Tragic Flaw

a.k.a. hamartia. ("Hamartia, hamartia, I just had a flaw named hamartia...")

What every protagonist must have in order to be a true 'hero'.

Only if you're stuck in some Campbell-esque world of BattlingArchetypes (Battlin' Archetypes!!! (R) collect the set).

The most heroic heroes are the ones who correct their tragic flaws -- at the last possible minute!

The term most often gets used in reference to classical drama, it was part of the Greek formula, like deux ex machina. The flaw itself isn't necessarily tragic, it could be quite admirable, like the inability to tell a lie. However, in the course of events this characteristic will be their undoing. Othello's flaw was his faith in Iago's friendship.

The TragicFlaw is most obvious, and most overstated, when the "hero" is something of an ubermon; god, demi god, super hero, etc. Think kryptonite, which was introduced later when writers realized a character with no weakness was dull.

-- JoeYoung

I don't think kryptonite counts. A tragic flaw is either down to 'hubris' (arrogant disregard for reality/fate), or some transgression that sets fate in motion ('agnerisis' or something like that). It ain't a tragedy unless the nasty ending could have been avoided if only the hero wasn't who he was. The sense of inevitability is the key to a successful tragedy. The most positive outcome is a 'blaze of glory' exit. The most negative is a 'killed in chains' exit. The latter is the Aristotelean classic form (which was big on karma), as seen in Jesus, Spartacus, etc. Very sad. The former as seen in Boudicca, Cleopatra, etc. Still sad but not too bad.

The comic strip stories are more heroic sagas. It is difficult to empathise with these demigods, so they tend to be less satisfying, though fluffy and happy. If the 'guy gets the girl' then they are, classically speaking, comedies. Perhaps why the comedic action movies tend to be more successful than the humourless ones.

Thus 'Braveheart' is a classic tragedy. His tragic flaw was to trust people (particularly The Bruce). His big mistake was to take revenge for his wife's death (setting him up in opposition to Edward, the reaper). This is very similar to the Norse tragedies IMO.

~~~~~ Is to trust people really a tragic flaw??

Chinese theatre has a different 'little guy' twist based on skill versus force, but that belongs in a different page, I think. Can you tell it's Friday :) ? -- RichardHenderson

It would depend on if you take the tragic flaw to be an element of story or character. In a Greek tragedy, there is certainly an inevitable fate that is simply enacted because it cannot be escaped. In this, the flaw is indeed another element of hubris.

However, the fate of Achilles is not so much inevitable as ironic. In more modern times, the nature of a tragic flaw does not necessarily lock in fate. The joy of Hamlet is that he has many paths that he had a reasonable chance of following. It is his indecisive nature, his flaw, that drives the play, but it does not preordain it.

-- JoeYoung

Indeed. I am using the Aristotelean perspective as a reference. Achilles' fate is like the Norse and Germanic heroic tragedies (and Braveheart). They are invulnerable except for a certain physical weakness, which is exploited by a Loki figure. Othello has this feel too. There is the sense of betrayal. Hamlet is built around betrayal. Loki embodies fickle nature. The hubris/flaw/mistake of the character leads him to trust the wrong person. As the audience sees this trust, so he is in danger, and inevitably killed. I think this version deemphasises morality/ethics, but actually improves the empathetic element as hubris becomes trust, a (normally) positive and human characteristic.

I diagree with the fate of Achilles not being inevitable. A large part of the Iliad's poignancy stems from both opposing heroes knowing they were doomed. Achilles knew a prophecy saying he would die if he went to Troy, went to seek glory anyway, and so died. The circumstances of his death are mainly incidental, and in fact there is an alternate version where he is stabbed in the back while visiting a Trojan princess.

Of course you can also interpret hamlet as being preordained as well either because fate may well act in the play, or because it *is* a play and the script has already been writen, RosencrantzAndGuildensternAreDead? at the end