what makes a good tragedy

I remember back in high school, especially in the Shakespeare class, discussing the elements need for a tragedy. You had to have a strong like-able main character, but he/she must have a tragic flaw that brings about their downfall. And this I understood fairly clearly, and really enjoyed King Lear and Macbeth and to a lesser extent Hamlet. I wasn't really sure why I didn't like Hamlet as much as the other ones, and now I think I do. But first, let me explain what lead to this 'aha' moment. I watched an anime movie called "Millennium Actress" and it was pretty good. The story is about a woman who is 'discovered' and sent to be an actress in the late 1930's and she decides to do this only after a man bumps into her and gives her a mysterious key. Her family hides the man (he is a political refugee) and she falls in love with him in the few short days. He escapes her town, and she sees her acting job as a way to travel to his area and search for him to return his key. We never know what the key is for. She runs into him one more time, but they are tragically apart the rest of their lives. The story ends with her death and the realization that what she really loves is the search for this man. So it is a 'good' tragic story. I liked it. Then I wondered why I liked it so much. I realized that while I liked the main character, and liked that she set her heart on this man and searched to find him, I never got too close to the main character. She was admirable, but still a little remote. I understood her actions, even though I would never copy them. And it is the little space between us that allows me to appreciate the tragedy. I think her tragic flaw was just dogged devotion to an ideal. Contrast this to the tragedy I read for book club: "The Story of Edgar Sawtelle" by David Wroblewski. Now this book was a best seller, Oprah book, etc, and the author set out to write a tragedy. I didn't know that going into it, but ideally you shouldn't have to. About two-thirds the way through, you saw that things were headed badly, but there was still hope for a happier ending, but...then it just got worse and ended as unhappily as you could hope for in a tragedy. Okay, so I HATED this book. Why? It was critically acclaimed, lots of people loved it, and it made me so mad that I literally wanted to return my copy to the bookstore and demand a refund. I think the main difference is that I really loved Edgar, the main character. I was really invested in him. His death makes no sense if you are too close. I could not be remote and unattached. Every bit of the writing in that story made you want to hug this boy and take care of him. Also, he really didn't have a tragic flaw. Unless you count trusting your own uncle too much. But really? that is not a flaw in a boy. In a man, maybe, but not in a boy. He had no other faults. So that is what makes a terrible tragedy - no space between yourself and the main character. And that got me thinking back to Shakespeare. I liked the old King (Lear), but I didn't love him. I could clearly see his faults. There was a space. I enjoyed Macbeth and could sympathize but not necessarily empathize. I enjoyed the main character of Millennium Actress, but I didn't want to be her, protect her as other characters in the story did. There was always that space. So that brings me to Hamlet. I thought I didn't like Hamlet because he was too whiny and undecided a character. Turns out, I love his character too much. I was too much invested, and his tragic flaw seemed ... not sooo bad, right? I really wanted him to win out in the end, and I was so disappointed he didn't. Too close. If you want to write a good tragedy, don't let your audience get too close to your tragic hero.