Something good did come out of that. Aristotle said (and I'm paraphrasing) that audiences will not reward a story where a good man suffers tragedy or where a very bad man gets rewarded. He also says that a bad may suffering a tragedy also doesn't work. So what does that leave? For a drama, you need a morally compromised man who brings about his downfall due to an error in judgment. Aristotle considered that to be the most effect plot at working an audience's emotions.
Now I love villains and I like writing interesting villainous characters. But I also prefer heroic protagonists who succeed due to their own efforts. Still, it's an interesting idea. One I may toy around with. Smooth Charles is a bad man or at the very least, a morally mixed man. Maybe I should make the next Smooth Charles story more tragic, where Smooth gets done dirty because of a mistake in his own judgment. It might be a good way to torture a protagonist, something I need to work on. (I always want to help my characters succeed. I don't mind wounding them, making them lose or get humiliated but I'm always rooting for them to succeed. Probably a personal flaw in my character.)
Anyway, that was good food for thought. Again, but an annotated version of the Poetics and not that frelling book I'm struggling through. (Seriously, I normally read hundreds of pages a day and this little flimsy thing is less than a hundred and I STILL haven't been able to force myself to finish it)
Food for thought even thousands of years later.