The first book lets Aristotle define terms and set the stage.

For the most part I like his approach; dividing functions we cannot control from those we can and giving primacy to the function we control most completely.

It is in his consideration of exogenous factors where I have a quibble. Happiness as living and faring well is beyond the scope of what a person can control; a person could live well according to all the criteria, yet still be dealt a lot in life more akin to tragedy.

Aristotle further limits. Who may be happy? Certainly not one of ill-birth, nor one who is ugly. So we exclude people from consideration based on class and aesthetics.

I think Aristotle is playing a bit of a rhetorical game here. “All good things go together”; if I don't agree with him, is it because I'm not of good birth? Am I ugly? Likewise, does my agreement with his sketch pad my ego? “Well I'm of a good family and certainly not ugly! Play on wise bard! Play on!”

So Aristotle’s account is not for all of us. Is this then nothing more than a treatise on pleasing the very sort of people that Aristotle hopes to be compensated by?