Analyzing Creon as the True Tragic Hero in Antigone: A Nuanced Interpretation, Study Guides, Projects, Research of Creative writing

Download Analyzing Creon as the True Tragic Hero in Antigone: A Nuanced Interpretation and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Creative writing in PDF only on Docsity! - 1 - Analysis: Lit - Antigone.True Tragic Hero AbsTrAcT/summAry: This analysis accepts an untraditional (to AF) expository style; namely, the assertions are at the end of each paragraph (in one case, in two sentences) and that the thesis statement is the first sentence of the conclusion. This is clearly intentional on the part of the writer and directive on the part of the teacher. With that important distinction considered, this paper scores a 4 for position. It nearly meets the criterion for a 5, but is limited by the lack of nuance in the thesis statement. criTerion 1: THesis The thesis statement (the first sentence of the conclusion) is as follows: Creon most closely fits with Aristotle’s definition of a tragic hero because of his mistakes, his pride, his great downfall, and his suffering. This thesis statement is certainly defensible and completely addresses the prompt. It is clarified in scope because the reader understands exact what about Creon fits the definition of a tragic hero. Ideas and writing are understandable and even clear. However, this thesis statement cannot score a five because it does not contain any nuance. While the thesis statement is fairly specific because it lists the exact criterion that Creon fits, it does not hint at any nuance of analysis that explains why Creon, as opposed to other characters, particularly fits the definition. The criterion listed are stock, pre-determined criterion and do not show nuance of original thought. (While the prompt does not necessarily expect the writer to do this, for the purposes of this analysis, we can still evaluate the thesis statement in this way.) The potential for a nuanced thesis exists; Antigone is most critics’ definition of a tragic hero and Creon is a less obvious (and thus potentially more nuanced) choice. For example, a more nuanced thesis statement might read as follows: While the tragic Antigone nearly fits the classic example of the tragic hero, ultimately Creon’s decisions as king determine the fate of every character in the play. Antigone, Haemon, and Creon alike experience catastrophic downfalls, errors in judgment and exceptional suffering; however, only Creon has the ultimate ability as the monarch to correct his errors and change the fate of his family, making him Antigone’s true (and only) tragic hero. The key difference(Creon’s power as the monarch) in the last sentence’s second independent clause is a nuance (subtle variation) that leads to the key point of analysis (that Creon, not Antigone, truly fits the criterion). criTerion 2: AsserTions The presentation of assertions in the paper is also untraditional to the AF model. Namely, the first sentence of every paragraph is not argumentative. For example, in the first body paragraph, the first sentence reads as follows: “Ismene, the sister of Antigone, suffers greatly because of the curse her father has placed upon the family by accidentally marrying his mother.” Ismene’s suffering is simply fact; there is no argument here to defend. However, subarguments do exist in the paper in the form of interpretations at the end of the PosiTion 4 - 2 - paragraph that link back into the thesis statement and overall topic of the paragraph. For example, in this same paragraph, the last sentence reads as follows: Ismene’s great fall from nobility, her mistake of not helping her sister bury Polynices, and the great suffering she has to endure after having to watch her sister die are some characteristics of a tragic hero, although she does not quite fit the part because these are mostly cause her father’s curse; she does not control her fate. This sentence—the examples of her suffering, the analysis that she did not cause them, the link back to the defined experiences of a tragic hero—is argumentative and the core subargument (assertion) of the paragraph. The same paragraph structure follows in the next two body paragraphs. While this is not traditionally the way we teach paragraph structure at AF, it is a perfectly fine way of writing (done correctly!) and should not receive any penalties. Each assertion is clarified in scope because they each prove exactly why that character does or does not fit the criterion. The assertions are even distinct and clear, but they are not particularly precise and concise. Graded alone, the assertions could push to a five, but could not score a six because they do not show true complexity of thought.