifying it rather as a change in the
deepest structure of relationships and feelings, implied, more than
any other of Williamss works, a circuitous but indubitably evil
attempt to encourage the young to think of violence as morally
reputable.

In evaluating Williams, one wishes to be just. He should not be

dismissed merely because his followers have helped to keep their party
out of office, since many of them, and perhaps he also, regarded party
politics as merely a convenient way of inserting their moral messages
into the public mind. Like the theorists of the student revolution of the
Sixties, Williams was against liberalism, but those who are against
liberalism for conservative reasons do not need his sort of support.
They should not be misled by the organicism of Culture and Society,
which ignored the moral solidarity of twentieth-century English
society and used the language of solidarity in order to subvert such
solidarity as monarchy and two world wars had created by denying
that it existed.

The most general fault in critical works is not avoided by even

Williams. Most of the critical books are written with and on the
general assumption of some creative work by others. To write or give
views on others is certainly not objectionable. What seems
objectionable is the way of giving views or opinions without quoting
the original creative work.

What most of the critics do is very non-critical in a sense. They give

first their own understanding of the work and then their views or
opinions against or for this said work. What they do in this way is the
critical analysis of their own understanding. It seems having nothing
to do with the understanding of the writers work or others views
about it. While going through a book of criticism one should keep in
mind the original work the criticism is about.

In Modern Tragedy, the central contentions were that liberal tragedy,

while being liberal because it emphasized the surpassing individual
and tragic because it recorded the defeat by society or the universe,
reflected the inability of the money-oriented privacy of the bourgeois
ethic to provided a positive conception of society. William wished to
give tragic theory a social function. He pointed out that significant
suffering was not confined to the persons of rank and that personal
belief, faults in the soul, God, Death and Individual Will had been
central to the tragic experience of the present. It was the human
agency and ethical control manifested in revolution and the deep
social crises through which we had all been living that were the proper
subjects of modern tragedy and it was human agency and ethical
control that tragic theory needed to accommodate.

Williams criticized the English theater as a manifestation of literary

decline and for failing to achieve either the communication of an
experience and a radical reading of life or that of total performance
which reflected changes in the structure of feeling as a whole
The first chapter of Modern Tragedy by Raymond Williams seems
dealing with the word tragedy in its historically theoretical and social
background. These are the topics Raymond Williams is going to
discuss in this book.

The book is directly concerned with the social aspects of the above
topics. In other words the book is concerned with the ways these
topics are derived from the surrounding life in.

By his own sense of tragedy he means the sense of tragedy he had got
through reading books on tragedy or tragedies in general. The
examples he offers from surrounding society are in fact the conditions
or circumstances that lead to some tragic action. This approach to see
Life as a tragedy in general shall be discussed in the later part of the
book. The above sentence seems rather ironical. The words trained,
impatient, contemptuous, loose and vulgar are enough to convey
the underlying tone of this sentence. The writing of word tragedy in
inverted commas is itself significant of this ironic tone. Raymond
Williams has used this way of expression to give us the justification for
writing his views in this book. The Modern Tragedy in this way is
intended to explain us the history of word tragedy both in
perspective of theoretical tradition and social experience.

What he wants to say is the relative suitability of modern tragic

experience to theoretical and explanatory definitions of tragedy since
twenty-five centuries. In this brief paragraph Williams has denied
most of the theories we r going to meet in the discussion of this word
Tragedy. What he means to say is not said however here and is left to
the following chapters. Particular kind of event and response that is
genuinely tragic is and that the long tradition of this word embodies is
left unexplained. To confuse this tradition with other kinds of event
and response is merely ignorant. What he means to say here is the
difference in tragic and common experience. All painfully and
pathetically charged events and happenings can not be tragic in
nature. In Williams views the problem does not lye in calling some
work of literature a tragedy and the other not. The real problem lies in
defining what experience in life we should call tragic and what not

what suffering or event can be called tragic and what not. The naming
of certain dramas as tragedy and certain as other than tragedy is easier
than naming certain experiences and events as tragic and others as
non-tragic.

These kinds of sentences in a critical work leave their peculiar

atmosphere. Though they seem rather an outcome of intellectual
gymnastic, they give an impression of living social mind behind all
stark theoretical discussions.

Just to prepare us for detailed discussion, Williams asks for a while

what we can say a parenthetic question. Though it has nothing to do
with what he is going to say, the question shakes our mind for the time
being and makes us think it over a bit more carefully. We can take it as
another quality of Williams rhetoric. He does not write in the form of a
soliloquy that he is talking to himself. Rather he writes as if he is
engaged in a kind of dialogue with his reader. What his reader may
desire to ask is asked mostly by Williams himself.

On the other hand the word tradition is very important to be

considered here. The tradition means the tradition or continuity of
tragedy as a form of literature. It also means the continuity of different
theories pertaining to the peculiar nature of tragedy and its influence
on audience as well as their response to that influence. What
Williams wants us to be prepared for is the different critical views
about this particular form and experience. He seems asking a very
simple question if the definition of tragedy or the discussion on this

literary form is the same since Aristotle. Here again Williams seems
interested more in classifying the experiences into tragic and nontragic than in justifying the most true definition of this work of art.
This emotional and mental inclination may help us understand the
title of this book Modern Tragedy. We can feel that the modern
experiences involving all kinds of pain and agonies are going to be
discussed under suitability for being called tragic.

The other important word is experience. We undergo so many

experiences. They may be pleasant or painful. If we take for a while the
painful experiences, we have to ask us what painful experiences are
tragic and what non tragic. Seeing and going through the definitions of
different critics we can easily say that all painful experiences are not
tragic and so the word tragic or tragedy should not be used so
meaninglessly.

What Williams says in this chapter is a kind of introduction to the

coming chapters.
Tragedy And The Tradition

The separation of tragedy from tragedy means the separation of some

painful experiences from others. These some painful experiences
should be considered different from other painful experiences on the
bases of certain grounds. We may take these grounds as defining
element in tragic and non-tragic experiences. The word coincidence is
somewhat important to be kept in mind. We may have to read it in
detail in the coming chapters. To start the new chapter Williams has

however given is point on tradition and experience as an introduction.

Here in this chapter we can also see the gradual forwarding of his
point of view in some type of elaboration. We may also take it as his
condensed prose style. Williams has used the word continuity as
collate of tradition. Yet the basic difference in two words is not ignored
in any sense. So tradition is the word used for continuity of something
through a long past. This continuity may be of some ritual, behaviour
or idea. In case of tragedy the continuity is of the word tragedy used
for a specific form of literature. It is not only the continuity of word
but also the continuity of that form of literature this word is used for.
So the tradition of tragedy is on two levels: the views and explanation
about the word tragedy, and the definitions and interpretations of a
literary form called tragedy.

The Christian culture is the continuity of Grecian culture. What

westerns have given the utmost importance in these days are the
issues of culture and language. On my part the culture and language
are not the products of mankind. They are not subject to human
beings. Rather human beings are subject to certain culture and
language. Now with the progress of time the culture of the whole world
shall undergo considerable changes. As all the human beings r using
same type of things the culture of the world shall no more be varying
from country to country, but be same every where.

What Williams has said is important not in the context of tragedy as

form or tragedy as experience, but culture and its transformation to
present and modern. Why do we take something from past and leave
the other is the question that can be understood in the context of

present and modern only.

The culture is a living thing. It never remains stagnant or still. It grows

and wears out with time. What comes to present through past is a kind
of genetic transformation. As the population never remains same, the
culture never stays still.

Williams has taken enough advantage of this style. It helps him take
time to put forward the next point. It also makes his reader to get
prepared for something new. And it also keeps a kind of suspense
without which a book of criticism may feel drier.

What he means by contemporary deadlock is perhaps the insensitivity

of the people of twentieth century towards this form of literature. He
may also a mean a particular set of feelings the modern people are
unable to stand for.

The Greek tragedy remains untransferable throughout ages. What we

now have as tragedy is not Greek in its treatment and nature.
Williams emphasis on tragedy as mature form in a mature culture is
noteworthy. It seems a kind of pun on the tragedies written
afterwards. They were as immature in form as the cultures they were
written in. The word systematise should be understood in the sense
of harmonise. The written tragedy and experienced tragedy are not
harmonised in any sense. The tragedies written in the modern times
are different from those written by Greeks. The very nature and

content of these tragedies resist them to come under any

systematisation. The failure in systematising these tragedies to the
contemporary life is for unsystematised issues of Fate, Necessity and
Gods. By the way they were not systematised even by Greeks. What we
are going to understand and apply through theories and philosophies
was a kind of belief, practice and feeling for them. What we can not
adopt was their daily posture.

Williams tries to give us reasons for our inability to understand the

concept of Greek tragedians. We cannot experience that concept if we
are not living in that set of beliefs and feelings.
Necessity means determinism. What we do we do not do with our free
will. Rather we are designed to do it. We cannot understand Greek
tragedy if we have no concept of Necessity.

Williams gives his cultural concept of literary form. As it is impossible

to import a whole culture so it is impossible to import a whole literary
form. A literary form is mostly inspired by the particular set of feelings
the people are living with or in.

Having abstracted the concept of Necessity the modern system of

feelings has reduced the tragic hero to a suffering individual. We
cannot see this individual but in isolation. He is isolated from his
surrounding social norms. The chorus in this sense plays the role of a
unifying factor. He is external as well as internal. The presence of
chorus in Greek tragedy makes it a collective experience. It no more
remains individual in any sense. The form was not given any

importance. It was considered that a tragedy could be written like

other things. Secondly the mediaeval structure of beliefs and feelings
was not suitable for any tragedy. So the two most important elements
of Greek tragedy were unavailable in Mediaeval Age.

It is commonly said that Elizabethans acquired their beliefs and

feelings from mediaeval world. If the Mediaeval world was unable to
produce any tragedy how could the Elizabethans do so? In Williams
views the Mediaeval people did not have any concept of tragedy. Their
concept of tragedy was not real in any sense. We can say that in
Mediaeval world there were no chances of real tragic experience. What
they called tragedy was purely a Greek ideal in its apparent form. They
could not have imported any concept as a tradition. Their feelings
were unable to experience the true tragedy. What they called tragedy
was non-existent in their society or social structure. What Williams
gives us as Greek view of Tragedy is in fact based on the understanding
of his own view of Greek Tragedy. As we are not provided with the
views of Greek critics in their original text and context, and that too
without any translation, we cannot trust on Williams understanding of
their views and then elaboration with his own.
I would have considered Williams words true to his own
understanding if he had given us what he had understood once and for
all. I feel it greatly inconvenient to come across a new understanding
of Greek views every now and again. What we have gone through as
Williams understanding of Greek views in the previous chapters is
quite different from the one we meet in these chapters or shall come to
know in the following ones. Either it is Williams technique or the
pattern for book, it seems and feels manipulated. If I am true I can say
that Williams is a kind of critic who distorts and deshapes the facts to

make them look suitable for the propagation of his certain views.

If not possible in any other way he should have written the views of
other critics with words in the beginning of sentences as I think
Aristotle means to say that or If Aristotle says that etc.

Williams socialist or leftist bent of mind is not difficult to detect in the

book. His ideas about sin, morality and religion are always derogatory
and ironical in tune. So we can say and feel that his purpose of writing
this book was not analyse the change in the use of word tragedy in its
literal and social sense; but to give air to his political or anti-political
views. The underlying idea in Modern Tragedy should not be
overlooked in any sense. What I think necessary for ideal criticism is
therefore unfound in Williams. A critic should give his unbiased views
without distorting and deshaping the original views of writers or other
critics. He should not try to challenge the general understanding of
common people even. If he has any such purpose in mind he should
not name his work as criticism then. The category or nature of his
work shall fall it in some other form of literature ultimately. What
Williams means by all this rhetoric way of convincing is nothing more
providing solid grounds for the acceptability of his own views. It is we
can say a kind of rational convincing though like all convincing
prejudiced and biased. What we need to do is to put side by side the
views given in the previous pages and present ones. What growth he
wants to point out in the idea of tragedy seems fake and personal in
some respects.

On my part I feel that the word tragedy has undergone no changes at

any level. In what sense Greeks used this word for a form of literature
and experience is still the most prevailing of all senses. The differences
we feel in the use of this word are not because of its transformation
from one society to another (or from one age to another), but because
of the complexity, not only the word tragedy, but every other word,
involved in it.

I am sure the words undergo these types of changes even within the
society and language they are born in or from. Even the Greeks must
not be using the word tragedy in the same meaning Aristotle or others
used in their times. In fact it so happens that the meanings or ideas
once accepted by certain group of people are seldom proved acceptable
for the coming generations of the same society. The words exist in
their different shapes or shades right from the beginning of that
language. They change in their shades of meanings because of the
acceptability of every other group they are transformed or transferred.

The possible meanings of the word tragedy Williams discusses in this

book with respect or reference to different ages and societies are the
same meanings that existed in the times of Aristotle even. The change
in the meanings of a word is not the matter of society or time. It is the
matter of duration a language is spoken in some society. The societies
do not extinct before languages. These are the languages that extinct
before societies. The falls of civilizations and societies are never tried
to be read as falls of languages. Though actually they are the falls of
languages. The society cannot die before its language. It is the
language that has to die first. And the possibility of no other meanings

of words is the death of a language.

Another important thing we should keep in mind while going through

not only the Modern Tragedy but all other works of the same genre, is
the usage of a persons views as representative of the whole society.
The sense Greek intellectuals and people of imagination used this
word tragedy was not the one and only sense for this word even in
their own time. The religious and political minded people must have
their own sense of tragedy. As knowledge up to the last century was
based wholly on imaginative mind the meanings conveyed to books
and written traditions should not be considered final in any sense.

(The world up to nineteenth century was running on imaginative and

religious mind. Now it is running, and will go on running for the
coming four or five millenniums, on political and imaginative mind.
As all the things in the previous millenniums were considered in the
light of imaginative and religious mind, they shall be considered in the
light of imaginative and political mind in the coming millenniums.)

What seems new to Williams is quite old for me. The very meaning of
catharsis involves in it a kind of pleasure. Catharsis without pleasure is
impossible. So what other critics said about tragedy was mostly a
repeated version of what Aristotle had said already. On my part I dont
feel any growth in the concept and practice of tragedy. There is indeed
a kind of change but that too is quite apparent one. Tragedy as form
and experience is still the same in its very concept. It is as same and
different as weeping and laughing are same and different from the

people of past. If in modern tragedy the hero is a Lowman and in

Greek a king. The writer has to present this Lowman in the grandeur
of a king. It was not the wealth and prosperity that mattered in
Oedipus but the grandeur of Oedipus. Willy Lowman in Death of the
salesman and John Proctor in Crucible are also wearing the same
grandeur. Their prosperity is not the material prosperity but the
prosperity of mind and soul the prosperity of their living image.

The thoughts Williams attributes to other critics are in fact his own.
The development he feels in the idea of tragedy is based completely on
his own understanding of the Classical, Mediaeval and Renaissance
theories. If we put all the theories Williams gives with respect to
different ages side by side we shall find a big contrast in Williams own
understanding. What he seems understanding in the first chapter is
not felt understood in the second, third and fourth chapter of this
book. His ideas about tragedy and experience seem confused when we
reach the second chapter named tragedy and tradition. In each
chapter the Greek ideal of tragedy is repeated from different angles
and perspective. What I want to say seems very simple when I say that
Williams should have given the Greek views about tragedy once and
for all. He should not have repeated them in each chapter from a
different angle. If Williams aim had been to analyse the different
theories given in different ages, the book might not have been so
difficult and confused. What makes this book so complex a piece of
argument is Williams effort to put forward his views about culture
and society far and deep in between the lines. The discussion about
the growth and development of the idea of tragedy hence becomes
secondary and very much a kind of allegory.

What I feel and want to say is quite different from what they call the
general concept of literature as an interpretation of society. In my view
the literature and society has nothing to do with each other. The idea
of their being inter-influencing is merely an illusion. The forces
working behind literary development and social development are quite
different in nature. The poets or literary people have hardly been
social, and society and culture have hardly been poetical or literary.
Rather they have been the opposite of each other. In the most
materialistic and powerfully political society of Greece, the writers and
poets were the most imaginative of all ages. When we talk about the
truth and greatness of Socrates, we should not forget that we are also
talking about the injustice and blind judicial system prevailing upon
the society of that time. This type of injustice and judicial murder is
common in the societies where the material values and surface truths
give no place to even graver and stronger realities. I therefore hesitate
to admit that the theoretical and philosophical world of Greek
intellectuals had anything to do with the surrounding society of their
times. The same is the case with Roman, Egyptian and Indian
civilizations. The politically best societies have always been criticised
strongly for their moral discrepancies.

What mistake we always have been committing in defining the

greatness of some civilization is the attribution of greatness to some
society on its political achievements. We have never called any
civilization or society great if it has not been politically strong. What
relationship do we suggest in this case in between the political
strength of a certain group of people called society or civilization and
their cultural and social strength. Has there ever been a civilization

politically weak but culturally very strong and powerful? The obvious
answer seems No. The politically strength and that also got having
conquered the neighbouring territories of certain civilization has
been very much helpful in crediting it the name of a strong and
powerful civilization. Should we say that the political strength of
certain civilization lies in its pre-existing cultural strength? And
should we say that the cultural strength of certain civilization lies in its
pre-existing literary and lingual strength? If I say yes it seems rather
confusing but I say no. All these strengths have their respective
origins.

The words remade and tragic cause are ambiguous. Perhaps

Williams wants to say that the tragic hero stood for his spectators, and
the spectators were conscious of their feelings for tragic hero. The
tragic response of pity and terror was incorporated in the spectators
mind. The spectator therefore remained detached in his response. This
detachment was minimised by creating an affinity in the tragic hero
and the spectator. The spectator was supposed to take part in the
tragic action. And he did so having consumed his response to fear and
pity. Though we call it a Romantic excess, its basis are found in the
concept of shared behaviour a result of decorum.
The word assimilation is very ambiguously used. We are not sure
whether we should take it in the sense of hypothesis or theory or
definition. Whether it is merging up of certain ideas or emerging out of
certain things. The word order is important in so many ways. It means
both in physical and metaphysical terms. It can be taken as social
order; and it can also be taken as natural order of things. Again it may
mean the order of events and happenings in which a tragic hero is put
to perform a determined action. As a whole we can feel and see that

Williams is not rejecting Lessing and nor he is accepting him

completely. In other words his rejection and acceptance is not on the
basis of the views a person gives but on the basis of his own views he
feels different from him. As Williams himself is against neo-classicism
he seems accepting Lessing. And also that Williams seems having no
power to say his views against a person who commends Shakespeare.
To challenge Shakespeares position in not only English but in the
history of drama is meant mostly a kind of intellectual suicide. And
Williams seems unable to commit it anyway. If we take Williams true
to his socialist and Marxist views, we cannot imagine and accept him
as an advocate or supporter of Elizabethans a mixture of feudal and
aristocratic minds.
In all respects this is what Williams wants to bring us to the
secularisation of tragedy not only tragedy but also the tradition of
tragedy. The secularisation of drama is not on the basis of theories and
social bents but on the basis of beliefs. In Williams view the
transformation of tragedy from religious to secular is in fact the
transformation of society from religious to secular. I say the
secularism is nothing in itself. If the people are not ceremoniously and
ritually religious it does not mean that they are non-religious or
secular. The concept or identity of God is ingrained in human nature.
He cannot be separate from it. If one stops believing in certain myths
and codes his ancestors have been believing for centuries, it does not
mean that one has ceased to be religious any more. The understanding
of God is changing from person to person and age to age, but it
remains very much there in us.

On my part I think Hamlet as a complete religious tragedy. If Hamlet

had not been believing in hereafter he might have killed Polonius knelt

in prayers; he might not have been convinced to take revenge of his

fathers murderers. If Elizabethan tragedy is not religious who is the
secular hero or character in secular tragedy of Elizabethan age. If
Marlows heroes are non-religious in typical sense it does not mean
that they are secular. They are merely ambitious. Doctor Faustus has
never been secular minded or non-religious in the whole tragedy. It
was his ambitious nature that made him go against the common
prevalent forms of religion. In other words it the religious nature of
Doctor Faustus that makes him a tragic hero. This is what I call the
intellectual kidnapping in Raymond Williams prose. He gives his
understandings and views about others and then start accepting or
rejecting them on his own account. He does not take the opinion of
others and especially his readers in confidence. A great part of this
book is based on Williams own understanding of some theories and
theorists. I think when a person is criticising some other persons work
he should either give first that other persons work or view in original
and then give his own opinion. If he is giving his opinion against or for
some other opinion about that work he should state that opinion first
in full text and then give his own as a supplicant.

What one gets the very first time is the secular nature of Elizabethan
drama. The phrases immediate practice and Christian consciousness
are given to get intellectual security. In this and other ways, the
definition of tragedy became centred on a specific kind of spiritual
action, rather than on particular events, and a metaphysic of tragedy
replaced both the critical and ordinary moral emphasis.

Williams is evaluating his own understanding of Hegels definition.

Hegel is certainly not meant in this way. His definition of tragedy is

nearest to perfection. Do we find this characteristic in Oedipus Rex?
On my part I feel it a great drawback in critical works. They should not
be the overflow of powerful feelings. The critical works should base on
facts and figures of mathematical nature. Otherwise they may better
be called personal analysis. Most of Williams judgements seem an
overflow of powerful feelings. They are so common and general that
we feel no doubt in their truth. They are very much like poetic feelings
general and true to all of us. However, if Williams had not tried to
intersperse them here and there and had put them under headings and
chapters, they might have been more effective and comprehensive
than they are now.

In my view a genuine criticism should not have anything to do with

emotions and passions. It should be as arid and dry as mathematics.
Anyhow it is my personal opinion. Some one may have a right to
consider Williams work the only true criticism written through ages.
One may also say that Williams is also an approach among so many
others. The Greek tragedy is a conflict between primitive social forms
and a new social order. But we see that the conflict is solved in the
favour of primitive social forms. And we also see in the history of
Oedipus text that the new social order prevailed upon, and Sophocles
could not revive the old believes.

It seems very strange when we read about Sophocles intentions to

revive the old social order. He tried to do it with a character utterly a
puppet in gods hands. But Sophocles forgot a very crucial point that
the new order he thinks against old believes is also a will of gods.

All definitions of Oedipus Rex are true. In other words all definitions
of tragedy are true. The aspects of tragedy critics have been discussing
in various ages with reference to various tragedies are true. The
tragedy of Oedipus can be discussed in all these contexts and
perspectives. Not only the tragic events can be discussed under these
headings or with respect to these aspects but also the comic and
parodic events. The aspects and angles critics point out of a tragic
action are the possible aspects of all actions. All people can be seen as
tragic heroes provided only focus.

What we need to know about is very simple and very hard the fact
that there are two kinds of people. One who believe in fate and one
who do not. The tragedy takes place where the opposites fall opposite
to each other. If Oedipus had not met the circumstances opposite to
his instincts means if he had been put in the circumstances
favourable to his instincts of free will he might have met a very
happy end. The forces of fate are not same for all. There are people
who believe in free will and they are provided with circumstances
utterly dependent on their free will. And there are people who are
fatalists and they are provided with circumstances utterly out of
control. The tragedy takes place where a person of free will falls
counter to fate. If Oedipus had been of fatalist instincts he might have
succumbed to fate from the very first day he came to know about his
future from oracles. In the above discussion the word Idea is also used
in the sense of moral code. The most difficult and absurd thing to do is
to debate on the validity of moral concepts. We dont know and we can
never judge in what particular circumstances the moral concepts

spring and generate from one generation and time period to the other.

The way Williams tries to convince his reader on his point is strange.
What he wants to say is the uselessness and absurdity of the concept of
poetical justice. But the way he conveys it to his reader is quite non
critical in my view. He relates the unjustifiability of poetical justice to
the group of people who and whose views are considered nonsense in
most of the people. In other words it is quite an emotional way of
delivering critical thoughts suitable to orators and preachers. I think a
literary critic should not adopt this way of delivering his ideas.
Otherwise he may justly be called a political theorist and a
propagandist. This is where we feel us forced to put Williams in the
category of philosophers or reformers. What he says is totally his own
opinion. But he gives it with reference to other works and makes it feel
sprung out of them.

Now as a reader it is our duty to compare Williams definitions in each

case. Whenever there is a new theory Williams not only repeats it in
his own words but also in the context of former theories. Also he
repeats the former theories in his own words and tries to interpret
them in the context of new theories. This creates a kind of confusion in
the minds of his readers. They feel hesitate to accept each version of
the old theories as true. For example in the case of modern
interpretation of tragedy Williams repeats Greek, Mediaeval and
Renaissance definitions in a kind of new perspective. We feel confused
to accept them as true each time. The concept of myth and ritual in
tragedy is discussed purely in its new perspective. What we have met
in the former chapters seems totally another debate. This is how I feel

this book merely a kind of discussion. We dont feel these discussions

centred upon any point. Williams has either accepted the views of
other critics or rejected them. He has not given at any moment his
own views. If he has given any he has given it in the explanation not as
an independent view but as a supporting one. In the discussion on
tragedy we dont find Williams views on tragedy but on every other
thing.

In this way we can say that Williams discussion on tragedy is in fact

an expression of his views on culture, society and politics. And he
wants his reader to see not only tragedy but also the whole literary
activity as an interaction or an outcome of this interaction in cultural,
social and political forces.
Williams reversion to the ideas discussed in the first chapter seems a
surrendering effort to join beginning to the end. In fact the intervening
and last chapters are but of parenthetic importance. The structure of
the whole book is developed on academic approaches. The dominant
mode of expression is of discussion and debate. If Williams had not
been a teacher he might not have depended so much on evaluating,
explaining and elaborating the ideas already given in theories or
critical works. Instead of writing a helping book he might have written
a textbook. Having gone through such works I feel as if modern mind
is afraid of passing any theoretical view about anything. Williams has
not used the instances taken from other works to support his own
view. Rather he has given his views inspired by those instances. With
respect to the style discussed above we cannot count Williams in the
category of critics Sidney, Wordsworth and Coleridge were.
Tragedy And Contemporary Ideas

This is what Williams has himself done. However, he has taken the
work from past not to reject it but to accept it and interpret it in terms
of past. But we should keep in mind, whatever discussion on accident
and tragedy there goes, that it is not the nature of event that makes it
tragedy or accident but the perspective in which that event takes place.
If an accident is detailed in all its perspective it can be felt as a
tragedy.

On the other hand if we are told that a king gouged his eyes out in rage
on learning that he had killed the former king himself we may not feel
any tragic feelings. In the case of written tragedy we should not
anyhow neglect the role of description. The description here should
not be considered in terms of an authority on the part of writer, but a
kind of knowledge we have got already through our identification with
the deceased. In case of Oedipus Rex, not only Oedipus but all the
involving characters are bearing tragic postures.

If we focus our attention to Liaus and get the details we shall find him
a complete tragic character himself. Same is the case with Jocasta,
Creon and Oedipus children. So the dominant characteristic of a
tragedy is also its quality of being a tragedy of all the joining persons.
As for analysis of tragedy with respect to its effects on its audience I
would like to say that the category or quality of audience is very
noteworthy a fact. If Oedipus had been played on modern stage it
would not have been so effective a tragedy. This is where we can say
Williams can talk about tragedy in its social context.

Means if suffering related to ordinary people is ordinary suffering the

suffering related to noble people is noble suffering.

But I think Williams is not true in his judgement. What we have come
to know in the above discussion about suffering is the ordinary and
particular nature of suffering, not the ordinary and particular kind of
sufferer. A socially noble person may have to suffer an ordinary
suffering, and a layman on the other hand may suffer a particular or
noble suffering. The ordinary and noble sufferings therefore should
not be understood as socially relative terms. Suffering is not a
subordinate clause. It has its separate identity that is active in nature.

We have discussed already that the history and knowledge about

sufferer can help us understand his suffering as tragic or accidental.
On the other hand if our experience of seeing suffering is too common,
too often and too much, we cannot feel it tragic in most of the ways. If
the story of Oedipus had been the common happening in Greek
society, even Sophocles would not have presented it as a play. So the
uniqueness of incident also helps it make a tragedy.

It does not mean however that the number of sufferings or deaths in

present age has changed and shaped the meanings and effect of
tragedy to some other proportions. Death has never been so rare as it
is in these days. The people in past were more used to death than we
are now. It means the view is given completely in its social perspective.
The types of events or accidents given in the support of this argument
and the categories of sufferer as you and I are also social. The power

of this argument lies not in its relativity but use of deprecating words.
The comparative stress on the particularity of event and suffering
person is however too obvious to be mentioned in this view. We have
seen Williams and other critics talking on the point of rank that
some deaths matter more than others. But I dont find a tragedy where
the death or suffering of a tragic hero becomes the death and suffering
of whole community. Even Oedipus gouging his eyes and expelling
himself from Thebes is no more a kind of personal suffering for
Thebans. Hamlets death is not the death of his countrymen. The
Thebans and Hamlets countrymen were mere observers or spectators.
Their suffering was more or less equal to the suffering of present day
audience.

If Sophocles presented Oedipus as a tragic hero it does not mean that a

tragic hero should always be of a kingly stature. He might have written
tragedies on common men that unfortunately could not survive to us.
Secondly the ability of gaining lessons in those days was not related to
the things of daily experience. The people in those days got lessons
from the tales of animals and birds. They got lessons from
supernatural and mythological lore. Unlike to the psychology of
present day people who get lessons from the happenings and matters
related to their immediate experience, for the people of those days the
things or stories taken from their immediate experience were not
mostly considered of any importance. It was not the rank but the
alienation or strangeness of tragic hero that inspired the audience in
those days. Though to meet the king was not as difficult as it is today
yet the love of public for their king that was far more and far greater
than the love of public for president or prime minister in these days,
made the suffering of king or a man of rank something worthy to

mourn at. The reasons of this modern view are based on the points we
have discussed in the above explanations for rank and suffering. The
fate of tragic hero in relation to the fate of dynasty or kingdom is
emphasised again in the false old context. The example of King Lear is
not sufficient. The play itself is not decided as a tragedy yet. We feel
sorry for King Lear but this feeling sorry for him is different from what
we feel for Oedipus. Faith does not mean the faith in the existence of
God only. We cannot live without faith. In whatever thing or idea we
shall have faith its intensity or importance shall be equal to that of
what we have for God. To have no faith in God is also a kind of faith.
This is again a kind of poetic statement. Neither we can accept it nor
deny. It seems said in the light of Oedipus Rex. But the fact I always
try to penetrate is again invitingly open. Why Aristotles definition of
tragedy is considered only the best available definition? Why Oedipus
Rex is considered the best available tragedy. If Sophocles had not
written Oedipus Rex would Aristotle have been able to present his
theory of ideal tragedy?

What I want to say is quite simple in a way. If Aristotles theory of

tragedy is accepted as faultless and the most perfect, it should have its
value for other tragedies written in his times also. If it is dependent on
Oedipus Rex only, it should rather be called an evaluation than a
theory. To reach the final concept of tragedy in Greek society we
should keep in mind the other tragedies written in those times also. If
we find any difference in the tragedies written by other tragedians and
those written by Sophocles, we should conclude very simply that the
concepts we have studied as growth of the idea of tragedy were
existing even in those early days also.

Williams arguments and counter arguments are obviously the

creation of his own mind the fact we should not forget at any
moment. Whatever he provides us as a common view or opinion of
people and critics is in fact his own view or opinion.

We cannot take this type of criticism as genuine criticism. The type of

criticism Williams offers us is a kind of political or social propaganda.
Williams has adopted criticism as a form of creative activity to spread
only his views. His main aim is not to discuss the social or historical
perspective of tragedy but to convey his social and political views. The
underlined statement is given to support the arguments given in the
above paragraph. The concentration camp is the name given to one of
the prison camps used for exterminating prisoners under the rule of
Hitler in Nazi Germany What we have come to know so far are the
relevant details and explanations of the theories of tragedy. If Williams
has discussed experience he has discussed it in its relevancy to
theoretical progress of tragedy.
Rejection of Tragedy

Except one or two sentences, whatever Williams has said about Brecht
so far is merely an approval or appraisal from a teacher. He seems
unable to do with Brecht what he has been doing with other critics
contriving and deducting from their views and opinions the views and
opinions of his own. In between the lines we feel him saying if we want
to know his (Williams) views about the concept of tragedy in modern
times we should simply read Brecht or any available criticism on him
and thats all. Whatever Brecht says and practices seems on Williams

behalf true, accepted and agreed.

The chapter seems a kind of evaluation of Brechts work. Rather it

should have been the evaluation of his theories. The instances given
from plays seem unnecessary when we recall to mind the earlier
chapters of the book. What we except to read in this chapter is the
theoretical growth in the idea of tragedy. What we read in real is the
growth in the writing style of tragedies. All Brechts statements are left
unexplained as if they were already agreed upon. We find very little of
evaluating or interpreting nature. Unlike to the demand of the topic or
Williams former expression, the chapter seems bearing no cultural or
political perspective.

What he says in these lines seems irrelevant or imposed. I have been

unable to see this all in the above discussion or commentary. Williams
could have said this even for Eliot or Pinter. I dont find it subjectively
coherent. However the argument he gives about Brechts rejection of
tragedy with respect to the former tragedies seems interconnecting to
some extent. Throughout this chapter Williams has been like a
traditional academic critic. The chapter seems merely an introductory
or interpretative article worthless in all respects to be included in a
book of more philosophical than critical judgements on the tragedy in
theory and experience. We dont see the vigour of arguments he
discussed with the Greek, Mediaeval and Elizabethan critics. We have
seen this argumentative helplessness in discussion on Nietzsche. But it
was not so tangible as it is in case of Brecht. At moments I feel that the
chapter has nothing to do with the rest of the book. All Williams has
done is to explain and interpret Brechts ideas and experiments. His

effort to see things in social and political perspectives also seems

minimised. He looks but an intellectually kidnapped. In fact what
Brecht writes does not suit to the taste of Modern Tragedy. I am
unable to understand Brechts theoretical contribution to tragedy. His
aim was to portray the mind or society, not the theory. His intention
was to discover mainly some new form of expression, not to reject the
old ones. In fact I dont think that Brechts experimental work has
anything to do with the idea of tragedy. Brecht was an innovator, but
could not be a pioneer.
Thursday, December 2, 2010

Chapter wise Summary: Modern Tragedy by Raymond Williams

Tragedy and Tradition

Williams writings in the post-war period had a kind of existentialist motif of blocked individual
liberation. This essay is a discussion on the common and the traditional interpretations of tragedy. He has
used his power of perception and has come with a strong thesis on the evolution of tragedy in the essay. In
the previous essay, he tells the basics of tragedy in these words: we come to tragedy by many roads. It is
an immediate experience, a body of literature, conflict of theory, an academic problem.

He believes that tragedy is not the death of kings; it is more personal and general. Tragedy is not simply
death and suffering and it is certainly not accident. Nor is it simply a response to death and suffering. It is
a particular kind of event and particular kind of response which are genuinely tragic and which the long
tradition embodies. His basic thesis in this article is: the meaning of tragedy, the relationship of tradition
to tragedy and the kinds of experience which we mistakenly call tragic.
We usually try to make a contrast between the traditional and the modern and try to compress and unify
the various thinking of the past into a single tradition. About tradition Williams explains: it is a question,
rather of realizing that a tradition is not the past; but an interpretation of the past a selection and
evaluation of ancestors rather than a neutral record and the present serves as a link between the

traditional and the modern. When the unique Greek culture changed, the chorus which was the crucial
element of dramatic form was discarded and the unique meaning of tragedy was lost. People think that
the medieval period produced no tragedy, but Monks Tale is the example in which we see
protagonist falling from prosperity to adversity. Later tragedy became more secularized in the
Renaissance and Neoclassical age. Now a change was visible. The moving force of tragedy was now quite
clearly a matter of behavior, rather than either a metaphysical condition or metaphysical fault.

Lessing (1729-81) was a noted German critic and dramatic poet. His major contribution to idea of tragedy
is (a) a theoretical rejection of neo-classicism (b) a defense of Shakespeare (c) and an advocacy and
writing of bourgeois tragedy. He said the Neoclassicism was a false classicism and the real inherit of the
Greeks was Shakespeare and the real inherit of Shakespeare was the new national bourgeois tragedy. RW
doesnt agree with Lessing he holds that Shakespeare was not the real inherit of the Greeks; rather he was
a major instance of a new kind of tragedy. The character of Elizabethan tragedy is determined by a very
complicated relationship between elements of an inherited order and elements of a new humanism. If the
historical idea of the development is to be fully understood, we must understand the complicated process
of secularization. In a sense, all drama after Renaissance is secular and the only fully religious tragedy we
have is Greek because Elizabethan drama was totally secular. There was a concept of good and evil and
poetic justice.

Hegel (1770-1831) was a famous German Philosopher did not reject the moral scheme of poetic justice but
he described it as a triumph of ordinary morality and the work that embodied it as a social drama rather
than tragedy. What is important for Hegel is not the suffering mere suffering but its causes. Mere pity
and fear are not tragic. Tragedy recognizes suffering as suspended over active characters entirely as the
consequence of their own act. It does not consider the external contingency beyond the control of the
individual i.e. illness, loss of property, death or the like. For genuine tragedy, there must be individual
freedom and independence. This conscious individuality is the only condition of tragedy.
Williams points two differences between modern and ancient tragedies. First, in ancient tragedy, the
characters clearly represent the substantive ethical ends; in modern tragedy, ends are wholly personal.
Secondly, in ancient tragedy, there is not only the downfall of conflicting persons and ends in the
achievement of eternal justice. An individual may surrender his partial and under a higher command; in
modern tragedy, the whole question of resolution is more abstract and colder. Reconciliation, when it

comes, will often be within the character and will be more complicated. Hegels interpretation of tragedy
is part of a general philosophy rather than a historical criticism.

Schopenhauer (1788-1860) and Nietzsche (1844-1900) are two German philosophers whose views also
contributed to the development of tragedy. Before Schopenhauer, tragedy was associated with (a) ethical
crises (b) human growth and (c) history. He secularized the idea of fate when he said, the true sense of
tragedy is the deeper insight, that is not his own individual sins that the hero atones for, but original sin,
i.e. the crime of existence itself. Tragedy, according to Nietzsche, dramatizes a tension, which it resolves
in a higher unity. There the hero, the highest manifestation of the will, is destroyed, but the eternal life of
the will remains unaffected. According to him, the action of tragedy is not moral, not purgative, but
aesthetic.

Tragedy and Contemporary Ideas

Tragedy and Contemporary Ideas presents the discussion on tragedy in relation to the contemporary
ideas. The writer has discussed the four things: (a) order and accident (b) the destruction of the hero (c)
the irreparable action and its connections with death and (d) the emphasis of evil.

It is generally said that there is no significant meaning in everyday tragedies because the event itself is
not tragic; only becomes so with a through a shaped response. Williams does not not agree to this view.
He cannot see how it is possible to distinguish between an event and response to an event, in any absolute
way.

In the case of ordinary death and suffering, when we see mourning and lament, when we see people
breaking under their actual loss, we have entered tragedy. Other responses are also possible such as
indifference, justification, and rejoicing. But where we feel the suffering, we are within the dimensions of
tragedy. But a burnt family or a mining disaster which leavespeople without feeling are called Accidents.
The events not seen as tragic are deep in thepattern of our own culture: war, famine, work, traffic, and
politics.

To feel no tragic meaning in them is a sort of our bankruptcy. Rank was the dividing line because the
death of some people mattered more than others. Our middle class culture rejects this. The tragic of a
citizen could be as real as the tragedy of a prince. The emerging middle class rejected rank in tragedy. The
individual was not a state; but the entity in himself.
Order in tragedy is the result of the action. In tragedy, the creation of order is related to the fact of
disorder, through which the action moves. It may be the pride of man set against the nature of things. In
different cultures, disorder and order both vary, for there are parts of varying general interpretations of
life. We should see this variation as an indication of the major cultural importance of tragedy as form of
art.
The most common interpretation of tragedy is that it is an action in which the hero is destroyed. The fact
is seen irreparable. In most tragedies, the story does not end with the destruction of the hero; it follows
on. It is not the job of the artist to provide answers and solutions; but simply describe experience and
raise questions. Modern tragedy is not what happens to the hero; but what happens through him. When
we concentrate on the hero, we are unconsciously confining our attention to the individual.
The tragic experience lies in the fact that life does not come back, that its meanings are reaffirmed and
restored after so much suffering and after so important a death. Death gives importance and meaning to
life. The death of an individual brings along the whole community in the form of rituals and condolence as
in Adam Bede; so tragedy is social and collective and not individual and personal. Death is absolute and
all our living simply relative. Death is necessary and all other human ends are contingent (social
collectivity). Death is universal so a man tied to it quickly claims university.

Man dies alone is an interpretation and not a fact; because man dies in many different conditions i.e.
among machines, due to bombs, in the arms, with or without family, in their presence and absence. When
he dies, he affects others. He alters the lives of other characters. To insist on a single meaning is not
reasonable. Our most common received interpretations of life put the highest value and significance on
the individual and his development; but it is indeed inescapable that the individual dies. Tragedy
dramatizes evil in many particular forms: not only Christian evil but also cultural, political and
ideological. Good and evil are not absolute. We are good or bad in particular ways and in particular
situations; defined by pressures we at one received and can alter and can create again.

Rejection of Tragedy

This essay is a study of the rejection of tragedy in modern age with special reference to Bertolt Brechet

who founded epic theater as compared to the emotional theory of Aristotle. He rejected the conventional
idea of tragedy and made tragedy more experiential and rational. He also said, the sufferings of this man
appeal me because they are unnecessary. He made people think above the situation presented in the
tragedy and not within. Aristotelian drama enforced thinking from within and Brechets theater from
without. He used distancing affects to turn people like who sit in the chair, smoke and observe. He showed
that the audience wanted to see. Williams has discussed six plays: The Three Penny Opera, Saint Joan of
the Stockyard, Die Massnahme, The Good Woman of Sezuen, Mother Courage and Her Children and the
Life of Galileo. In the last play mentioned, the hero is offered two choices one between accepting the terms
or the other being destroyed. Nevertheless, the hero recants. Tragedy in one of the older terms has been
rejected by Brechet.

He then discusses Brechets theater and tells us why he rejected the classical tragedy and introduced
rational theater.

Theatre or theater is the branch of the performing arts concerned with acting out stories in front of an
audience using combinations of speech, gesture, mime, music, dance, sound and spectacle indeed any
one or more elements of t...

was and what he wanted theatre to be, Brecht believed that the theatre's broadest function was to educate.
"It is the noblest function that we have found for 'theatre'". Brecht wanted the answer to Lenins question
Wie und was soll man lernen? ('How and what should one learn?'). He created an influential theory of
theatre, the epic theatre, wherein a play should not cause the spectator to emotionally identify with the
action before him or her, but should instead provoke rational self-reflection and a critical view of the
actions on the stage. He believed that the experience of a climactic catharsis of emotion left an audience
complacent. Instead, he wanted his audiences to use this critical perspective to identify social ills at work
in the world and be moved to go forth from the theatre and effect change.

Hans Eisler has noted that these plays resemble political seminars. Brecht described them as "a collective
political meeting" in which the audience is to participate actively. One sees in this model a rejection of the
concept of the bureaucratic elite party where the politicians are to issue directives and control the
behaviour of the masses. For this purpose, Brecht employed the use of techniques that remind the
spectator that the play is a representation of reality and not reality itself, which he called the

Verfremdungseffekt (translated as distancing effect, estrangement effect, or alienation effect). Such

techniques included the direct address by actors to the audience, transposition of text to third person or
past tense, speaking the stage direction out loud, exaggerated, unnatural stage lighting, the use of song,
and explanatory placards. By highlighting the constructed nature of the theatrical event, Brecht hoped to
communicate that the audience's reality was, in fact a construction and, as such, was changeable.

Another technique that Brecht employed to achieve his Verfremdungseffekt was the principle of
historicisation.

The principle of 'historicizaton' is a fundamental part of the Marxist aesthetics developed by the Germany
Modernism theatre practitioner Bertolt Brecht.... . The content of many of his plays dealt with fictional
tellings of historical figures or events. His idea was that if one were to tell a story from a time that is
contemporary to an audience, they may not be able to maintain the critical perspective he hoped to
achieve. Instead, he focused on historical stories that had parallel themes to the social ills he was hoping
to illuminate in his own time. He hoped that, in viewing these historical stories from a critical perspective,
the contemporary issues Brecht was addressing would be illuminated to the audience.
In one of his first productions, Brecht famously put up signs that said "Glotzt nicht so romantisch!"
("Don't stare so romantically!"). His manner of stagecraft has proven both fruitful and confusing to those
who try to produce his works or works in his style. His theory of theatre has heavily influenced modern
theatre. Some of his innovations have become so common that they've entered the theatrical canon.
Although Brecht's work and ideas about theatre are generally thought of as belonging to modernism.
Modernism is a trend of thought which affirms the power of human beings to make, improve and reshape
their environment, with the aid of scientific knowledge, technology and practical experimentation.... ,
there is recent thought that he is the forerunner of contemporary postmodern theatre practice. This is
particularly so because he questioned and dissolved many of the accepted practices of the theatre of his
time and created a political theatre. Political theatre is drama or performing art which emphasizes a
political issue or issues in its theme or plot.... that involved the audience in understanding its meaning.
Moreover, he was one of the first theatre practitioners to incorporate multimedia into the semiotics.
Semiotics, or semiology, is the study of sign , both individually and grouped in sign systems.... of theatre.
Email This