rn version of the tragic hero need not hold this high
             position in society. This is something Arthur Miller argues for in his
             essay titled "Tragedy and the Common Man." In that essay Miller says, "I
             believe that the common man is as apt a subject for tragedy in its highest
             sense as kings were" (Miller 1948). The major argument made is that
             regardless of a person's position in society, they experience the same
             mental processes and emotions. Miller (1948) then goes on to say that "the
             underlying struggle is that of the individual attempting to gain his
             "rightful" position in his society." It does not matter what this rightful
             position is. Instead, it only matters what that position means to the
             tragic hero. For example, it could be said that the good King trying to
             maintain the respect of everyone he governs experiences the same thing as
             the good father trying to gain the respect of his family. The levels in
             these two examples may be different, but in each case, it is essentially
             the same personal struggle. Based on this, it can be said that the level
             of a person in society is not a factor that determines whether or not they
             are a hero. Instead, it is the qualities of that person that makes them a
             hero. Aristotle described this where he noted that the tragic hero must be
             someone highly admired for their qualities. The main purpose of being held
             in such high esteem, according to Aristotle, is that the audience feels
             admiration for the character. At the same time though, the character must
             have a tragic flaw that leads to their downfall. This idea of the tra
             ...