Arguments on if "Things Fall Apart" is an Aristotelian Tragedy or not.

2. Question
Is the book Things Fall Apart an Aristotelian
tragedy?

3. Argument
In act I of Things Fall Apart, it is not an Aristotelian
Tragedy, but in acts II and III, it is an Aristotelian
Tragedy.

4. Argument of Act I
In act I, the author goes all over the place talking
about Okonkwo’s life and the things he has done. It
doesn’t have a steady plot. It goes from talking
about his father to the wrestling match.

5. Why isn’t that an
Aristotelian Tragedy?
Aristotelian tragedies always have a steady plot and
shouldn’t jump from one plot from the next. They
must have a beginning, middle, and end.

6. Act I arguments
In Act I, nobody really has anything serious they
have to do. Mainly it is just setting up a plot.

7. Why isn’t that an
Aristotelian Tragedy?
Aristotelian tragedies have to be in all seriousness
and importance rather than being silly or relaxed.
Also it is supposed to be dramatized.

8. Act II and III arguments
Act II and III is an Aristotelian Tragedy, because the
plot finally begins in Act II when okonkwo gets sent
out. The plot carries out through act II and III.

9. Act II and III arguments
The plot doesn’t jump around, it stays steady from
beginning, to middle, to end.

10. Conclusion
Act I is more of a setup for a Aristotelian tragedy
rather than being one. The plot actually begins in act
II and carries out the Aristotelian Tragedy through
the rest of the book.