An Aristotelian Approach to “Salad Fingers” Ep. III

David Firth’s character Salad Fingers is representative of a man “in action” who is of bad character—clearly worse than the average person (59). As a result this series of animated shorts falls within the realm of a comedic plot. Unlike a tragedy according to Aristotle, Salad Fingers is not a “representation of an action that is complete and whole”, it is of a disproportionately short length, and the plot is neither simple nor complex but rather uses attributes that could be of either type (66-67,70). We see a grim looking, man-like creature that is seemingly speaking to the audience, but because he is representative of “a species of ugliness” it seems unlikely that he would also be a dependable narrator even in his daily activity (63). In these movements across the day there appears to be a successive cohesion within the action itself, but not within the bonds of reality.

It can be argued that this episode of Salad Fingers is complete and whole, as it does have a beginning, something that follows it (the assumed middle), and an end of sorts—though the plot is not well constructed and it is too short to be deemed beautiful, there does appear a unity between the parts (beginning middle, and end). The unity lies within the activity of Salad Fingers and those of the armless BBQ man, but the unity is lost at the end when Salad Fingers recognizes the existence of another character; at the end they aren’t moving about in an attempt the attain their respective goals. Ultimately the characters, their actions, their words, are meaningless because “if the presence or absence of something makes no apparent difference, it is no real part of the whole” (68). The peripheral nature of the show itself raises a question of legitimacy. If every component of a story is lacking wholeness and completeness then would it therefore lack the tangibility necessary to exist as something that can be viewed for entertainment?