Drunken Phallic Processions

The following is an excerpt of an email sent from Art to Will on 29 June 2014.

Agreed on the differences between ancient and modern tragedy. But I'm not sure I agree that "tragedy should scare us all into the higher reality of the comic."

Attic komasts

I tend to agree with Aristotle that, between tragedy, epic, and comedy, tragedy is the highest and comedy is the lowest, with epic a close second to tragedy. As he writes, "Comedy aims at representing men as worse, Tragedy as better than in actual life." In other words, comedy holds humanity in low esteem, tragedy in high esteem. Tragedy grew out of religious, dithyrambic dances probably involving the sacrifice of a goat; comedy grew out of drunken phallic processions.

I think we're better than comic characters and I think God thinks so too.

A morality play would be considered a poorly done tragedy. Seeing the downfall of a sinful character in a morality play does not produce catharsis:

A plot of this kind would, doubtless, satisfy the moral sense, but it would inspire neither pity nor fear; for pity is aroused by unmerited misfortune, fear by the misfortune of a man like ourselves. Such an event, therefore, will be neither pitiful nor terrible. (Poetics, Chapter 13)

I like to think that morality plays fail because we just make a resolution not to do what the fallen character did. But how are we going to get out of Oedipus' plight???

The ultimate tragic character he describes as

a man who is not eminently good and just--yet whose misfortune is brought about not by vice or depravity, but by some error or frailty. He must be one who is highly renowned and prosperous,—a personage like Oedipus, Thyestes, or other illustrious men of such families. (Chapter 13)

As for the  Deus ex Machina, it should be avoided:

The 'Deus ex Machina' should be employed only for events external to the drama,—for antecedent or subsequent events, which lie beyond the range of human knowledge, and which require to be reported or foretold; for to the gods we ascribe the power of seeing all things. Within the action there must be nothing irrational. If the irrational cannot be excluded, it should be outside the scope of the tragedy. Such is the irrational element in the Oedipus of Sophocles. (Chapter 15)

And happily, I don't think that's what God does for us in his crucifixion, death, and resurrection. Otherwise, why did he become human? Otherwise, why would he involve us? If we're just some maiden being saved from the dragon, carried away by our knight in shining armor... Something about resolution that doesn't satisfy some important aesthetic, ethical, moral, and/or religious criteria we have hardwired into ourselves.

And this is one area where I have an axe to grind. I think the Deus ex Machina is precisely the reason why we people of faith have been rightfully denied access into postmodernism (actually into art, period). A long time ago, I read an article in First Things about the poetry of John Paul II. As much as I love the guy, I was not surprised to learn that the major criticism of his poetry is that he gets down to some deep dark areas of personal emotion and crisis and then swoops in with the pat, predictable answer: God will take care of it. Tolkein with his big eagles who just happen to overhear the ruckus of the wargs and goblins is another example. I love Tolkien too, but he relies on this sort of forced plot device a lot as well.

I've already explained some of the ways I think postmodernism and a religious worldview could coexist, so I'm not going to get into it again. But that criterion of avoiding Deus ex Machina goes back to 350 B.C.! And Jesus brought about a happy ending that I think would blow even Aristotle's mind--but that means that he didn't use any of the cop outs enumerated by Aristotle.

He did something entirely surprising and NEW!