David Tracy claimed on several occasions that, while the Christian tradition creatively adopted many elements of Greek and Roman philosophy, it mostly shied away from ancient tragedy because of its firm confidence in providence and the resurrection, and because a tragic vision does not sit well with the strand of Hellenistic (including Christian) culture that is preoccupied with perfection of form. Tracy's own turn to the tragic largely coincided with his deepening interest in divine infinity and incomprehensibility, and the fragment as the preferred site of hermeneutics of the Real. The classical figures whom he took to most embrace infinity (especially Augustine) are the ones who most embody tragic visions, even if they never quite theorize them. Few late- and post-modern figures he drew on about tragedy are Christians, and few of the medieval and early modern Christians he turns to are normally considered theologians. His later work rarely drew on systematic theologians, though he did admire the achievement of some. This paper asks why Tracy found academic, especially systematic Christian theologians so unhelpful for theorizing the tragic. Is it coincidence that both he and many figures he found helpful died before completing full articulations of their theories? Is theology ill-suited to do what he saw in some art, where the reality of the tragic is fully acknowledged and experienced from a posture of final hope and trust, while satisfying the modern academic requirements for coherence within an argument-determined structure? But academic standards evolve, and even secular anthropologists like Amira Mittermaier make room for God and other uncontrollable realities within or alongside their arguments. Taking suggestions from Mittermaier, I argue that we may hope—but only hope—that a future "book about God" will articulate an Augustinian, Trinitarian naming of the Real within Tracy's framework of infinity, fragment, and especially tragedy.