Who invented the "tragic hero" character?
I would have to say that Sophocles probably has that honor: Oedipus the King is an Athenian tragedy by Sophocles that was first performed c. 429 B.C.E
What is the genesis of the idea that a hero must have an innate flaw which makes heroic action difficult or nearly impossible? The concept seems to transcend language, culture, and geographic impediments.
It came from the ancient Greek tragedies of the 5th century BCE. The tragic hero had a flaw, often hubris. Publicly performed plays were also supposed to provide catharsis (emotional cleansing) for the audience.Although the ancient Greek plays were already highly conventionalized, Aristotle was the first person (as far as we know) to explicate the rules of drama. (Aristotle lived in the 4th century BCE, while most of the Greek dramas had been written in the 5th century.) He applied the word harmatia (to err or to miss the mark) as the trigger for the protagonist’s fall.The term hamartia derives from the Greek ἁμαρτία, from ἁμαρτάνειν hamartánein, which means "to miss the mark" or "to err". It is most often associated with Greek tragedy, although it is also used in Christian theologyHamartia as it pertains to dramatic literature was first used by Aristotle in his Poetics. In tragedy, hamartia is commonly understood to refer to the protagonist’s error or tragic flawthat leads to a chain of plot actions culminating in a reversal of their good fortune to bad.What qualifies as the error or flaw can include an error resulting from ignorance, an error of judgement, a flaw in character, or a wrongdoing. The spectrum of meanings has invited debate among critics and scholars and different interpretations among dramatists.Aristotle also stated that “the hero of a tragedy must evoke a sense of pity or fear within the audience, stating that ‘the change of fortune presented must not be the spectacle of a virtuous man brought from prosperity to adversity.’ In essence, the focus of the hero should not be the loss of his prosperity. He establishes the concept that pity is an emotion that must be elicited when, through his actions, the character receives undeserved misfortune, while the emotion of fear must be felt by the audience when they contemplate that such misfortune could possibly befall themselves in similar situations. Aristotle explains such change of fortune ‘should be not from bad to good, but, reversely, from good to bad.’” Tragic hero - Wikipedia
How is Oedipus NOT a tragic hero?
As you no doubt know, a tragic hero is a basically good, even noble person with a tragic flaw in his (or her) character., which brings about his downfall. If you see Oedipus as a helpless victim of an inexorable fate, then you can argue that he's not a tragic character but a pathetic one, since by definition a pathetic character suffers undeservedly. You can point out that, when he hears the prophecy at Delphi, he does his best to prevent it by never going home again. (Of course, someone on the other side will probably respond that his reason for going to Delphi in the first place was that he wasn't sure who his parents were, so that never going back to the couple he CALLED his parents wouldn't necessarily prevent anything, and that anyone who isn't sure of his parentage and has just been told what he's just been told should beware of killing an older man or marrying an older woman.) Another point might be that, by more recent standards of tragedy, the main character dies, and Oedipus is still alive at the end. However, I don't think this one will hold much water. He has to live with himself and the knowledge of the terrible things he has done, even though he didn't mean to do them. In short, I fear that you don't have much of a leg to stand on. Aristotle used Oedipus Rex in his Poetics as the ideal example of tragedy, and the world has tended to agree with him ever since. So lots of luck!
Short and Tragic Story Ideas?
Hey all, I need a short and tragic story idea, it's for a competition... The theme is "Together, we overcome." My team and I are having a little trouble thinking out of the box...Help is most appreciated! Thanks in adv.!
How do you create a realistically depressing and tragic backstory for a character without going overboard with it or being cliche?
Here are three types of tragedies.Revenge tragedy (tragedy of blood): the plot is centred on the tragic hero’s attempts at taking revenge on the murderer of a close relative; in these plays the hero tries to ‘right a wrong’.Domestic tragedy: a play typically about middle-class or lower middle-class life, concerned with the domestic sphere, the private, personal, intimate matters within the family, between husband and wife.Heroic tragedy: usually used bombastic language and exotic settings to depict a noble heroic protagonist and their torment in choosing between love and patriotic duties.[1]The biggest tragedy in life is death. This is why I believe there is a winning formula:Someone dies -> the character is traumatized -> (usually) struggles to repress the event.From then on it’s pretty much up to you. You can find common cliches at TV Tropes.Footnotes[1] Drama
Could Othello's love for Desdemona be a tragic flaw?
It could be... but it's not. The reason "jealousy" isn't an "original" response to "what is Othello's tragi flaw?" is because it's the CORRECT response. It would be kindda like if I said "What's 2 +2?" And you said, "Well, I'm not going to say 4, because that's unoriginal! I'll go with 72!" I'm not saying there isn't some room for interpretation in any piece of literature, but Othello's love ISN'T what causes him to go off the edge. It's his jealousy. If you took away the jealousy, he would be totally fine. Of course, there can also be arguments made that it isn't jealousy, but a sense of HONOR that is his tragic flaw, but in either case, it isn't his love for Desdemona. The "killing himself" bit points more towards his sense of honor then his sense of love for her. The Handkerchief thing is jealousy, but any sort of jealousy *could* stem from his sense of honor (your wife screwing somebody else would certainly fall under "dishonorable conduct") It wasn't that he lost his love and there was chaos, he never fell out of love with her, but his jealousy (if he was angry at losing what was "his") or his honor got in the way. That is why his life ended miserably. So if you wanted to stick with the "tragic flaw" thing, but find "jealousy" too easy, try "honor" instead. You could also explore Iago's motivations. It's a *fairly* commonly accepted theory that Iago was a little jealous himself- not just of Cassio for stealing his promotion, but rather of Desdemona, for stealing his guy. Whether that's in a sexual sense or a bromance sense is debated. But there is evidence to support it.
Who is the best character created by Shakespeare?
The best character created by shakespeare is without a doubt, Portia from the Merchant of Venice. There's the ruthless Shylock (who is known for his cruel methods) and there's Antonio (who is pushed against a wall by circumstances to borrow money from Shylock) but the real hero of the play is Portia, who disguises as a man and saves her husband. Further, he also protects her husband's pride by not disclosing the truth to him in the end and be amazed by his story...one of the characters that always amazes me...
At what point in Shakespeare's "The Tragedy of Macbeth" would you say was the climax of Macbeth's character (in terms of character development)?
The idea of a story’s ‘climax’ is one that teachers really like to push. I think this way of understanding a story can definitely lead to oversimplification, and isn’t necessarily the best way of viewing plot. That being said, I think there are a few moments we can identify as important turning points for Macbeth’s characters. I’m going to go through the story, noting the greatest of these.We begin with Lord Macbeth— a war hero, king’s favorite, and man popular with just about everyone. He’s pretty brutal in battle, but very reserved in his day to day life. You could interpret him as being moral or as being a coward, or any combination of the two. He relies on his wife for guidance, listening, and help in most things, and they love each other deeply.The first turning point occurs with the witches’ prophecies in 1.3. This is a fairly minor turning point, and is the first moment he begins thinking himself as capable of doing something like killing a king, and he obsesses about it for the next few scenes.The second occurs with the murder of Duncan. If you just want to point to one climax, this is probably it. This is a moment that haunts the play, and its ripples push the action to the conclusion. Macbeth finds that he’s capable of significant, immoral actions, and this realization allows him to do a lot of other things (like all his subsequent murders. This moment pushes him to madness and sleeplessness. For the first time, he cuts his wife out. He begins relying on himself, and indirectly (in my interpretation) causes her madness.(The banquet scene might be considered the biggest turning point in everyone’s trust for Macbeth, and in his own sanity. However, it seems more that both of these things build from the regicide onward, this scene is just when they become more clear. This scene is also the first when we hear Macbeth say that he’s gone so far that he needs to see it to the close or die trying ( ‘i am in blood stepp’d so far…’), an idea that holds to his final scene)The final witch scene is the final turning point. This scene pushes Macbeth to view himself as god-like and immortal, and you can see how he acts distant and a little superhuman after this scene.
In Hamilton, is Hamilton a tragic figure -- is he Icarus?
Hamilton is a tragic hero in the play. He was compared to Icarus during Eliza's song, "Burn."Hamilton's tragic flaw, as represented in the play, was his intense focus on elevating his station in life and creating a legacy. We are warned of this during the last minute of the first Act, when he interrupts Washington's apology about sacrificing his family life. Hamilton cuts to the chase of where his passion lies, and accepts the offer to become Secretary of Treasury. Then he rather coldly announces this to Eliza, who reacts with alarm. Hamilton says he's not throwing away his shot, and the Act ends.Then we have the Reynolds papers, the product of a deluded attempt to save his legacy through a 'mia culpa' announcement that drags his family through ridicule and embarrassment.The failure to question this notion of honor and legacy hits hard with the death of Phillip, which might have been prevented with determined intervention. Notice that Eliza is always left out of the life-changing decisions.Finally, Hamilton receives Burr's challenge with cold objectivity, offering no room for apology. Because Hamilton made it clear to those involved (except for the one holding the gun) and even wrote down that he was going to throw away his shot, historians believe that Hamilton took a calculated risk on legacy. That is, he didn't think Burr would destroy his own legacy by shooting him, but if he did, Hamilton's life would end as one who tragically upheld his honor.None of this took into account the devastation on his wife and family, with their poor financial status following Hamilton's death. A tragedy for them, and for those who loved this war hero and patriot.This is a tragedy that instructs many of us failing a work-family balance. Like Icarus, we push our limits and those around us, taking for granted that world will continue to adjust and support.Early in the play we are invited into the Revolution through the song, "the Story of Tonight"… The line "tomorrow there'll be more of us" is delivered toward the audience. We become engaged in this story that is Hamilton. In the end, we all lose him.