According to tradition, a tragic hero has to be man with some sort of social standing so that a "fall" from this rank can occur. This character possesses a weakness within him, commonly excessive pride, that leads to his eventual downfall – a downfall brought on by the character's personality rather than an enemy in the drama. Classically, tragedies seem depressing because the hero must go through a battle he cannot possible win. He goes through a period of suffering in which the tragic hero does not realize what his flaw is doing to himself. When he understands that his hamartia has caused his downfall, he accepts it with pernicious grief. In contrast to this traditional view, according to Arthur Miller's idea of tragedy, a tragic hero can be a common man; he is not required to be a king. This hero has a flaw, not necessarily a weakness, but a stubborn unwillingness to remain static against a challenge to his dignity. When Miller's character goes through suffering, the character denies that his stubbornness and pride has ruined him although he has an innate awareness of it. When the hero goes through understanding, rather than simply accepting the fact that he has gone through the downfall, the hero makes one last extreme effort to show dignity – an effort that costs all that he has. The hero's downfall occurs specifically when he has been displaced – when the people that once required him no longer need him. Miller's tragic hero has a possibility of victory, but in the end he fails to achieve it. The possibility of winning is still present, and thus Miller's tragedy seems optimistic and enlightening.
             ...