![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
OK. So I'm sitting here working on this ^$@%*@! chapter about flaws and I'm stuck on Guan Yu now. I know exactly why, too. My Guan Yu section was good. It wasn't fantabulous or perfect, but it was solid. And now I have to re-do it, but not change it so much as shift the point of view. I'm looking at the issue from a different angle. That's the problem. Guan Yu's flaw is so straightforward that it feels unnecessarily complicated to try and look at it the same way I have Aeneas'.
The argument I made with Aeneas' flaw is that it is more a facet of character that develops from his virtues/good points than a "tragic flaw." In the examples, I show how they appear to be passive or indecisive and then show how they can be construed as being responsible and/or a good leader. It essentially becomes a defense of the "flaw," which I am totally fine with for both heroes.
For one thing, I'm not sure I can do that with Guan Yu. He is arrogant. You can't escape that, but with Aeneas you can make the argument that his passivity is in fact not passivity at all. It's possible to say that Aeneas is not a passive character, that it is only our different standards and values today that make him seem passive. That's essentially what the argument is.
But Guan Yu is supposed to be arrogant. The historical texts refer to him as haughty and arrogant. I am fairly sure that even the most lenient reader will admit that Guan Yu is supposed to come across in some of the scenes before his death as an arrogant, elitist, bastard. I don't know if we're even supposed to still like him. It's very difficult. So what do I say?
It's about honor. Part of it, for Guan Yu. It isn't that in doing and saying some of the things he does (for example, his treatment of Zhuge Jin) that he is doing something good for Shu. Possibly he even realizes that it could be detrimental to the overall plan of alliance with Wu. It is irrelevant, or we can interpret it that way. For Guan Yu, honor and respect ends up coming before diplomacy--or maybe without proper honor or by besmirching his honor there can be no hope for diplomacy. It comes back to the issue of public/private. Guan Yu always values private honor, private yi before public duty. So frequently his actions are based on private concerns instead of public ones.
Certainly this does not have quite the rosy glow of Aeneas' seeming-flaw shown in the light of good leadership. I don't think there's anything I can do with that. Guan Yu and Aeneas aren't the same at all, and the things that they are valued for--while in many ways similar--are also not the same. Guan Yu fails where Aeneas succeeds. Guan Yu values private concerns over public, where for pius Aeneas the duty he owes others always trumps his personal matters.
I think maybe I'm ready to work on this chapter for real now. I'm going to give it a shot.
...
P.S. Thank god for jazz.
The argument I made with Aeneas' flaw is that it is more a facet of character that develops from his virtues/good points than a "tragic flaw." In the examples, I show how they appear to be passive or indecisive and then show how they can be construed as being responsible and/or a good leader. It essentially becomes a defense of the "flaw," which I am totally fine with for both heroes.
For one thing, I'm not sure I can do that with Guan Yu. He is arrogant. You can't escape that, but with Aeneas you can make the argument that his passivity is in fact not passivity at all. It's possible to say that Aeneas is not a passive character, that it is only our different standards and values today that make him seem passive. That's essentially what the argument is.
But Guan Yu is supposed to be arrogant. The historical texts refer to him as haughty and arrogant. I am fairly sure that even the most lenient reader will admit that Guan Yu is supposed to come across in some of the scenes before his death as an arrogant, elitist, bastard. I don't know if we're even supposed to still like him. It's very difficult. So what do I say?
It's about honor. Part of it, for Guan Yu. It isn't that in doing and saying some of the things he does (for example, his treatment of Zhuge Jin) that he is doing something good for Shu. Possibly he even realizes that it could be detrimental to the overall plan of alliance with Wu. It is irrelevant, or we can interpret it that way. For Guan Yu, honor and respect ends up coming before diplomacy--or maybe without proper honor or by besmirching his honor there can be no hope for diplomacy. It comes back to the issue of public/private. Guan Yu always values private honor, private yi before public duty. So frequently his actions are based on private concerns instead of public ones.
Certainly this does not have quite the rosy glow of Aeneas' seeming-flaw shown in the light of good leadership. I don't think there's anything I can do with that. Guan Yu and Aeneas aren't the same at all, and the things that they are valued for--while in many ways similar--are also not the same. Guan Yu fails where Aeneas succeeds. Guan Yu values private concerns over public, where for pius Aeneas the duty he owes others always trumps his personal matters.
I think maybe I'm ready to work on this chapter for real now. I'm going to give it a shot.
...
P.S. Thank god for jazz.
