The Difference Between Tragedy and Comedy Is Like That Between Humans and Animals 

Nantai

After talking about comedy for several days, some friends still don’t agree with me. They think comedic novels should hold equal status with tragic novels and shouldn’t be regarded as superior. Today, I’d like to add another explanation. 

 

Who is more superior, humans or animals? If you don’t look at the whole picture, ignore the most crucial aspect, and only focus on a single trait, you’ll find that animals excel over humans in many ways. For instance, birds can fly while humans can’t; a peacock’s natural plumage is more beautiful than a human’s unadorned body; cheetahs run faster than humans; a lion or tiger can kill a human with a single bite; even a small monkey is better at climbing trees than humans. Not to mention an elephant’s strength, a rhinoceros’ horn, or fish that don’t need to surface for air—humans can’t compare in any of these aspects. There are countless examples of animals outperforming humans, yet humans have one advantage that surpasses all animals: *wisdom*. Humans may be inferior to animals in many respects, but wisdom alone elevates humans to a higher rank. Humans are the "soul of all creatures," while animals are not. 

 

Tragic novels—such as *A Dream of Red Mansions*—have countless merits; one could go on talking about them forever. So why should comedic novels be considered superior to tragic ones? Just like humans, comedy possesses key qualities that tragedy lacks: **"the ability to evoke laughter," "vitality," and "eternity"**—all of which tragedy does not have. 

 

The beauty of literature lies in its charm. However, tragedy cannot make people laugh; if it does, it ceases to be a tragedy. Laughter is humanity’s most beautiful expression, and in this "most beautiful" category, tragedy is defeated by comedy. This is the first point. 

 

Second, the core of tragedy is "affection." Affection is something even animals possess—some animals show deeper maternal love than certain humans. Yet animals cannot "satirize," "be humorous," "tease," "ridicule," or "banter." These vital, spirited qualities are unique to humans, the "soul of all creatures." And these are precisely the tools comedy uses most frequently. Some tragic novels may contain such elements, but they are no longer part of tragedy itself. When used in isolated parts, they are called "comedic elements"; when prominently embodied in a character—like Granny Liu in *A Dream of Red Mansions*—that character becomes a unique comedic figure within a tragic novel, and the merit here still belongs to comedy. This is the second reason comedy is superior to tragedy. 

 

Third, Nietzsche argued that comedy is eternal while tragedy is short-lived. We should reference and take seriously the words of great minds, but that doesn’t mean they are always correct—we need to reflect on *why* this might be the case. The reasoning is actually quite simple: tragedy makes people cry, as it depicts nothing but suffering. No one in this world wants to cry or endure suffering, so tragedy is doomed to be short-lived. Comedy, by contrast, makes people laugh. Laughter is humanity’s most beautiful expression; it arises from encountering joy, and joy and good fortune are things people will always desire. Thus, comedy can be eternal, while tragedy cannot. 

 

These are the reasons why comedy is superior to tragedy.