Agon (ἀγών)

Following up on my last post about argumentation, I'd like to explore a concept known as agon.

Agon is a Greek word meaning contest or challenge or race (I prefer debate or argument) and it's the root word for two terms that are indispensable to drama: protagonist and antagonist.  It shouldn't be too much of  a stretch to instantly grasp that the protagonist is the character in the drama that takes the “for” or “pro” side of the agon, argument.  Naturally, the antagonist takes the opposite or the “anti-” or, to push the limits of English grammar, the “ant” side of the agon.

To my mind, these terms instantly throws light on the essence of drama.  One side proposes, the other counters and so on, until the resolution occurs, hopefully after a great climax.  It's a clash of ideas manifest through action.  An even more interesting way of looking at this is that each side attempts to answer the Major Dramatic Question of the drama.  The protagonist in the positive and the antagonist in the negative.

Drama is not classical argumentation per se, it's more of a debate in which persuasion plays a large role through the attempted manipulation of emotion.  Usually, the audience will act as judge, deciding who wins and loses.  Both the protagonist and antagonist attempt to persuade us that their view of events is the correct one and, using a combination of logic and rhetoric (again made manifest through action) attempt to persuade us of the correctness of their action(s).

Because debate is a broader form of logical argument, both the protagonist and antagonist are allowed the use of fallacy.  In logic, committing a fallacy is grounds for instant loss.  The bell is rung (ding!) and it's over.  Life's not like this, fallacies or errors in logic are permitted and what's more, committed every day.  Both sides of the debate have to be careful nevertheless, that while fallacious argumentation is allowed, not to commit too obvious a fallacy or they will lose the audience and thereby the debate.

However, fallacious thinking carries with it not only the risk of losing the game and/or the audience, it also carries a more dangerous, inherent risk.  To me, this is the basis of the dramatic concept of Fatal Flaws.  To my thinking, it is the gaping hole in the character's logic that will appear and cause his or her downfall.

Before the tale of the particular drama the audience (judge) is now witness to, the Fatal Flaw has so far not been a factor.  In fact, the character may have even used that flaw to advance.  Hans Gruber in Die Hard is a money grubbing villain who has, until he walked into Nakatomi Plaza, obviously been successful.  His Fatal Flaw is put to the test by the protagonist and it causes Gruber's downfall.

Louise's illogic in choosing not to go through Texas, an action that could have resulted in a positive answer to the Major Dramatic Question in Thelma & Louise of “Will Thelma and Louise escape to Mexico?” results in her loss of the debate.  Her Fatal Flaw assures her downfall—I think she still “won,” but that's semantics.