The play doesn’t include many characters outside the family, which makes Willy Loman a very central figure in his very small society (his family). From this angle Willy Loman could be considered to be of ‘noble standing’. Furthermore, if only nobility can grasp the emotional concept of tragedy, then why do the average people enjoy the idea of a tragedy in a play? The average person is capable of a fortune reversal, whatever standing they are. Arthur Miller’s essay also highlights this point – “I believe that the common man is as apt a subject for tragedy in its highest sense as kings were”. Despite not being of conventional ‘noble’ standing -like Aristotle says- Willy Loman, and the typical man he represents, can still undergo reversal of fortune, like any other tragic hero.
Cause-and-effect chains, as well as a rich plot, are essential for a tragedy. Adding to this, Aristotle states that the downfall must not wholly rely on the tragic hero’s personality and character, but also include external forces, that influence the eventual outcome. The play was written in 30’s America, around the time of the ‘American dream’, where society was quickly moving – financially, socially, and ideologically. This is obvious in the society where Willy Loman lives – he simply cannot keep up with the ever-changing society and its demands. He refuses to adhere to the new values and ideas of society, and for this reason, he suffers his downfall. In the play, Willy was stuck believing that an individual’s personality would help him to success – not realising that reputation meant little anymore, and the business world which he lived in had changed, and everyone was out for their own good. He compares a man to an orange and how you can’t be used - "You can't eat the orange and throw the peel away -- a man is not a piece of fruit!" -These are the kind of values Willy Loman stands by, and how easily they brought about his downfall. It’s clear that during the play, society and changing values played a vital role in the downfall of Willy Loman, and it was not simply down to his own character. This therefore, suits Aristotle’s idea, that in conjunction with a fatal flaw, the tragic hero has to be affected by some external source.
A tragic hero should also possess a ‘fitness of character’. For catharsis to be experienced, sympathy has to be felt for a character, and their predicament. Even though Willy was affected by changing society, his appeal is reduced when his extramarital affair was exposed. Additionally, he overlooks Happy for the play’s duration. This should make it harder to empathise with this character– because the character is pursuing their downfall, rather than external factors, in conjunction with his tragic flaw.
It could, however, be argued that these negative aspects to his character are all brought on by his tragic flaw, and the changing world around him. His affair could be to get him the feeling of self-worth and achievement that he craves for in his sales job, but is not getting, as a result of his own beliefs, and the harsh business environment which he’s forced to work in. The neglect of Happy, is harder to consider. He could be overlooking him, in order to focus his effort onto Biff, who lacks the deluded aspirations that Willy wants him to have. Witnessing Willy’s affair affected Biff, motivationally. Despite this, Willy is determined to succeed in his career, to provide for his family, and increase reputation. However, it’s hard to determine if Willy is simply driven by the popularity and financial gain, or a desperate bid to fulfil the expectations that he believes his family have for him. The latter would make his character ‘finer’ – It would mean Willy craves success, in order to provide for his family, and to please people around him, which would not be his fault. His Brother Ben’s success was possibly the trigger for this desire –again making Willy not entirely responsible for his actions.
But perhaps Aristotle’s idea of a ‘fine’ character is not possible? Perhaps the character needs to have some faults, to bring him down, as well as the effects of society? Arthur Miller writes, in his Tragedy and the common man essay:”...And if society alone is responsible for the cramping of our lives, then the protagonist must needs be so pure and faultless as to force us to deny his validity as a character”. This point addresses that while a tragic hero should ideally be a blameless individual, this makes them void as a character, and cannot be related to by the audience, and appreciated in a play. Therefore, Willy’s character faults are the only thing making him a feasible ‘tragic’ character.
Eric Mottram (a critic), in his collection of essays, writes about Willy Loman: “…what happens to an ordinarily uneducated man in an unjust competitive society in which men are victimized by false gods. His fate is not tragic. There is nothing of the superhuman or providential or destined in this play”. Similarly, Paul Siegel, A college English contributor, compared Willy to King Lear, a Shakespearean character -“The cause of the catastrophe of the king of ancient Briton and that of the salesman of today is the same: each does not know himself and the world in which he is living.”. Both these quotes address the fact that the characters are not aware of new society’s expectations and values, which means their own outlook is unrealistic. Willy has a deluded set of aspirations, which he cannot achieve. King Lear too, suffers from delusion; he cannot distinguish fake appearances, from true reality. Both characters have trouble separating real life from their distorted outlook, which prompt their downfalls. While Eric Mottram’s point is valid, in saying Willy isn’t tragic – he suffers the same fate as many do, as a result of the society he’s living in, making his emotions and actions unanticipated. You can argue that the affects on the character are definitely tragic, as an ‘unjust’ society is capable of corrupting any individual – in particular, a tragic hero.
Despite challenging many of Aristotle’s ideas, Willy Loman is a modern take on what a tragic hero should be, possessing a fatal flaw, and a reversal of fortune. Despite not reaching anagorsis, sympathy is still felt for Willy by the audience, especially as the character did not achieve anything by the time of his eventual downfall. Miller’s own ideas for a tragic hero also justify Willy’s traits, acknowledging him as a modern-day version of the ‘tragic hero’, whilst still sharing some characteristics.
