Larry Hammer (
larryhammer) wrote2005-05-08 04:33 pm
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Entry tags:
The way the arrow's pointing
It has been suggested that a tragic hero's strengths are also his flaws. Attempts to derive this from Aristotle's discussion of harmartia (often mistranslated as "tragic flaw") in Oedipus Tyrannus run aground on the fact that the old Greek was talking through a Thessalonian hat -- but it is nonetheless true that, as with Aristotle, the schema works remarkably well with that play: what made Oedipus a strong king (quick decisiveness, a passion for justice) also (as impetuosity and personal righteousness) got him in trouble. In the wrong context, any virtue can be a vice.
That's fairly straightforward -- it's how to write a character with more than two dimensions. Taking it another step, though, my thesis that a comic hero's flaws are his/her virtues -- making/marking the main difference between tragedy and comedy the direction of irony. In other words, in a satisfying comedy, the traits that get the protagonist in trouble are also (when finally applied correctly) what gets her/him out of it again.
Thoughts? Arguments? Assertions of personal hattery?
One caveat comes to mind -- I don't think this applies to satire, which despite surface similarities to comedy is a different form. Exactly how and why, I can't articulate. I'm not even sure I can distinguish between the two reliably -- what makes The Producers satire but not the Discworld novels? And most of Pratchett's works are perfect object lessons for the comic hero thesis, just as Oedipus Tyrannus is for the tragic hero. (Perhaps the difference is whether the catastrophe is resolved?)
---L.
That's fairly straightforward -- it's how to write a character with more than two dimensions. Taking it another step, though, my thesis that a comic hero's flaws are his/her virtues -- making/marking the main difference between tragedy and comedy the direction of irony. In other words, in a satisfying comedy, the traits that get the protagonist in trouble are also (when finally applied correctly) what gets her/him out of it again.
Thoughts? Arguments? Assertions of personal hattery?
One caveat comes to mind -- I don't think this applies to satire, which despite surface similarities to comedy is a different form. Exactly how and why, I can't articulate. I'm not even sure I can distinguish between the two reliably -- what makes The Producers satire but not the Discworld novels? And most of Pratchett's works are perfect object lessons for the comic hero thesis, just as Oedipus Tyrannus is for the tragic hero. (Perhaps the difference is whether the catastrophe is resolved?)
---L.
no subject
no subject
---L.
no subject
no subject
P.S.
Re: P.S.
On my journal, I renamed that field "Reading" -- which means I wonder how people on my f-list are thumbing through Richard Thompson, or Chopin.
---L.
Re: P.S.
no subject
no subject
---L.
no subject
no subject
---L.
no subject
Although the equation of the hero's flaws with his greatest traits (or their confluence, or superposition) is not perfect, I think it usually works in both comedy and tragedy of the classic sort. Hamlet's tendency to think things over, his intelligence and judiciousness. Lear's authority. Antigone's righteousness (pigheadedness). Rosalind's wit. Viola's doubleness.
The problem is, I think, that it is much harder to define a comic hero as such. They don't have the sharp profile and clear silhouette of tragic heroes. Is Leo Bloom a hero? Is Yossarian? Yes, probably. Sort of. Maybe.
no subject
You may be pointing at the same fuzziness I labeled as haloing satire.
---L.
no subject
Though at the moment I'm more interested in how Jocasta's weaknesses are also her strengths, and Tiresias's moral cowardice.
---L.
no subject
How useful is a theory, though, when it only describes well a handful of the plays?
(And, were the Moirai really the original Girl Gang? If Eros was the firstborn of Nyx, I'd expect the Horae.)
---L.
no subject
---L.
no subject
---L.