[andrewflnr]

Oedipus aside, the notion of the "tragic flaw" is deeply, deeply, deeply entrenched in analysis of the tragedy. Quibbling about one instance is a low-leverage activity.

There is a notion that the difference between a strength and a tragic flaw is situational, but I'm not sure how widespread that actually is.

[periphrasis]

The "tragic flaw" is a more useful frame for analysis of subsequent Western tragedy, which was obviously heavily influenced by Aristotle's Poetics. However, Aristotle's analysis of tragedy in Poetics is almost solely an analysis of Oedipus: if he was wrong about Oedipus, then his argument for the "tragic flaw" doesn't have much else support. Indeed, it's not a very useful analytical tool when applied to ancient Greek literature, as opposed to subsequent Western literature. What is Achilles' tragic flaw? That he was jealous of his honor, a completely admirable and noble thing for a bronze age warrior?

In contrast, Walter White does indeed have a tragic flaw: he is prideful. His ordinary, stable life as a high school chemistry teacher was less than he felt he deserved, and when his cancer diagnosis disrupts that status quo, he is set on a path that ultimately destroys him and everything he cared about. But here we have an instance of tragedy written after literally millenia of Aristotle's mistaken analysis of Oedipus defining expectations for tragedy.

There's plenty else in Poetics that is very useful, and obviously its influence on literary criticism and analysis is profound. But one of its most famous findings is, well, tragically flawed.

[endominus]

>What is Achilles' tragic flaw? That he was jealous of his honor, a completely admirable and noble thing for a bronze age warrior?

Wrath?

Sing, o Muse, of the rage of Achilles.

[marginalia_nu]

Achilles' flaw is that he is driven entirely by Thumos, far beyond what is appropriate. The fact that he spends a dozen chapters sulking over the insult of Agamemnon taking away Briseis costs him Patroclus, which is a far greater loss.

The obvious foil is Odysseus, who is calculating to a fault, and even attempts to pull the wool over the eyes of Athena herself.

Often tragic flaws aren't necessarily bad characteristics, it's just that they are exaggerated to a point where they become bad.

[periphrasis]

> Achilles' flaw is that he is driven entirely by Thumos, far beyond what is appropriate.

I disagree completely. If it was beyond what was appropriate, much of the meaning of the poem simply does not work. There was a story in the tradition that the suitors of Helen, after she was betrothed to Menelaus, all swore an oath to come to the aid of Menelaus if anyone harmed the sanctity of their marriage: this story appears no where in the Iliad. Homer explicitly doesn't mention it, because his characters are at Troy to win honor and glory, actions which in bronze age warrior culture were admirable and noble. For moderns, who are not part of a bronze age warrior culture, it can be difficult to contemplate just how thoroughly Agamemnon humiliates Achilles in front of the entire army in Book I. War prizes were awarded as a measure of esteem in which a warrior was held by his peers: the greater the esteem the greater the prize. Strip a man of his prize, and you strip him of his esteem, his honor, his entire reason for being. If there was no oath by the suitors, which Homer explicitly omits, then not only does Achilles lose his honor, he loses all purpose for being at Troy: he's not bound by an oath so why even fight if the fruits of that fighting will be taken from him in the most humiliating fashion possible? So of course Achilles goes back to his tent and sulks for over a dozen books of the poem. Had Achilles submitted to the humiliation Agamemnon inflicted upon him he would have added cowardice and unmanliness to his dishonor: he would have lost all respect by his peers and the social expectation would have been to commit suicide. So by withdrawing to his tent and sulking, Achilles was doing the appropriate and praise-worthy thing within the context of his (alien to ours) culture. And that choice ultimately destroys him.

[marginalia_nu]

Which is not uncommon in tragic flaws. It may often be a fundamentally good trait, just dialed up a notch or two. It's why tragedies have such power, it's not bad things happening to good people, neither is it bad people getting what they had coming; but good (but flawed) people making mistakes and only realizing it too late.

Achilles' blind rage makes him not even consider what might happen if the greatest warrior of the Acheans sits on the sidelines, who among his friends and allies might get killed.

Even Creon in Antigone, while fairly difficult to like, does what he does with fundamentally noble intentions.

[Cupertino95014]

Did Aristotle say that Achilles had a tragic flaw? Or even that The Iliad was a tragedy?

I'm not saying he didn't; just asking.

[periphrasis]

He classifies it as epic poetry, although I don't recall off hand the details of discussion of Achilles, if there even was any. But the Iliad is most certainly a tragedy in its dramatic elements; indeed you simply would not have Athenian tragic drama if Homer and the Iliad were not central to ancient Greek culture. The "Greek Tragic Vision" is Iliadic, and it extends it reach throughout Greek literature, not just the theatrical genre called tragedy: for example, Thucydides' history cannot be fully understood without reference to the tragic vision.

[Cupertino95014]

I think you're walking it back a bit there. You say "What is Achilles' tragic flaw?" in a paragraph about Aristotle. So you did say it.

No question about the centrality of The Iliad though.

[periphrasis]

The point is that Aristotle's views about Oedipus both misread Sophocles' text and fail to generalize across the literary corpus Aristotle was analyzing. Achilles is the quintessential and paradigmatic tragic figure in ancient Greek literature: if Aristotle's insight about tragic character doesn't apply to Achilles, then it certainly makes sense that Aristotle would omit discussing him because such a counterexample so discredits his idea!