Both the supplement from Aristotle's Poetics and the supplement from Miller's Tragedy and the Common Man explain what they think the essential tragic character is in very similar terms. Aristotle believes that the character of whom the tragedy is unfolding should be somewhere between a villain and a hero/man of ideals. Aristotle points out that misfortune befalling a villain isn't sad, and misfortune befalling a virtuous man is plainly "morally repugnant". Arthur Miller emphasizes the ability of the tragic character to be a common man, not necessarily a significant person like someone of royal blood.

The two interpretations differ in their ideas of not who the characters are but what happens to them. While Aristotle sees the action of the story as what misfortunes befall the character (and goes into great detail explaining what these misfortunes should be), Miller specifically outlines that a tragic feeling is evoked when " we are in the presence of a character who is ready to lay to lay down his life, if need be, to secure one thing- his sense of personal dignity". Miller believes that the events of the tragedy spiral from the wounds of indignity.

I thought this was particularly pertinent given our reading of Medea last week. Regardless of ones thoughts on whether or not Medea was actually a tragic character, her crazy spree of redemption stemmed up from the indignity forced upon her by her unfaithful husband Jason. Her "tragic flaw" was her inability to swallow her pride to save her from her own exile and ultimately save her from herself.