Sorry for the tardy post! Answer this one first.

In order for something sad to be seen as a tragedy, it must be unexpected and affect the masses. Natural disasters, bombings or shootings, for example, are tragedies. There is almost no way of preventing or foreseeing them and they affect large numbers of people. These events affect us deeply because we realize that they could happen anywhere at any time, even to us personally. The distinction between an average sad event and a tragic one is, in some cases, blurry. A shooting that wounds several people in a community is tragic for that community, but for the outside world it does not quite qualify as a tragedy. Members of that community are likely scarred by the event, but it hardly affects those outside of the area. Thus, it cannot be considered a tragedy because it only affects a small number of people. I do not mean to undermine the affect that unfortunate events have on towns, but to consider these types of occurrences tragedies would undermine true world tragedies. The recent typhoon in the Philippines, where thousands died and thousands more are still left without resources, is a tragedy. The state senator's son's suicide and stabbing of his father, although incredibly sad, is not a tragedy. To call his death a tragedy would be to equate the death of one with the death of thousands. Both are sad, but the sudden death of thousands is on a whole different level of sadness than the death of one man.

I do not believe that a tragedy has to necessarily effect the masses, but I do think that a tragedy must result in a change in the party involved. When you fall or break your leg, that is not considered a tragedy because the damage is only temporary. But certain events, like the car crash on Friday, can leave a long lasting or permanent change on those involved. What occurred with those girls can be considered tragic, as the incident will probably leave them physically, if not, psychologically scarred. In Romeo and Juliet, the death of the star-crossed lovers, despite being a horrific tragedy, influences a new relationship between the once rivaled families of the Montagues and the Capulets. A natural disaster is a tragedy that leaves several dead and a horrific memory to the population affected. Tragedies are so effective to us because they change the way live or perceive reality.

I do not think even as a collective group of intelligent thinkers we can narrow down what exactly is and is not a tragedy. This subject reminds me a lot of our cliche thread a few weeks back. But I do think that tragedies must involve human beings, and involve human beings in a "very bad" way. If I saw a bank being robbed, I would not consider the situation a tragedy. If, in the process of robbing the bank, the robber shoots a man in line, I would consider that a tragedy. How bad "very bad" must be in order to be considered a tragedy is independent opinion. "Very bad" can mean death, heart break, broken bones, or even confusion like what the narrator experiences in The Wild Sheep Chase.

I do think, however, that tragedy really does need to involve the distress of a human being or beings. The reader is correct until "The Embryo Zone." (in class reference if B day students were questioning my sanity) To say that your dog being run over by a car is a tragedy makes me want to question your awareness of the world around you. I love dogs. I own a dog if that helps with my stance on the matter. But I am a strong believer that personal connection can only go so far to justify tragedy. Tragedies should, no matter how lightly, pull on the heart strings of anyone who is aware of its presence. Strangers ultimately will feel the force of the tragedy less, but they should still have some sort of "that's horrible" response. (even if it is a 2 millisecond, non-vocalized thought)

It seems to me that you can't come back from tragedy. The very sad has at least the potential to get better, but tragedy is where it is impossible to say "well at least..." There are no bright sides. What sets tragedy apart is that nothing good comes of it, or at least nothing enough good to be worth the trying effort of optimism. Because there is no turn around, no way to make the thing better, death often qualifies because it is also final. But if an elderly relative gets cancer and then lives twenty years beyond his or her life expectancy before passing peacefully surrounded by loved ones, that death is not necessarily a tragedy. Finality is not the only requisite for tragedy, there must also be a factor of senselessness.

When I think of tragedy in literature, the first thing that comes to my mind is death. Due to my limited understanding and exploration of the tragedy genre I cannot conclude whether death is a necessary puzzle piece of a work that abides by the universal term 'tragedy.' Since I cannot judge all works, or even what some might call 'numerous' works, due to my tragic ignorance (ha, get it?) to define tragedy, I will use the works that fit the following criteria: 1, I must have read the work. And 2, I must have heard, whether two minutes ago via internet search or years ago by other methods such as education that this work is referred to as a 'tragedy.' Yes, as you can see by my criteria list, I am most definitely in over my head when it comes to this activity.
The two works that I can vividly recall and that most resonate 'tragedy' with me or with another source are "Romeo and Juliet" and "The Great Gatsby." So, although I am still not certain whether death is a necessary component of tragedy, according to my interpretations of these works and the events that pass in these two novels my personal conception of tragedy aligns with death being a factor of the genre. The first work, "Romeo and Juliet," is undeniably tragic. This does not go to say that it is only tragic, as it is also comedic and most likely contains multitudes of other genre characteristics, but it is in my opinion that it can be referred to as a tragedy. The item that sets makes this novel 'tragic' is not just Romeo and Juliet's deaths. Deaths are common occurrences in literature, even in "A Wild Sheep Chase" and "The Metamorphosis," and I would not categorize either of these novels as tragedies. My formula for a tragic death is that the death must occur to a central character and the character must remain unredeemed or futile in his or her efforts to better his or her self and/or environment. Romeo and Juliet are both central characters to their namesake novel and their deaths are the sort of important 'dying for a cause' ends that I think necessary in tragedies. As an audience, tragedies must make us feel that the life of the deceased main character was left unresolved. Sure, Romeo and Juliet brought peace to their families, but how much more could they have done alive? We will never know, and this is the importance that tragic deaths carry. Gatsby's death occurs in a similar fashion. When he has finally admitted his love to the woman of his dreams she leaves him. Maybe out of fear, maybe out of lack of love, this we will never know. Gatsby's death interrupts this search for a resolving answer and a feeling of futility pervades the story.
My idea of tragedy is only just budding at this time and most definitely will alter its shape as I progress my own thoughts according to my reaction to the opinions of others. As I stand, my idea of tragedy is that of the end of an unresolved life, but like all things in this world, my idea is transitory.

Oooookkkk...so I can feel myself building up to a ginormous tangent right about now, so here goes. I think the trivial, mundane sadness of everyday living is connected to major tragedies in the origin of the pain, the difference being merely a rating on a spectrum (but a spectrum of what? well, I'm getting there, just wait a sec!). Basically, I believe all forms of pain (physical, emotional, psychological, etc.) spring from the fear of loss of self, fear of loss of truth, and ultimately, a fear of change. As humans, we need stability and control--or at least a sense of it--to keep on living from day to day. If we were constantly doubting ourselves and not creating in our minds some patterns through which we could try to make sense of the world's chaos, how could we cope? We live by rules, not exceptions, and so when those exceptions occur, it can be a devastating awakening from our delusion of stability. Hence, I believe sadness & tragedy exist on a continuum of the severity of change that occurs. For example, getting a bad grade on an exam often makes us slightly sad because it might threaten a change in our perception of our own worthiness and intelligence. A friend who commits suicide, on the other hand, would be considered a tragedy because death is not a threat of deviation from accepted reality but a full blown demonstration of it. A being that had once existed as part of our "pattern" is suddenly nonexistent, creating an extremely unsettling hole in our life tapestry. Our lives, our world, our Selves are completely reliant on the working of our minds & consciousness. As Renee Descartes proposed, "[We] think, therefore [we are]." When that consciousness dwindles or disappears, it reminds us of our own mortality--not just physical mortality, but mortality of our Self, our personality, our beliefs, our truths...we realize how frighteningly unstable we are, in consciousness just as much as in physicality.

In an interesting New York Times article by Roy Scranton entitled "Learning How to Die in the Anthropocene," (link here:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/learning-how-to-die-in-the-anthropocene/?emc=eta1&_r=0)Scranton states, "The human psyche naturally rebels against the idea of its end. Likewise, civilizations have throughout history marched blindly toward disaster, because humans are wired to believe that tomorrow will be much like today — it is unnatural for us to think that this way of life, this present moment, this order of things is not stable and permanent." Scranton makes a great point: as humans, it is natural to deny that we will eventually cease to exist. And I think it is this universal denial of all of our inevitable ends that make us so susceptible to pain and sorrow. Just as we can never fully accept our own physical deaths, we also cannot accept the "deaths" of parts of ourselves and others that we had believed would always exist or be true. I know one of my biggest fears is becoming a person in the future who the me of now would detest; the notion that I may not continue to have the same--or at least similar--values to those I have currently is painful to me. Tragedy, the ultimate loss of stability, brings us to our knees has us pouring out tears because suddenly one brick of that firm wall we had built up has fallen out, and bits of truth are crumbling to the ground. Maybe we repair the wall, or maybe we just let it deteriorate or perhaps we tear the whole thing down and build a whole new wall. Tragedy challenges us to reconsider everything we know and believe, and the way in which live our lives, because it reminds us of the fragility of everything tangible and intangible.

I have never actually actively called thought of an event as tragic. I always think of bad things as terrible, sad, life-changing, etc., but I have never thought of anything as tragic... it doesn't seem to be in my vocabulary.

This said, I remember being taught that a tragedy is an avoidable pain-causing event normally caused by human failure. It is similar to what PJ said, as natural disasters do not fall into this category. For something to be called tragic, it would have to cause sustained life-changing pain(both physical and emotional)and create sympathy among the non-physically effected. For me, a general bad day would not count as tragic, because I know there will be brighter days ahead. If I broke my arm, it would be somewhat miserable but I would not call it tragic because of the lack of emotional distress. To be a tragedy, an event needs to be caused by human failure and result in death or great pain. I would not call a bone fracture from a sporting event tragic, but I would call concussions tragic because they are avoidable and can cause permanent damage.