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

Aristotle, Antigone and  billystick Budd  In Poetics, Aristotle explains cataclysm as a kind of imitation of a certain magnitude, utilise direct action instead of narration to achieve its desired affect.  It is of an passing serious nature.  Tragedy is also complete, with a structure that unifies all of its parts.  It is meant to evolve a catharsis of the audience, meant to produce the emotions of pity and fear and to purge them of these emotions and help them better understand the paths 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 truncheon Budd and the famous Hellenic tragedy Antigone by Sophocles.  Antigone is emphatically a good example of a Greek tragedy.  It contains all of the elements of Greek tragedy as defined by Aristotle.  Billy Budd has also been understand by some critics as a Greek tragedy.  This seems true in th at it contains many of the requirements in a Greek tragedy.  However, as we look closer, thither be many factors that atomic number 18 not 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, patch, as well as focus.  However, it elicit be argued that these differences can also be similarities.  It can be explained as a variant.  rendering has been a key issue in these two deeds.  The two works have been interpreted in many different ways.  Each way could lead to a different comparison of these two works.  Therefore, the reader must(prenominal) decide which interpretation is most correct and conclude whether the similarities are suitable to call Billy Budd a Greek tragedy.    Aris totle states that For Tragedy is an imitation, not of men, except of an action and of life, and life consists in action, and its end 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 delegation 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 affair of all.