![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
truepenny15. [which has the distinctive feel of a final exam question to it] It has frequently been observed that Aristotle's harmatia is poorly translated as "tragic flaw," especially as currently understood, as a character defect that flaws the hero -- that a better restatement of what the old Greek was getting at is that a tragic hero's virtues are also his flaws. In other words, what made, say, Oedipus a strong king (his decisiveness, his sense of justice) are exactly those qualities (impetuosity, personal righteousness) that got him in trouble. In the wrong context, any virtue can be a vice.
It has also been suggested that a comic hero's flaws are his virtues -- that is, the difference between tragedy and comedy is the direction of irony. Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not?
Okay. Point the first: Aristotle's Poetics is not a definitive pronouncement about Greek tragedy, even though it gets used that way--and it makes a dog's breakfast of plays like Antigone and Medea, not to mention, god help us all, Hamlet. Commentators on the Poetics have estimated that Aristotle's schema would have worked for maybe 10% of the total output of the Greek tragedians. So, to begin with, there's no point in trying to apply any of Aristotle's concepts to anything much wider than Oedipus Tyrannos itself.
Point the second: hamartia does not mean "tragic flaw." It means "error." Or "sin." In Oedipus's case, his hamartia ARISES from the qualities of his character, but hamartia is not intrinsic. It is an action.
So this question is unanswerable because its premises are flawed.
On the other hand, I would agree that irony can be either comic or tragic, depending entirely on how it is deployed. Sometimes, it can even be both at once.
It has also been suggested that a comic hero's flaws are his virtues -- that is, the difference between tragedy and comedy is the direction of irony. Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not?
Okay. Point the first: Aristotle's Poetics is not a definitive pronouncement about Greek tragedy, even though it gets used that way--and it makes a dog's breakfast of plays like Antigone and Medea, not to mention, god help us all, Hamlet. Commentators on the Poetics have estimated that Aristotle's schema would have worked for maybe 10% of the total output of the Greek tragedians. So, to begin with, there's no point in trying to apply any of Aristotle's concepts to anything much wider than Oedipus Tyrannos itself.
Point the second: hamartia does not mean "tragic flaw." It means "error." Or "sin." In Oedipus's case, his hamartia ARISES from the qualities of his character, but hamartia is not intrinsic. It is an action.
So this question is unanswerable because its premises are flawed.
On the other hand, I would agree that irony can be either comic or tragic, depending entirely on how it is deployed. Sometimes, it can even be both at once.
