Aristotle then goes on to argue that a tragedy must ‘excite the emotions of pity and fear.’ Again, I would indicate that this does occur throughout the play. Even though we sometimes laugh at Amanda, William’s himself puts forward that there is ‘as much to love and pity’ which reminds us that her situation could, indeed, happen to anyone. Tom’s world is filled with ideas of escape, mainly through adventure and war, but he is unaware of the horrendous World War that is impending. We fear that we too, longing for adventure and change, may be on the edge of the unknown. We do, also, pity Tom somewhat, as we understand his desire to be released from his overbearing mother’s grip, and the burden of his family. In Laura’s case we do, indeed, feel great pity for her. We are aware that she has the potential to be beautiful, as suggested in the quotation ‘a fragile, unearthly prettiness has come out’ and yet we know that it will not be lasting. Her hopes and dreams will be ruined; not only by Jim’s desertion, and also that she is physically disabled. We pity her and fear that her situation could indeed, happen to us.
On the above two counts I would argue that Aristotle’s view of a tragedy has been adhered to, and therefore that the critics argument is correct.
However, his view that a tragedy should ‘show a reversal of fortunes’ does not really comply with the content of the play.
It is an arguable fact that indeed Amanda, once rich and living in the south, is now poverty stricken, but this is similar for all of the families, as the Great Depression was occurring. It is not, therefore, a simple reversal of fortune, as it is occurring everywhere in America at the time.
It is also questionable as to whether Tom’s fate is reversal of fortune. Before he left his family he has friends, a job, a house, and a family, and upon leaving, lost it all. However, his life was not, in many ways, satisfactory to him in the first place, so I would not consider his outcome to be reversal of fortune either.
Aristotle’s further analysis that a tragedy should ‘involve people of a higher status’ does also not really come together in the Glass Menagerie. Aristotle believed that a tragedy should involve Kings and Princes, people who has a lot to loose when their reversal of fortune occurred. In the Glass Menagerie, there is no one with a high social status at all in the play, so I would agree, here that the critics argument does not indeed appear to be correct.
It is also stated that a play should be written ‘in poetry embellished with every kind of artistic expression’ if it is to be a tragedy. This is certainly apparent in many of Shakespeare’s plays, which are full of poetic soliloquies and the like, but does this occur in the Glass Menagerie. At first glance I would assess the answer to be no. However, it is arguable that Tom’s narrative does indeed contain some very poetic soliloquies. Indeed I would suggest that such statements as ‘he feel in love with long distances’, and ‘I am more faithful than I intended to be’ are deeply poetic, reflecting not only the narrator’s true feelings, but doing so in a sensitive and delicate manner.
The descriptions of Laura too, I would suggest, appear to be deeply poetic, when she is described as ‘exquisitely fragile’ and ‘like a piece of translucent glass’. The language used here is very emotional, and meaningful, giving an extra touch of gracefulness and charm to the play.
However many poetic forms like this in the play, however, there is still something not at all poetic, or elegant, within the play. The conflicts between Amanda and her son, which are not uncommon, do not add this touch of embellished artistic expression Aristotle desires, but simply show the actuality of everyday life.
Taking this into account I would agree that, in places, this is certainly not a play with Aristotle’s definition of tragedy is concerned, although I would sustain the argument that the play does contain expression, sometimes very poetical, throughout.
He also argues that ‘the protagonist cannot be all good or all evil’ in a tragedy. In reference to the Glass Menagerie, this character is Tom. I would agree that Tom is certainly no saint, but he is not evil either. We feel pity for him being trapped in a job he hates, that we to feel he has no choice but to leave. We also feel let down by him, at the end of the play, when he deserts his family. However, neither of these things makes him more or less pious than we ourselves, cannot understand. It is clear to the audience that to leave is, ultimately, Tom’s only escape, and although we may feel he is wrong in deserting his family, we can understand. This is because we can relate to him as a character, because he is not that different from the audience themselves. I would therefore presume that the Glass Menagerie, is indeed, one in which the main character is neither saintly, nor hellish.
The last point that Aristotle makes is that there must be a unity of time, place, and action. To begin with, it is clear that time is not united in the play.
Aristotle believed a tragedy should take place over one day. This certainly does not occur in the Glass Menagerie, partly because the play takes place over a series of days, but also because it is, as Tom tells us in the opening soliloquy, ‘a memory play’.
Place, I believe, is united in the play, as it the sequence of events take place in the apartment, and here only. However, it is arguable that place is not really united, as we do not know where the certain characters, mainly Tom, go when they leave the apartment.
The last point is that of the unity of action. This, I believe, does occur throughout the play. The whole of Amanda’s existence is to find a gentleman caller, through Tom, for her daughter. This is the main point of the play, involving every character, and which, when not accomplished, tears the family apart.
Therefore, I would argue that time, place and action of the play are actually fairly united, even though it does not appear this way at first.
After examining Aristotle’s views I would define the play as tragedy. Although the Glass Menagerie does not consist entirely of his views, the main points are clearly there, as I have discussed, and consequentially agree with the critic’s argument.
