Seen as two opposite literary forms some millennia back, tragedy and comedy cannot be perceived today as a dichotomy, but as two different sides, facets of the same reality. If, for Aristotle, tragedy was characterized by seriousness and dignity, stirring fear and pity in the audience and, finally, catharsis, for the same Greek philosopher, comedy was completely different from the concept of mimesis (in Aristotle’s view, the entire literature was mimesis i.e. imitation of life). Later on, these two genres became indistinguishably mingled, as literature evolved according to the social evolution of all of the society. This kind of sophistication emerged also from the idea, expressed, among others, by Oscar Wilde, that literature was not imitation of life (mimesis), but merely life was imitation of art. However, a distinction still exists today: while literary tragic elements have the capacity to address to a large, universal audience, comic elements still depend on various national and cultural approaches. Consequently, this is the main idea which the present paper aims to discuss. While irony and black comedy are linked to a specific cultural context without which the whole effect of comic is sometimes destroyed or, at least, altered, tragedy is based upon elements universally understandable, such as death or suffering. In relation to language, the comic elements are far more dependant. A satire, a parody, a pamphlet contain in themselves a sort of limitation, a sort of familiarity between the reader and a precise context, linguistic, social, political, ideological a. s. o. Luckily enough, in our times, there is a very thin line between comedy and tragedy, much thinner that it could have ever been imagined by a human being in Aristotle`s time.… Citește mai mult All of Us Cry in the Same Manner, Each of Us Laughs Differently?!