in a work referring to them.
of hero -bad and good points
are few types of hero: active, successful hero; hero-victim; passive anti- hero; hero- villain. the above, it can be seen that the hero is not always good. Only the active, successful hero can be described as clearly good. The hero-victim may be good, but he is someone who suffers, and his suffering certainly can not be described as good to him. A hero-villain,, is only a hero because he is the protagonist of the play, but is, in almost every other respect, a villain.opponent of the hero is the, but as we have seen, features of the two may coalesce in the hero-villain. Although badness seems to be an inherent quality of villains, villains may not be morally bad in some works, but may have an aesthetic, instead of a purely moral reason for their categorisation as villains.French narratologist AJ Greimas pursued the classification of the elements which make a story move on by proposing a well-known actantial schema, whose source is in Propps typology. From the perspective of the Russian folklorist Vladimir Propp, the author of Morphology of the Folktale (1928), a classification of fairy tales should set out from the functions, ie the actions performed by characters, and from the functional roles. There are 31 functions, defined by their significance for the plot development, which remain practically the same in the whole corpus of Russian tales (eg test, mission, reward, and so on). Although not all of them appear in every story, their sequence appears identical if viewed comparatively. The roles describe the characters participation in the events, irrespective of their individual traits: Propp identified such roles as Hero, Sought-for Person, Dispatcher, Helper, Donor (Provider), Villain, False Hero.
, action and plot
are some interconnections between character with action, and hence, also, between character and plot. Tragedy, according to Aristotle, isnt possible without plot, but it is possible without character (at least as the term is understood by some literary critics today). If we accept a looser definition of character, we can say that there is an intimate relationship between action and character to Aristotle. For this reason, the approach to character as a function of the plot has been described by some scholars as Aristotelian.interconnection of character with action is also made by the, to whom character is a product of plot. Character is therefore secondary to the plot to them, and is described as a function or actant (Margolin, 1983: 2). A function or actant when used in relation to a character refers to an abstract sphere of action: a character is therefore identified by what kind of actions he or she has done or will do. In this connection, some kind of formalization may be used to determine a characters functional range. This approach to characterisation is interested in what characters do in a story, not what they are, another way of formulating this is to say that what characters do is what they are.actional approach to characterization is that of (1968), who divides characters into seven spheres of action: 1) villain, 2) donor, 3) helper, 4) sought-for-person, 5) dispatcher, 6) hero, 7) false hero. Although Propps spheres of action could also be seen in terms of character roles, their roles are inseparable from what they do.actional approach to characterization is that of Greimas, whose conception of actants views characters as a function of the plot. To Greimas (1990), there are 6 actants: sender, object, receiver, helper, subject, opponent., The relationship between character and plot is not always seen in terms of character being a function of the plot. The novelist Henry James reverses the relationship by insisting that it is the plot that should be a product of character. Although James 'idea here may have more general applicability, he may be referring more specifically to fictional narratives; and to his own approach to the writing of fiction in particular.criticism of the actional approach to characterisation is that we do not always respond to characters in relation to the plot: this is true even in fairy tales and other simple stories where plot is important. This is partly due to the apparent presence of human consciousness in narrative, which makes us try to look at aspects of characterisation which are not manifested in characters actions. We can also note that in many complex narratives, characters are viewed more directly in terms of their inherent qualities, and not in terms of their actions. Furthermore, a distinction is sometimes made between narratives that concentrate on action and plot, and those that concentrate on character, such as that made between the novel of character and the novel of incident in nineteenth century approaches to the novel. Although this approach to the novel has been criticised by Henry James, in his attempt to reverse ...
