Unlike Columbine and any other mishap that is commonly misrefered Odeipus Rex is a tragedy. Not only is it a tragedy but Aristotle believed it was the pinnacle of its age. Why? Nobody really knows. Aristotle is dead so we can't really ask him. He never really wrote down why he felt the way he did. Even if he did it's long gone now, used to light the funeral pyre of a marauding Celt or some other band of 'barbarians' (Romans). We cannot be concrete in the analysis of his Rexian preference, but we can do what Humans do best. Argue. Hence is why I'm here tonight/today/this morning. I am going to help fulfill my part in human history by arguing the validity of some dead guy's opinion by prying the ruler out of his cold dead hands and waving it about like a weapon. No, let's be frank. This essay is going to suck with a capitol UCK. Even with all of your extensions and mercy (?) I'm now lowering your bar and mine. So drink or smoke'em if you got'em because Russ is nothing short of annoyed at his computer and he has just stopped caring at this time of night.
             Aristotle was nothing short of a Greek Renaissance man. He knew many different aspects of the sciences for a man of his day. This knowledge of the scientific world translated into his love of 'epic' drama. So when he set out to define what a tragedy's quantitative parts were he used very boring and technical terms. Instead of whim or personal reasons internal forces not unlike gravity or inertia were now supposed to govern a character. The aforementioned Odeipus Rex was and is a good example of tragedy. When the 'laws' of tragedy were created, Aristotle probably modeled most of them on the aspects contained within Sophicles'es greatest play. Thus words like praxis, poiesis, and theoria entered the 'modern' English (class) language.
             "So what Russ", says the ...