[…] Part 15(A): Four Qualities of a Tragic Hero In respect of Character there are four things to be aimed at. First, and most important, it must be good. Now any speech or action that manifests moral purpose of any kind will be expressive of character: the character will be good if the purpose is good. This rule is relative to each class. Even a woman may be good, and also a slave; though the woman may be said to be an inferior being, and the slave quite worthless. The second thing to aim at is propriety. There is a type of manly valor; but valor in a woman, or unscrupulous …read more […]

We can bracket and put aside Aristotle’s statement that women are inferior (along with the, rather comically overstated, claim that slaves are “quite worthless”) or we can take it as a reminder that all of what he says is the product of a specific culture and historical era. Let’s remember that Aristotle was a philosopher first. One of the predominant explorations of the Greek philosophers was what made people behave so badly and how they might be motivated to be good instead. Socrates believed that people behave badly because they are cognitively ignorant of the pleasure that comes from contributing to the greater good. So rational education is key. Plato, on the other hand, said that people behave badly because their base impulses (non-rational desires) override their rational desire to support the greater good. Rather than being a matter of not knowing, it’s a matter of not being able to control oneself. Therefore, the base impulses must be educated along with the rational capacity. Aristotle, the student of Plato, agreed with Socrates that bad behavior, in the moment it occurs, comes from ignorance, but he also agreed with Plato that the bad behavior comes from non-rational impulses. A person can be inherently good but still behave badly when they become temporarily ignorant of the meaning of goodness because their base impulses have overridden their rational capacity. Thus, more important than their character is the choices they make. The point of all this being that, in his first point on what makes good character, he is imposing onto the nature of drama his philosophical views about moral choice. First, he is rather arbitrarily stating that the characters should be good. As you point out, Scott, we know now that drama is much more interesting when the characters are not all good. I think we can take this statement as a combination of his own personal opinion and the general view of his society: Don’t destabilize the polis by glorifying bad behavior on stage. Then, he says, given that the character should be good, the way to show the character as good is through their choices represented in their speech or actions (preferably actions). In his aside about women and slaves, he seems to be making an allowance for them, lest anyone should think you can’t include women or slaves in your drama because they can’t meet a generally accepted standard of goodness. Worry not, they can be good as well, in an inferior sort of way. As for his dictate that a character have propriety, I take this as another reference to social dictates. Propriety, derived as it is from “proper,” is one of those vaguely defined words used to exclude that which is deemed threatening to society, such as a woman’s valor or cleverness being glorified on stage. This example for what is not “appropriate” calls into question whether this idea of propriety in character has an actual usefulness in dramatic terms. In the way that Aristotle meant it, does it really have anything to do with character psychology as we understand it today? In contrast, the third and fourth points, about characters being true to life and consistently drawn, are easily recognizable as guidelines we adhere to today. Not much need be said to explain that advice. Thus, I would be careful about reading too much into his points one and two on character.

Excellent post Jennnine. And I think there is more freight to unpack in Aristotle's aside about women and slaves. At first glance, it might seem as an odd aside coming from a MAN submerged in his own cultural limitations in light of the fact that women characters figure quite prominently in Greek tragedy. However, prominent female characters had only two role choices: as sacrificial victims or villains. As feminist critiques point out, women in Greek tragedy functioned as negative models for the male ideal of themselves. Female characters represented all that men shouldn't be. Ditto with slaves: both were objects onto whom were projected "the radical, disruptive otherness" that threatened the dominant social order -- irrationality, lack of emotional and sexual control, lawlessness. Or, to draw upon Jungian psychology, women and slaves were the psycho-targets for the male shadow. Okay, we live in more enlightened times. Even so, although there may be less egregious shadow projection onto women in Western films these days, they are still stereotyped, still trapped in inferior roles, too often relegated to being mere sidekicks and sex trophies. And although slavery has been banished, imho, non-White ethnic actors are still overrepresented in roles where they called upon to act out "disruptive otherness" that threatens social order.

Interesting posts all around. . .and while I’m no Aristotelian myself, must say - having grown up in an overtly religious Southern environment that embraced the ideals of Greek misogyny right along with the Greek New Testament - I’ve always sort of suspected that the ancient Greeks disliked those women accused of unseemly valor or “unscrupulous cleverness,” not so much for the women’s own inherent “flawed” attributes, but because, via their possession of them, they rather showed up any male counterparts who possessed little to none of those same allegedly “masculine” superior qualities (and I’m guessing the same went for all those “worthless” slaves). . . Reminds me of how mystified I once was to learn that a high school friend’s mother had cautioned her, “Now, Nancy, don’t act too smart – you’ll scare the boys off.” Because if some boys really were frightened by intelligent girls – well, um, wouldn’t those be the very boys that a smart gal like Nancy ought to strive to leave behind her at the shallow end of the gene pool, for the eventual betterment of the human race in general?! (Though granted, such an outcome might leave us with far fewer tragic heroes to contemplate. . .)

>>>A hero must be good. >>>This goodness must be proper to the nature of the hero. Much is made of writer's need to craft an appropriate character flaw for a protagonist -- an Achilles heel that the villain (and the plot) will aim to hit with a kill shot. Sometimes I think at least as much time time needs to be spent figuring out a protagonist's goodness and how to plant it at the beginning of the story. I mean goodness not only in terms of personality traits the audience will like, but also goodness in terms of strength. The goodness, the strength proper to the nature of the forces arrayed the protagonist . The strength necessary to finally prevail. Those strengths must be there from page 1. Latent, undeveloped, unrealized -- yes, but the potentiality has got to be there from FADE IN:. The trick is how to hint at the potentiality, at how to foreshadow without tipping the cards that will be revealed at the end. Which is why I am impressed with the character revelation of Katniss Everdeen in "The Hunger Games". Her moral goodness is revealed dramatically when she volunteers to substitute for her sister. But has she got the potential strength to survive the ordeal? Or is she only offering herself up as a sacrificial lamb for the slaughter? She does have underdeveloped potential, and that is foreshadowed in the opening scenes where she is the pillar of emotional strength for her family, when she trespasses in the forest. To hunt with skill and brains. She is capable of developing the strength proper to the nature of the forces arrayed against her.

Just got back from seeing Catching Fire and I concur, pgronk: Katniss is a most interesting and compelling Protagonist. The story universe puts her in such a pressure cooker of a situation, over and over again, so we do see her inner strength and character emerge over time, now set up to become what figures to be PLOT REVELATIONS AHEAD!!! SPOILER ALERT!!! ...the leader of a rebellion. Part of her challenge here: No longer confined by the strictures of the Hunger Games, how will she cope with the chaos of revolt? And the not so insubstantial matter of rescuing a certain male individual (reminiscent of Han Solo's fate at the end of The Empire Strikes Back).

Sorry, but on further reflection, I just have to say one other thing. >>>Let’s just bracket the culturally specific bias against women and slaves represented here — thankfully, humankind has made some progress on those fronts . . . The biggest difference between then and now is that by now you can’t say “women are inferior” in public and be considered a great thinker of your time. Aside from that, it’s questionable how much progress we’ve made. The idea that women are inferior to men still permeates our culture to an alarming and wasteful extent, as was clearly demonstrated a few months ago by the info graphic on gender imbalance in spec script sales that appeared on this website, as well as numerous other recent info graphics tabulating inequity in male/female representation in various professional and political arenas. Let’s not delude ourselves about progress.

Jennine, please understand my point in bracketing those comments was to focus attention on the other substance of Aristotle's observations. I have made the point over and over on my blog about the imbalance of power, presence and position re women in the filmmaking community. So yes, some progress. Not enough.

Thank you, Scott, for your vigilance on the subject of women in the film industry. It's true, you do keep an open door for discussion about gender issues.