To what extent is Willy Loman a tragic hero?

Review of essay

Rating: 3 star(s)

Response to the question

This essay engages with the concept of tragedy well, but I don't think direct comparisons with Shakespearian tragedies is the best way to construct an argument. If I were answering this question, I would begin with a strong introduction using Miller's essay "Tragedy and the Common Man" to begin the argument that the play is still a tragedy, and then summarise the main characteristics of a tragic hero in this context. The question isn't asking "To what extent is Willy Loman a Shakespearian tragic hero?" so comments such as "Another difference between Miller and Shakespeare's tragedies" adds nothing to the argument. The most sophisticated arguments will be looking at how Miller has adapted tragedy.

Level of analysis

The analysis here is basic, and there is little focus on literary construction. Comments such as "Music is also heard throughout the play, it is used to represent Willy's inability to focus on reality" show potential, but there is no real evidence of how it is used and what effect it has on the audience. Whenever you are analysing tragedy, I would always recommend referring all your points back to how the audience respond, as this allows a discussion on the reception and intent of the play. This essay has the tendency to retell, rather than analyse, and this is mostly due to the poor structure of the argument. If the essay had chosen to analyse a few main characteristics of a tragic hero, they wouldn't have to narrate with comments such as "He never comes to terms with reality". Looking at dramatic techniques such as soliloquies would be relevant here.

Quality of writing

This essay has a poor structure, as mentioned above. The introduction offers nothing - examiners will hate to see introductions which simply explain the author of the play and a short plot summary. Instead, introductions should engage with the question and set up a cogent argument. Similarly, the conclusion is poor - it may seem to draw upon evidence, but this is not clear, and the use of the first person should be avoided. Using the first person makes any views seem personal, whereas arguments should be built upon the foundations of evidence and analysis. Spelling, punctuation and grammar are fine.