Willie Loman vs. Oedipus: As Tragic Hero Essay Example

their obstacles to avoid any possibility of failure. On one hand was Willie Loman, who was very hardworking and cherished his dreams to make riches in the American world whereas on the other hand was King Oedipus who was noble and wanted to get rid of the town from the plague. He was proud, boastful and wanted to maintain his position and protect his people. Both the characters imbibed in their natural willingness to bring about happiness in their simple lives.

With similar motivational levels and corporeal struggle, they strove to achieve wealth and satisfaction respectively in their lives but both failed. The efforts they made to rise in their struggles and the way their descent begins vary to a certain degree. And it is quite true that only one with more ‘Letter and Spirit’ would clear the concept of Aristotle’s version of a tragic hero. Willie Loman’s pursuit of the American dream as a salesman and quest for happiness only became archetypal of the tragic consequences. The fact was that it was 1949, the period of change and so was the change of the selling methods but Willie Loman did not change.

Willie was not able to adjust himself to change when the competition was on the rise. He was what others said, “the quintessential American dreamer.” (Romanyshyn 227) King Oedipus’s tragedy was predestined. It was his fate that had to happen and it was more of lack of knowledge that would bring about his downfall.

Willie Loman ingested into the world of shabby values was bewildered, disillusioned, and unsuccessful. He said, “Suddenly I realize I'm going sixty miles an hour, and I don't remember the last

five minutes.” (Miller & Bigsby 3) At the age of sixty-three, he thought that he was the most popular, respected, and good-looking but it was just his illusion. In Oedipus’s tragedy, fate has the most important role to play.

His tragedy was already predestined. He made a number of efforts to avoid killing his father and sleep with his mother yet unavoidable circumstances coaxed him to kill his father and marry the woman, in Thebes, in whose womb he was born. He lived with this relationship for many years until that ill-fated day arrived and he came to know the reality. His wife killed herself and Oedipus blinded himself with the pins of the broach taken out from her dress. The tragedy of Willie could be partly attributed to fate but more as a consequence of his own actions.

Willie was married to Linda Loman who was the most deep-seated and caring woman. She had two sons, Biff and Happy. The play started when Biff and Happy were in their late teens and their sales career Willie was going under heavy loss. At this juncture of life, he felt he never had that relationship with his family as he had a relationship before and time and again, the realization that he was unable to give that financial support to his family, which he was supposed to give, would daunt him.

Willie spent his life in illusions of the past because he was afraid of facing the reality of his poor financial condition and the condition into which his family was leading. Due to his philandering and lackluster approach, Willie lost his job. Over and above, his house had

also been mortgaged for the past many years, and finally, when he died, his car the only possession and symbol of his pride too got destroyed. In this sense, Willie followed Aristotle’s conception of a tragic hero,  “…a change of fortune… from prosperity to misfortune….” (Aristotle 13). He died so that his family could receive insurance checks and Biff gets financial independence, but he failed.

Willie had some reasonable purpose but unfortunately for him, his plan did not work and at his funeral, no one turned up except his family and friend Charlie. The play had a deep impact on the audiences, as the tragedy of Willie was not only his tragedy but also the tragedy of every ordinary man. Unlike Oedipus, he was the character everyone could relate himself to and enter into the cord of deep virtues of society. Arthur Miller used to write plays where he expected his audience to pass the moral judgment on his main protagonists. His plot construction, character development, and the final theme of the play invite or persist that any individual assessment of guilt ought to be measured against a more abstract and general moral standard. And according to this, there should prevail a general moral authority against which spectators’ general moral agreement can be measured.

But Willie Loman failed to arguably come up with any moral agreement and what emerged were only the false values. Brooks Atkinson wrote in his initial review of the play on February 11, 1949, “The illusions by which he (Willie Lomen) has lived opportunities missed, wrong formulas for success, fatal misconceptions about his place in the scheme of things…. The phantom of it

all has caught up with him…Suddenly there is nothing”. (Collins 120)

Fifteen years later, Harold Clurman echoed, “Willy’s hollow ‘religion’ has crippled his faculties, corroded his moral fiber. The action of the play supports his moral failings.” (Collins 120)  This shows Willie Loman’s tragedy did not come anywhere near the Aristotlean tragedy. Willie wanted to see all the values of hard work, intelligence, aptitude, and honesty in his children but could not see within himself and his surroundings. Only the credo “well-liked” was the value system Willie so cherished and wanted to pass on to his two boys Biff and Happy and valued the advice of Ben when he said, “Ben Am I right? Don’t you think I am right? I value your advice.” (Miller & Bigsby 65)

As said by Robert A Segal, Oedipus fell from regaled king to cursed exile. Aristotle’s tragedy also implied that a hero too can become the cause and not just the victim of his downfall, and here Oedipus by trying to inquire into the truth, made the way for his own downfall. If he had not discovered the truth, he would have lived for a longer time. (Segal 131) The pride too had overpowered Oedipus and belittled an elderly and a blind man, when he said, “You sightless, witless, senseless, mad old man!” (Scene I, 163: Arp & Johnson 1221) “Damnation Take You! Out of this place! Out of my sight!” (Scene I, 419-420: Arp & Johnson 1230) It was also pride in him that made him believe he was more than God and he could outmaneuver him by modifying his fate:  “Since I must flee from Thebes, yet never

again / See my own countrymen, my own countrymen / For fear of joining my mother in marriage / And killing Polybos, my father.” (Scene II, 781-784: Arp & Johnson 1241)

Oedipus king proved to be a more apt replica of Aristotle’s tragic hero than of Willie. He was bravest of all in their region, morally strong, and a great ruler but his pride and the debilitating desire to know the truth made him the most tragic character. Though Willie was also morally strong yet every time a certain essence of moral vacuum is felt throughout in his actions and his dealings with the contemporary world outside. He loved his family and died for the cause of his family but he was an ordinary man and this made him less tragic to a certain degree than Oedipus’s tragedy.