How far can we say that "All My Sons" is a tragedy?

All My Sons does include some tragic elements such as conflict, need to assign blame and a tragic flaw within the main character, although the moment the tragic hero makes a wrong choice and creates his flaw outside the confines of the play, his choice to send out faulty parts. Conflict occurs every couple of pages within the play separated by a false happiness, for example when Joe and Chris are arguing when Kate walks in and they play happy families again. The need to assign blame is the most prominant tragic element within the play as it is used as a basis to start from. George's presence in the play is only caused by his need to assign blame on Joe and Blame brings the play to a tragic end.
When first looking at the play it doesn't seem very tragic until the very end when the protagonist meets his tragic end but when the play is analysed more carefully it becomes plain to see that it is a subtle tragedy, just because tragedy isn't leaping off the page, like Hamlet, it doesn't mean that it isn't there.
The main flaw with the play as a tragedy is that Joe Keller doesn't seem to quite fit the bill of "tragic hero" but this may be what Miller was aiming for. As a "man among men" Joe Keller's problems dont seem as tragic as those of kings and princes of which we are used to in our tragic texts. But from this suburban view his problems are larger and far more tragic than the "everyday man".
  

All My Sons - Act one Reading Journal

The intricate detailed description of the set before the play has even begun suggests that its arrangement has some importance. The poplar trees offer some seclusion to the scenes as if the Keller’s are attempting to hide something, also the form of poplar trees offers an almost military pattern to the trees which could reflect on the recent war and its importance within this play. The description of the fallen tree could also have some significance; it is described as its “fruit still clinging to its branches”. This tree is used as a device to represent Larry, the fallen son, the significance of its fruit still clinging to its branches even though its been struck down could resemble how Larry’s mother, Kate, still clings to the idea of Larry being alive even though he has fallen.

The Keller’s have Sue and Jim on one side of their garden and Frank an Lydia on the other side  the two couples are almost complete opposites of each other Frank and Lydia seem flirty and naive whereas Sue and Jim seem slightly bitter and generally savvier. These two couples are a complete contrast of one another yet their problems are completely normal which makes the Keller's stand out from them both.

Sorry, this is yet to be finished.

The Great Gatsby, initial thoughts

Nick as a narrator seems impressionable, but he wants to be a man who accepts others. The first section of writing seems to be setting the scene about his own character making it known he is from a wealthy family, possible to emphasize the immense wealth of the people he socialises with during the novel.
His small introduction to Gatsby seems praising although it is obvious there is an event or difference of opinion that causes his to think differently of him in the novel which is solved at the end.
There are various phrases which intrigue the reader throughout the beginning of the story such as

"Abortive sorrows and short-winded elations of men"

which seem fairly to the point, yet it's a thoughtful statement possibly an insight to Nick's character.

It is interesting he mentions men fondly quite a few times but never shows any interest of women even though you would think a young soldier who participated in the war would be...

Was Fortinbras right?

Fortinbras' description of hamlet as a "soldier" and likely "to have proved most royal", is quite accurate in a way. He was most royal in that he avenged his father and he didn't run from Laertes when he proposed a duel he stood and fought like a prince, like a king. Claudius certainly didn't prove as royal and he plotted and lied to get to where he did.
However, Hamlet did show that some of his qualities weren't royal. Such as, killing Polonius in a passionate act and continuing to feel no remorse towards his death. Also, not doing the brave and soldierly thing of storming in and killing Claudius as soon as he heard his fathers depiction of how he was murdered.
The definition of a King and therefore royal seems to be galiant and brave; storming in and killing everyone in sight. Although wouldn't a king be better if he planned and plotted his eventual outcome? As Hamlet does. So he may have been a great king although he led himself to his own downfall.
Fortinbras' description does seem to make the audience think of Hamlets character overall and how royal he was and may have proved to be.

Tragic Hamlet, Act 4

Polonius’ death in the previous Act seems to fuel the rest of the play. It causes Ophelia’s madness and eventual death, Laertes anger and thoughts of revenge and Claudius’ eventual decision to send Hamlet away to be killed.

We witness in Act 4, the beginning of the end. Hamlet’s state of mind is still questionable as he attempts to hide Polonius’ body, although his character does seem to develop in scene 4 where he witnesses Fortinbras’ army, here there seems to be some realisation that he has been a coward

“one part wisdom and ever three parts coward”

and must fulfill his duty to his father and kill Claudius.

“My thoughts be bloody or be nothing worth”

During scene 5 the effect of Polonius’ death on Ophelia becomes apparent and her madness certainly eclipses Hamlets which is another supporting argument that Hamlet has been faking it.

The tragic elements of this act come into scene 5 and also scene 7. All because of the reappearance of Laertes, his anger and pain reflects in the language he uses

“To hell allegiance, vows to the blackest devil, conscience and grace to the profoundest pit! I dare damnation.”

And Claudius and Gertrude, although they are not our tragic heroes still have the urgency to assign blame. Gertrude has urgency and Claudius assigns the blame, he makes sure that Laertes knows who the real guilty party is and makes it seem like Hamlet was intent on killing Polonius rather than it just being a passionate act.

During scene 7 Claudius and Laertes begin to plot Hamlet’s downfall. This could be portrayed in more than one way; they could be plotting together or Claudius could be convincing Laertes, persuading him that it is his duty to his father. As they bring their plot to a finish. Gertrude brings news of Ophelia’s Death, provoking a tragic wail from Laertes and concluding the act.

Tragic Hamlet, Acts Two and Three

It is clear that from Act 1 to Act 2 some time has passed in order for Hamlet to develop his madness but the first evidence we see is in scene 1 when Ophelia informs us of Hamlet’s trouser incident. But as Hamlet appears more in the second scene we begin to understand what Ophelia and Polonius have been talking about. Further on in this act we are introduced to the players and Hamlets idea of trapping Claudius by performing scene of his father’s murder. Hamlet justifies his actions by saying he is proving Claudius’ guilt before he kills him. Although even when he proves is guilt he still backs out of killing him. Hamlet is accentuating his fatal flaw; he continues to get chances to kill Claudius and continues to talk himself out of doing it (3.3.73-96). Hamlet is essentially a coward but a well spoken coward so we tend not to think of him that way. Whereas in Macbeth his cowardice is pointed out by Lady Macbeth, therefore we dwell it more.

These Acts are effectively the beginning of the end, building up to the tragic finale and Hamlet’s moment.

Hamlet Act Two

Hamlet's Soliloquy at the end of act two he reflects on how he will use the play to prove the king's guilt. Allthough he has planned to fake his madness, from this soliloquy it shows that he is showing signs of real madness, as his constant rhetorical questions prove. The reality of his madness suggests that there was a longer gap between the first and second act as it first appears.
Previously in the second act Hamlets playfullness towards the players, seems to be only to irritate Polonius and his language; to entertain the audience.
Witin this act we begin to see the differences in how Hamlet acts with his superiors (Polonius, Claudius and Gertrude) to how he acts with his equals (Guildenstern and Rosencrantz) and his madness seems to decrease when with his friends which contributes towards the proof of his faking his madness.