Cormier’s The Chocolate War as Aristotelian Tragedy Essay Example

about The Chocolate War, their emphasis on the importance of role models in adolescent fiction and their assessment of Jerry's failure to embody a positive role model are particularly noteworthy. I believe these objections capture the essence of their resistance to the book.

The readers' negative responses to The Chocolate War are a reflection of their beliefs about what fiction targeted towards adolescents should or should not accomplish. These beliefs are influenced by current societal ideas about the nature of adolescents. According to Anne Scott MacLeod, there is an unwritten expectation that adult readers have for adolescent literature. This expectation mandates that no matter how realistic the narrative may be, there must be some element of hope and an affirmative message at the end (74). The Chocolate War clearly deviates from this expectation. Critics who condemn The Chocolate War do so explicitly to protect vulnerable adolescent readers. Bagnall, for example, raises concerns about the book's appropriateness for teenagers, arguing that people need a strong self-evaluation for their own self-respect and the respect of others, as identified by Abraham Maslow's work. Additionally, positive experiences are necessary for individuals to mature wisely and well.

This book does not contain any positive experiences. According to Curt Richter and Martin Seligman, if we teach our young that no matter how hard they try, they cannot succeed, we can instill a sense of hopelessness in them. This story teaches that same sense of hopelessness (217). Bagnall's evaluation assumes that teenagers are easily influenced and therefore will be negatively impacted because the novel does not provide them with positive role models. However, she also acknowledges the novel's power, as her fear is based

on the belief that it will affect the reader, and that the effect will be negative.

Both my students and these critics share similar concerns. One of my students recently expressed doubt about teaching the novel due to the cruelty displayed by the gang and even by headmaster Leon. She was worried that her students might imitate these events. Another student argued that Cormier's message to young readers appears to be that life continues on, and they have little or no control over its outcome. He found this disheartening to convey to a child, and while it may hold some truth, he wouldn't teach it in his classes. Instead, he believed it would be better to instill hope and confidence in them, as well as provide them with tools to handle future setbacks. Like Bagnall, both students recognize the power and authenticity within Cormier's novel but question whether young readers are capable of confronting such a complex reality. Additionally, other critics contend that the ending of the novel contradicts cultural beliefs commonly expected from literature targeted at young adults.

According to MacLeod, The Chocolate War goes against the deeply ingrained belief in America of the "triumphant lonely hero" (76). Sylvia Patterson Iskander expands on this idea, arguing that traditional American stereotypes dictate that a good nonconformist must, in fictional works, ultimately achieve some form of victory. Cormier's portrayal of Jerry appears to follow this pattern, leading readers to expect a dramatic last-minute triumph by the protagonist. However, when Jerry is ultimately defeated and subjected to brutal violence, with doubts arising about his survival, many readers feel shocked and disoriented. This unexpected downfall of the nonconformist hero at

the end of the story...

Violating the anticipated outcome of the action goes against the myth's validation of nonconformity, making it a victory. Readers who criticize Cormier's hopeless pessimism are actually referring to the novel's unexpected conclusion. (12) A student I previously mentioned expressed this perspective by stating that Cormier does not let Jerry become "a real hero," as a true hero would emerge victorious from the fight. However, another student acknowledges Cormier's overall idea but still finds the lure of the myth more enticing, believing that the story should have a moral at the end.

Archie, the antagonist, should have faced consequences for his pranks on fellow students, teachers, and the school. However, the author's inclusion of a twisted ending is perplexing. It seems that the author may have been attempting to convey the message that the good guys don't always triumph in battles. Personally, I believe Jerry should have emerged victorious over both Archie and the entire school. The novel's departure from expected genre and audience norms often hinders readers from understanding and appreciating it. Many of my students resist the book due to its deviation from their perceived notion of what is appropriate reading for teenagers. Even after discussing how the novel fits within the realistic fiction genre, they struggle to integrate it into their predetermined schema of suitable adolescent literature.

In terms of approaching the book, the genre can provide a solution. Generally, The Chocolate War is classified as realistic fiction, according to teachers and critics. However, I contend that it should be studied as a tragedy. Although tragedy is typically seen as unsuitable for children's or adolescent literature (a point I will discuss

more below), readers who evaluate the events of the novel through the lens of tragic conventions often overcome some of their initial resistance because they can now place the novel within a genre that they do accept. Aristotle viewed tragedy as a means to evoke feelings of pity and fear in the audience, resulting in a catharsis of these emotions.

Aristotle suggests that pity and fear are evoked by unmerited fortune and the misfortune of someone similar to us. He proposes that a successful tragedy involves a character who is not exceptionally good or just, but whose misfortune arises from an error rather than vice or depravity. According to Aristotle, for a tragedy to be effective, the audience must closely identify with the tragic hero. Fear must be felt vicariously, and a strong connection between ourselves and the hero is necessary for us to experience pity. If the mistake is caused by a deep character flaw, we will not feel pity. Aristotle explains that while character determines a person's qualities, their happiness or misfortune is determined by their actions.

Jerry, the main protagonist of the novel, embodies strong values and commendable behavior. Even though it is claimed that positive experiences are scarce in the book, Jerry continuously defies social oppression, making him an inspiring role model. Readers connect with Jerry not only because he possesses a commanding perspective but also because he is a righteous and ethical person who endeavors to make morally correct choices even when confronted with difficult situations.

Jerry, who is someone we look up to, is not perfect. He makes some mistakes, one of which ends up being fatal. Filled with anger and a

thirst for revenge, he agrees to fight Janza after Archie suggests it. While waiting in the ring, Jerry realizes that his pride has led him into an impossible situation. Now he understands that coming here was a mistake and Archie had tricked him. For a brief moment, as Archie's voice tempts him with the idea of revenge and using the fight to solve everything, Jerry actually considers the possibility of defeating Janza, the school, and even Archie...

Now, standing here, one leg half asleep, nausea threatening his stomach, the night chilling his flesh, Jerry wondered if he hadn't lost the moment he had said okay. (171-2) Jerry's agreement to fight Janza is an Aristotelian hamartia error. When Archie pressures him, Jerry, under the influence of weeks of emotional strain, makes an error of judgment: he fails to see that Archie is manipulating him for his own ends and agrees to Archie's proposal. Once in front of the school, pride forbids him to back down when he realizes how he has been betrayed both by Archie and his own desire for revenge. Hamartia, and thus true tragedy, always results from the action of the protagonist: he is not merely the victim of circumstances. In his discussion of the dialectic of tragedy, Kenneth Burke makes a distinction that is useful here: there is a difference between a victim of circumstance and a tragic hero.

According to the author, the victimization experienced by the characters in this novel is not just a statement or claim. The circumstances that lead to their victimization seem random and excessive, even foolish. However, when a moment of tragedy occurs, these fatal circumstances are seen

to have a full impact on the character's actions and behavior. Nancy Veglahn has observed that the main characters in Cormier's novels are not simply victims; they exhibit a tragic kind of bravery and resistance. Jerry, the protagonist, is somewhat victimized by unrelenting social pressures, but he also bears some responsibility for his situation due to his own actions. However, The Chocolate War does not conform to the traditional Aristotelian tragedy. Like most tragedies in the 20th century, it focuses on the lives of ordinary people rather than those in high societal positions. The relentless force that Jerry rebels against is primarily social in nature, although Cormier occasionally uses cosmic language as a metaphor to describe the impact of Jerry's defiance, such as when he refuses to sell chocolates for the Vigils or Trinity and it feels like whole cities have fallen.

Earth opened. Planets tilted. Stars plummeted" (89). The main blame for his fate does not have to be borne by Jerry, as it does for Oedipus: Archie behaves similar to a Shakespearean villain, tempting Jerry into the altercation in a way reminiscent of how Iago seduces Othello. Archie is even aware of his Shakespearean status and joyfully embraces it, altering a quote from Henry V to describe himself just before he contacts Jerry: "the call to Renault had required the right moves, resourcefulness and a touch of Archie in the night."

Shakespeare yet, Archie chuckled" (169). The argument for interpreting The Chocolate War as a tragedy lies in the catharsis of the conclusion. The fate of Jerry clearly elicits both pity and fear in the audience of the novel – pity and fear that is

so strong, in fact, that many students argue it is inappropriate for adolescents. They are concerned about how closely the reader identifies with Jerry, and how the tragic ending of the novel may reflect their own potential destiny. In classical theory, the tragic hero appears admirable and noble as they face their fate with dignity; however, Jerry seems to face the end of the story lying broken in a puddle of blood and despair. He fights with dignity until the end, but is eventually overwhelmed by events and his own emotions.

The students criticize him for not maintaining his resistance and giving up, despite the fact that Jerry would have to possess superhuman abilities to continue struggling in these circumstances. Jerry's state of mind and despair at the conclusion of the novel are both realistic given the situations. It signifies a true tragedy, as the hero is always depicted at their lowest point: Oedipus becomes blind; Hamlet, Lear, Othello, Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet all meet their demise. The students' objections to the ending bring us back to how The Chocolate War challenges their preconceived notions of teenage literature.

Society widely lacks acknowledgment of the discrepancy between tragedy as a genre and its suitability for children and young adults. In present-day literary criticism, it is challenging to come across discussions regarding this matter. This reaction can be attributed to two primary factors. Bagnall mentions the first reason, which is that grown-ups prefer younger individuals to maintain an optimistic outlook on life. They worry that exposure to the gloomier aspects of life through literature may diminish this positive mindset. The second reason for the segregation between audience and genre

arises from a fundamental assumption regarding the purpose of young adult literature. Many adults perceive it as didactic in nature, aiming to provide positive psychological support for its intended readership. Instead of appreciating its aesthetic and humanistic value, they solely view it as a psychological tool. Consequently, from their perspective, the success or failure of a work depends on how well it aligns with their desired psychological and ideological principles.

Even those who support Cormier acknowledge that their defense is based on the assumption that The Chocolate War was intended to be an uncompromising but therapeutic honest portrayal, and that critics overreacted by only seeing bleak hopelessness. However, adults often do not hold works of "great literature" to the same psychological standard and instead judge them more on their aesthetic qualities. Tragedy is highly regarded in literature, with many of the greatest works being tragedies that depict noble and difficult human striving, even if the protagonists do not succeed. In secondary schools, students are often required to read tragedies like Oedipus Rex, Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar, Hamlet, Macbeth, and Othello. These tragedies are still commonly used by teachers. Despite this, we do not require the protagonists of these canonized tragedies to be good role models. Characters like Oedipus, Hamlet, Lear, Othello, Romeo and Juliet, and especially Macbeth certainly do not qualify as good role models. They engage in acts of incest, suicide, child abuse, and murder of spouses, parents, or political leaders.The plays are often considered great due to their tragic endings, which are artistically inevitable and aesthetically right. Despite the actions of their protagonists, or possibly because of them, this is the common judgement.

It

is somewhat strange that the future teachers in my classes do not seem to have any concerns when it comes to teaching tragedy as a genre in these plays to junior high and high school students. Their mindset likely comes from the authority of the canon, as everyone recognizes these plays as "great literature" and therefore believes that everyone should read them (even though they have faced criticism from potential censors). However, my students are not worried about whether or not the protagonists serve as good role models. Instead, their concerns revolve around "translating" the outdated language, helping their students relate to the characters, and making the plays appear relevant to teenagers. Evidently, teaching tragedy in these plays is acceptable because the teachers believe that its relevance is not immediately obvious to the readers.

The irony of teaching The Chocolate War lies in the fact that my students are afraid of the tragic elements within the story. Its relevance is apparent, and being a successful tragedy, it instills fear and pity in them because it strikes a familiar chord. Readers relate to Jerry because he is relatable, just like Aristotle's definition of "a man like ourselves". The horrifying fate that befalls Jerry is terrifying because they can envision it happening to themselves or the students they are responsible for. The events that take place at Trinity High School could very well happen, or maybe even are happening, in their own schools. One student openly admitted her issue with the book, saying, "This was another depressing story for me to read. However, this one was particularly unsettling as it hit so close to home."

This story brings

me joy because I withdrew my daughter from private school and decided not to send my son. Another person admitted, "I would not want to teach this novel. Even though this situation might actually occur, I still wouldn't want to present it." The fear and sorrow evoked by this story are so intense that some readers respond by simply denying its existence, which often results in censorship. For these individuals, it seems that tragedy is only acceptable for teenagers when observed from a distant cultural and historical perspective. The common belief that young readers are incapable of dealing with tragic literature is debatable. It cannot be denied that many children encounter devastating events on a daily basis; these children must learn how to handle tragic situations firsthand.

According to Robert Coles, children who have experienced real-life tragedy share a common response to such circumstances. I believe that most children are simply expressing their basic humanity when they question why things happen, express lament for what has occurred, and attempt to comprehend its significance... Additionally, all of us who possess language skills have an innate desire to understand the meaning of life, including its hardships, letdowns, and burdens. If such comprehension is not attainable, we still feel compelled to speculate and engage in reasoning with the universe. I believe that children approach books with a readiness to recognize the ironies, paradoxes, confusing inconsistencies, and contradictions that exist in life, because they are members of our species.

According to Coles, age should not determine one's need to understand the challenging events of life. He believes that everyone, including children, must confront and make sense of difficult experiences.

Coles also asserts that these experiences enable children to handle literature that addresses complex human issues. Adults who shield children from such literature are exhibiting what Coles refers to as "the ostrich syndrome." They believe that by excluding troubling aspects of life from the books children read, they can keep them safe. However, The Chocolate War does not cater to this mentality. Instead, it acknowledges the readers' humanity and their capacity to face true tragedy.

Works Cited

1. Aristotle. Poetics. Trans. S.H. Butcher.

Critical Theory Since Plato, edited by Hazard Adams, was published in 1971 by Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. The book contains a collection of essays and writings on critical theory. One of the essays featured in the book is "Realism: How Realistic Is It? A Look at The Chocolate War" by Norma Bagnall. This article can be found in the Winter 1980 issue of Top of the News and spans from pages 214 to 217. Another contributor to the book is Kenneth Burke.

A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley: U of California P, 1969.

"The Child's Understanding of Tragedy." Children's Literature 15 (1987): 1-6.

"The Bland Face of Evil in the Novels of Robert Cormier." The Lion and the Unicorn 12.2 (June 1986): 12-18.

Reference Citation: Keeling, Kara. (1999).

The article titled " 'The Misfortune of a Man Like Ourselves': Robert Cormier's The Chocolate War as Aristotelian Tragedy" can be found in The ALAN Review, Volume 26, Number 2, on pages 9-12.