Lame
anewphilosophy

I love holidays!

email your friends about this site

share

subscribe to this author

subscribe

send a message to this author

contact

reward this author with a star!

stars

subscribe to this author

subscribe

Home

go to your pnn homepage

Start_blogging

start blogging

Helpflag this site as inappropriate
LOGIN LOGOUT Home
Politics
news, views
Green
Living an eco-friendly life
Money & Careers
Building your financial fitness
Family
Moms, dads, kids
Diversions
your daily dose
Style
chic and cheap
DIY
handmade, homemade, more
World
Going global
Well-Being
Everything for body and soul
A&E
a dose of 'cultcha'
Living
the good, the bad, the messy
Gossip
Pssst: The scoop on celebs
Contests

Image

Tragedy and Maturity

Posted by anewphilosophy Posted on: 11/08/08

Tragedy and Maturity

I noticed a disturbing trend today while looking at online reviews of the book I've just started, Jane Smiley's A Thousand Acres. It's a retelling of King Lear set in 1970s farm country, and I've been wanting to read it ever since Don Foster recommended it to me during our time with Lear in Shakespeare class last year.

So I'm looking through the reviews and I realize that there are a pretty large proportion of people who simply disliked the book BECAUSE IT WAS A TRAGEDY. Here's a sampling of these views:

"I thought it was on [sic] okay story at first, but then it got SO tragic that it depressed me and I was sorry I'd ever read it."

" I didn't know it was a tragedy when I started it... kinda wish I had. Smiley is a brilliant novelist. The book gripped me, but in the end, the story itself was a little bit too tragic for me."

" i didn't realize it was a tragedy until the moment it became one, and then i didn't like it anymore."


Okay, first of all: IT'S KING LEAR. If you didn't realize that this book was gonna be pretty sad, you're a moron.

Second of all— um, what's with the dislike for tragedy? Aren't some of the best stories sad ones?

I find this to be part of a weird, pseudo-delusional trend in American thought: the idea that positive thinking is the best way to bring about happiness, and the idea that happiness itself is the most important thing to possess. It occurred to me while I was watching a recent episode of America's Top Model, if I am to be completely honest.

In that episode, one of the girls is a European, and she explains that in Europe, you're generally expected to be realistic. There isn't any of this "I can do it!" or "If I believe it myself, it will happen!" bullcrap— they just rationally consider whether or not they possess the right skills and qualities to do what they want to do, and if not they move on. And when the American girls began attacking this girl as "negative", I became really annoyed, because all they did was repeat stupid, passé mantras like "If you don't believe in yourself, who will?" and "If you want it badly enough, it'll happen."

 

No, it won't, kids. I'm a little concerned about the shiny-happy personas we're cultivating in people today. I see all these kids here say things like "I'm going to be an NFL lineman when I graduate from high school, and everyone says I can do it if I just believe in myself!" And I think, sweetie, there's no way in hell you're going to be an NFL lineman— you're dinky and frail and you're probably not going to get much taller than 5' 4''. If you just faced reality, maybe you could find something else you enjoy. Instead, though, the "power of positive thinking" is going to keep you chasing a stupid dream until it's too late to figure out what else you love in life.


Now, I'm not saying that it's terrible to have dreams and to pursue them— obviously, it's important to cultivate a sense of drive and determination. But I object to the idea with which all American children seem to be raised these days: that you can do ANYTHING simply by wishing for it to occur. That's not true, and it's likely to leave us all frustrated and empty in the long run.

Similarly, I'm disturbed by how many people want to be happy ALL THE TIME. How can you know what happiness is unless you've known real misery? I've been bonebreakingly, heartrenderingly sad before, and that's why I'm so thankful and relieved to be happy right now. Tragedy sews the seeds of comedy, and if you're not actively engaged in one, you can't really enjoy the other, either.

After all, aren't most comedies just tragedies with different endings? Think about Twelfth Night for a second: the situation is ripe for tragedy, with cross-dressing confusion and unrequited lovers and secret passions. How easily the whole thing could have ended in misery, with Viola spurned for her men's garments and the Duke crushed under the weight of his confused emotions. But no— the story ends happily, and we breathe a sigh of relief, but only if we KNOW tragedy was lurking around the corner, only if we have become intimately familiar with the darker side of human nature.

I think an acceptance of, and even a certain level of satisfaction in, tragic storylines comes with maturity. Of course, there are plenty of people who never mature, even as they grow old. I myself know 40-year-olds and 50-year-olds who are completely shallow, who have never been refused what they wanted, who make messes of their lives because no one ever sat them down and gave them a stern talking-to, because they had never bothered to experience variety and substance before.

Tragic storylines can be just as satisfying as comic ones, but only if you're willing to experience a moment of loss, a moment of depth.


2Vote!
Links
Like this story? Share the news by clicking below:
This is a permanent link to this article. A great way to save it.
PermaLink
Post your article on Digg and let others vote on it.
Digg
Technorati is a blog indexing site.
Technorati
del.icio.us is a social bookmarking site.
Delicious
Kirtsy is a social bookmarking site featuring voting.
Kirtsy_addicon
  • I think this denial of anything sad, negative, or painful can actually be dangerous at times. When rough things in life happen, it is tempting to try to bury our uncomfortable feelings and deny them, which results in all sorts of issues down the road.
    By maryem on November 08, 2008 23:34

  • very good point, maryem.
    By chitowngirl on November 09, 2008 15:28

  • My 12th grade AP Lit class read A Thousand Acres and King Lear together, the one at home, the other aloud in class, and it was one of the more memorable units of an already excellent class. Reading the modern adaptation (and anyone who reads the book *should know* that it's an adaptation) helped me to make sense of the classic play, and knowing the origins of the modern book gave significance and depth to the tragedy. I'm sure you're already familiar with King Lear, but for anyone who's not - adaptations make much more sense when set against the original.
    By flechette on November 10, 2008 01:28

  • I had to read A Thousand Acres in my frosh year lit class, and I loathed that book. Nobody told me ahead of time that it was a continuation and adaptation of Lear, but it didn't take too long to figure it out (though granted, I have seen Lear performed and had to analyze it for IB HL English). But yeah, not knowing that part of the puzzle would have radically changed the book's significance for me and how I evaluated it. And tragedy serves a purpose. Life isn't perfect, life isn't always happy and escapist. That's what makes it real, valuable and interesting.
    By Maya on November 21, 2008 06:15

  • ah. Lear. of course!
    By allison on November 21, 2008 07:33

Leave a Comment


about us | contact | terms | privacy | advertise | help | press | feedback