The Poetics

Dec 02, 2009 Trevor rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy

This is perhaps my favourite philosopher of the Ancient world chatting about literary criticism – it doesn’t really get too much better than this. Plato, of course, wanted to banish all of the artists from his ideal republic. He wanted to do this because the world we live in is a poor copy of the ‘real’ world and so art is but a copy of a copy. Rather than bring us closer to the truth, Plato believed that art took us further away.

It can’t have been easy for Aristotle, Plato’s student, to disagre...more This is perhaps my favourite philosopher of the Ancient world chatting about literary criticism – it doesn’t really get too much better than this. Plato, of course, wanted to banish all of the artists from his ideal republic. He wanted to do this because the world we live in is a poor copy of the ‘real’ world and so art is but a copy of a copy. Rather than bring us closer to the truth, Plato believed that art took us further away.

It can’t have been easy for Aristotle, Plato’s student, to disagree with the views of the master – but disagree he clearly did. He begins this by agreeing with Plato that art is imitation of the world, but rather than this being a bad thing, he says that the advantage of art is that it cuts out the dross of existence and concentrates what is important. By doing this art allows us to look beyond the particulars of our everyday existence and see the universals. The lessons we learn from art are thereby clearer and easier to assimilate. Life is always lived in the particular, but art, to Aristotle, allows us to see deeper truths because it moves us towards universals. Characters may have individual names, but we find it harder to distance ourselves from characters in fiction than we are able to do with characters in history.

It would be hard to discuss this book without mentioning catharsis. It is a Greek word meaning purgative, and to Aristotle the appeal of tragedies was that they act like a purgative on our emotions. It is a fascinating idea and one that I think still holds. It would be otherwise hard to see why we enjoy tragedies. The notion that ‘there but for the grace of God’ and the recognition that bad things happen even to the best of men are ideas that do have a cathartic effect on our emotions. Shit happens, but it happens to the best of us as well as to the worst of us.

There is always something nice about watching Aristotle slice up the world – he is a remarkably logical person and someone who is able to not only divide the world into its logical components, but to then say incredibly interesting things about these slices.

I first read this twenty years ago, it is well worth reading and re-reading.
(less)

16 likes · like · see review

Oct 02, 2012 Wallis rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

EVERY writer and serious reader of "literary literature" ought to read Aristotle's POETICS at least once a year. In concert with Strunk and White's THE ELEMENTS OF STYLE and H.L Mencken's THE AMERICAN LANGUAGE, this comparatively slim volume rounds out a sacred trinity of texts absolutely necessary for this American poet and writer!
Aristotelian criteria for catharsis inducing dramatic works may be applied easily to ANY genre despite that it was written circa 335 BCE on a papyrus and meant origi...more

1 like · like · see review

Sep 21, 2010 Wendy rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: essay, lit-in-translation, on-editing, teaching-writing, translation, writing-craft, books-i-teach

How, you might ask, could someone give Aristotle three stars? Fair enough question. It's the particular role that this translation played in my classroom that I'm giving such a mediocre rating. When I taught a narrative nonfiction class at New College of Florida in Spring 2010, I decided to use this new translation. Big mistake. Somehow, this new translation -- though probably better in many ways -- makes the work much less applicable to narrative nonfiction and dramatic structure than the "Dove...more

1 like · like · see review

Mar 11, 2013 Dianna Caley rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Aristotle is the polar opposite of poetic and part of me rebels at his clinical dissection and labeling of the component parts of literature. He seems certain that writing great drama is simply a matter of identifying and following THE correct formula. Despite this, as with any autopsy he comes up with some really amazing and insightful discoveries. His discussion on our tendency to use more stresses in our speech when we are speaking was very thought provoking as we're his comments on the value...more

1 like · like · see review

Feb 19, 2008 bup rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: 2008, audiobook, librivox

Well, I tell you what.

Did you ever see "Dead Poet's Society"? You know that scene where it's the first day of school and Robin Williams has them read that essay out loud, with all sorts of formulae and things for analyzing poetry - where Robin Williams graphs a formula on the board: PxI=G ?

Remember that?

That's the feeling I got with this. It seems to miss the forest for the trees.

OK, it's an analysis of drama and epic poetry. But to what end? Aristotle apparently felt it would be prescriptive to...more

3 likes · like · see review

May 10, 2007 Megan rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy

Aristotle, I hate the fact that you make up words and new meanings for old words at any whim, and it is a bit disappointing that your philosophy helped spin us into the middle ages, but your Poetics is truly insightful. Throwing in a linguistic analysis is always a plus. Although, some of your ideas are rather ghey, like all events in a play should occur within the span of a day? Shakespeare sure showed you up! And history can't make the same thematic connections through prose that epic can? Eve...more

like · see review

May 08, 2013 Brian Schiebout rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Poetics by Aristotle is his discussion of the verbal entertainment mediums, my copy was translated into English by Ingram Bywater. The surviving elements of this book deal mostly with the topic of tragedy as portrayed in Greek drama. While today few people really care about Greek tragedy Aristotle was writing at the time when it was the most popular entertainment medium of the time. It would be like someone today writing a book on how to write a successful movie or a classic novel. The main elem...more Poetics by Aristotle is his discussion of the verbal entertainment mediums, my copy was translated into English by Ingram Bywater. The surviving elements of this book deal mostly with the topic of tragedy as portrayed in Greek drama. While today few people really care about Greek tragedy Aristotle was writing at the time when it was the most popular entertainment medium of the time. It would be like someone today writing a book on how to write a successful movie or a classic novel. The main elements of a story according to Aristotle are plot, spectacle, diction, melody, character and thought. Plot of course gets the majority of the book as any good story will have a plot which the audience will be able to follow. The main plot in a tragedy is the story of a hero passing through necessary stages from either misfortune to happiness or the reverse. This can be applied to other stories also as even in today's stories the main element will follow this path although it generally goes back to the beginning again by the end of the story. Spectacle describes the production of a play on the stage. It describes the scenes and objects but nothing in it is needed for the story to exist but it can greatly affect an audiences appreciation for the work. Diction is the actual construction of the sentences and ideas. Proper grammar is needed so that the audience can understand what the author is attempting to portray. Melody is the actions of the agents of the piece. Any fictional work must have people doing something and doing it at the right pace otherwise the story becomes drab. Character deals mostly with making sure that those who are portrayed are true to what their role is in the play. It is not right that the hero acts chaotically without a reason because this destroys the image of reality which a fictional story is portraying. Thought is the grand ideas which the work shows a truth in a way that the audience can perceive. Although this work dealt mostly with tragedy the same elements can be seen in all successful fiction even if it was designed for a much different purpose.(less)

like · see review

May 02, 2013 David rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Aristotle gives us an analysis of poetry as it relates to epics, music and drama (both tragedy and comedy), and attempts to extract simple formulas for good and poor poetry. From the tone of his writing it sounds like the poets of his day were struggling to match the quality of those a generation or two preceding them. Much in the same way an old rock'n'roll musician may look back on the deceased great rockers and admonish today's youths for being unable to produce similar quality, he picks apar...more Aristotle gives us an analysis of poetry as it relates to epics, music and drama (both tragedy and comedy), and attempts to extract simple formulas for good and poor poetry. From the tone of his writing it sounds like the poets of his day were struggling to match the quality of those a generation or two preceding them. Much in the same way an old rock'n'roll musician may look back on the deceased great rockers and admonish today's youths for being unable to produce similar quality, he picks apart what's wrong with the writing of the day and ventures advice on how to create better poetry.

Greek literature (as far as Homer's Iliad and Odyssey are concerned) and theater were written in poetic form and were meant to adhere to the Greeks' sense of rhythm and beauty, whether adapted to music or spoken by an actor on the stage. A tragic or comic play would have both poetry spoken by actors and poetry sung by a chorus, seamlessly woven together into a theatrical production. And at least tragic theater he tells us evolved to incorporate actor-told story from the raw simplicity of the dithyrambic choral performances (a theme on which Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy is based). Aside from giving us a little history on the development of Greek poetry, Aristotle explores the mechanics of language as well as the way to pick and develop a beautiful story. Though he mentions a couple points on comedies early on and though he treasured the writings of comic playwright Aristophanes, he devotes little attention to comedic performances in this work and focuses more on tragedies and epic poems.

Aristotle cautions against picking a story that is too intricate for a poet to properly tackle. Citing Homer's Iliad he shows that when faced with a complex tale it is a wise choice to extract just a piece of it, one where a single process can be explored. The Iliad is a part of the epic saga of the Trojan War, and only a month or so toward the end of the 10-year battle is put into the story.(view spoiler) Perhaps the simple process explored in Homer's epic can be told as: near the close of the Trojan War the Greek's god-like star fighter Achilles becomes offended, refusing to fight (nearly costing them the war) but eventually comes around and helps turn the tide of the war. Reducing one's poetic efforts to a simple plot like this, Aristotle tells us, is part of good writing. Cramming multiple character metamorphoses together becomes too busy for theater and prevents the poet from fully developing a story and the character(s) playing in it.

Another technique in tragic theater poetry is the processes of unknown facts being discovered and also of transitioning between opposites. He cites examples from Euripides, Sophocles and others where a character's identity is unknown to those they're interacting with, and the audience becomes engaged as they anticipate the characters discovering the truth. In the case where the characters are related to one another, the process is even more enthralling because the ties should by nature be closer and the discovery therefore more powerful. The transitioning between opposites in a play is often just the reversal of a character's fortunes or fate. This can be that of a good character brought from the edge of death to victory and happiness, or it can be the retribution brought down on a bad character who seems they are about to succeed in their evils. These techniques are a sort of pendulum and mark the desirable rhythm of a good story. And the blending of both techniques, he tells us, marks the best stories. A character on the verge of turning his captured mother over to her enemy discovers she is indeed his mother is then able to stop the deed and turn against her enemy instead (this play he references is unfortunately lost to us).

I find this work to be insightful to those who've read the Greek tragedies and are trying to better understand them. When reading Sophocles, much is lost in translations from Greek that made him so admirable as a poet, but Aristotle fills us in a little more on the poetic rhythms, the prose, and overall elegance of those writings that help one better envision it. Aristotle also gives us a better picture of Euripides through some scattered stern criticism of his techniques, yet is in no way as scathing as Nietzsche on the playwright. Aristotle cites Euripidean tragedy more often than any other writer and more often has praise for him than criticism. As even modern critics will agree, it's Euripides storytelling that is his strength, not his mechanics. This literary analysis from an actual contemporary of the playwrights is invaluable in improving one's understanding of this era now 2500 years removed from us today.(less)

like · see review

Jan 10, 2013 Tommy V rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: ebooks

The Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) was one of the greatest thinkers ever. With his sharp, analytical mind he explored such topics as physics, anatomy, language, ethics, and politics, to name only a few. He founded a school of thought in Athens (the Lyceum) that taught its students through the means of scientific discovery. Though it is disputed that much of the written work attributed to Aristotle that survives today was actually penned by him (most of it reads like a sequence of lec...more The Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) was one of the greatest thinkers ever. With his sharp, analytical mind he explored such topics as physics, anatomy, language, ethics, and politics, to name only a few. He founded a school of thought in Athens (the Lyceum) that taught its students through the means of scientific discovery. Though it is disputed that much of the written work attributed to Aristotle that survives today was actually penned by him (most of it reads like a sequence of lecture notes as opposed to well-crafted discourses), there is little dispute that they are Aristotelian ideas.

So, it is interesting to see how Aristotle takes an artsy topic such as the Poetics and dissects it the way he might carve up a fetal pig. And at first you might wonder how one can apply a series of systematic principles to the field of art. After all, art is emotional and passionate, and artists create through inspiration and instinct, not through a process of logical construction, right? Well, yes and no. For example, there’s an awful lot of math found in music, and musical notes follow a sort of structure. So it is not far-fetched to treat tragedy, which is the main subject in the Poetics, as a scientific exercise. Once you accept Aristotle’s methodology, it becomes easier to see what he is trying to do—namely, understand the nature of tragedy, what components make up a tragedy, and what its effects are on its audience.

Aristotle begins the Poetics, a short treatise under 50 pages long, by stating that people love imitation. We use our reasoning to recognize what substitutes for the real thing, whether it is a painting of something or a recreation on the stage, and take delight in that recognition. The closer the imitation comes to reality, the more we are delighted, or entertained by it, assuming that we understand, through reason, that it is an imitation. This is a very important consideration. If I watch someone get killed in a movie, I understand that it is an actor playing a character who dies, and not a real-life death. This is why we tell children who become scared while watching a movie or TV show that “it is only make-believe.” If in fact I was witnessing a real-life killing, my rightful reaction should be of horror, disgust, and perhaps sorrow, not a sense of being entertained.

To this Aristotle adds that when we view a tragedy, we experience catharsis. Greek tragedians often employed noble, or good, characters who either had certain flaws or had something bad happen to them. In either case it brought about their downfall. Watching a good dramatic production provokes an emotional response from the audience which, Aristotle would argue, is good, for it releases built-up emotion within us. (I suppose we can apply the title of “psychologist” to Aristotle, as well.) An unfortunate action that befalls a tragic character, then, will evoke pity and fear upon the audience; pity because we feel empathy toward the character’s predicament, and fear because we can imagine something similar happening in our own lives.

Aristotle goes on to explain the structure of a well-written tragedy. It must contain a plot, consistent characters, an idea or thought, diction (language), music, and decoration. Of these six parts, the most important to Aristotle is the plot, and thus he devotes several pages to it. He says that the best plot is one that is complex, but it should not be so complex that the audience cannot follow it. It should feature a reversal of fortune from good to bad, usually through an act of discovery, so that the primary character experiences a disaster or undergoes some form of suffering. Of course, realism is important to Aristotle and he warns that a good plot should flow naturally with situations that seem probable rather than contrived. He offers Sophocles’ Oedipus the King as an example of an ideal plot.

Two other types of poetry that Aristotle cites are epic and comedy. Though Aristotle promises to discuss comedy after the section on tragedy, he never does, and many scholars believe that his section on comedy was unfortunately lost. However, Aristotle does say a few things about epics. He considers epics, such as The Iliad, to be tragedies expanded on a grander scale. Because it is told in narrative form, an epic has no need to conform to the time and scene constraints of a staged tragedy. However, that doesn’t mean Aristotle considers epics to be the better form, for he also says that while all of the elements found in an epic are contained in a tragedy, the reverse is not always true.

Though a reader can come away from the Poetics thinking that Aristotle has narrowly confined the components of tragedy, he leaves numerous ways for crafting a good tragedy. Indeed, many playwrights and critics throughout the ages used Aristotle’s model as a by-the-numbers convention for composing drama. It wasn’t until the late 19th and early 20th centuries that artists began creating successful works (from a critical and popular point of view) that contradicted Aristotle’s thought on poetry. That doesn’t mean that Aristotle’s ideas are outdated but rather that there are other approaches to producing a tragedy than the ones that he gives.

I find it difficult to encounter Aristotle without a pencil and a pad of paper at hand so that I can write an outline to what I am reading. Fortunately, in the Penguin Books edition, British translator Malcolm Heath not only provides the reader with an outline, he uses the outline throughout the body of the Poetics to highlight each section by topic, instead of by the usual (arbitrarily) assigned chapter and notation format. Heath’s 1996 introduction to the Poetics is longer than Aristotle’s actual work, but it contains a great commentary on the treatise as well as presents a thumbnail sketch of both Aristotle’s philosophy (as it pertains to sections within Poetics) and early Greek drama. He points out passages where the text has been corrupted, making it difficult to translate accurately. Heath also provides two excellent sets of footnotes (one for his Introduction and one for the Poetics) to help bring the modern reader as close as possible to Aristotle’s world.
(less)

like · see review

Dec 22, 2012 Kye rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

"Poetry in general seems to have sprung from two causes, each of them lying deep in our nature."

"All the elements of an Epic poem are found in Tragedy, but the elements of a Tragedy are not all found in the Epic poem."

"Poetry, therefore, is a more philosophical and higher thing than history: for poetry tends to express the universal, history the particular."

"If, then, Tragedy is superior to Epic poetry in all these respects, and moreover, fulfills its specific function better as an art for each...more

like · see review

Oct 21, 2012 Nick Bea rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Poetics
Aristotle had many underlying themes hidden throughout this notes that were either deliberate or incidental due to the incoming western ideals of his era. Many times the standard western dichotomies came up in his writings, whether the characters were meant to be “admirable or inferior,” his lectures on Tragedy versus Comedy, or how poetry’s history has been “bifurcated” since the beginning. Also he displays the Grecian’s common “Rule of Three,” he states that “Imitation comes naturally t...more Poetics
Aristotle had many underlying themes hidden throughout this notes that were either deliberate or incidental due to the incoming western ideals of his era. Many times the standard western dichotomies came up in his writings, whether the characters were meant to be “admirable or inferior,” his lectures on Tragedy versus Comedy, or how poetry’s history has been “bifurcated” since the beginning. Also he displays the Grecian’s common “Rule of Three,” he states that “Imitation comes naturally to human beings.” He further elaborates on humanities natural inclination to imitation by stating how poetry is a species of Imitation, containing three standard components, Medium, Object, and Mode.

Aristotle reveals his outlook on the world through subtle revelations, speckled in his writings. During his examination on poetic’s main goal to imitate the natural world, Aristotle infers that this fondness for man to “Imitate comes naturally to human beings.” Further he states that “those who had the strongest natural inclination towards these things generated poetry out of improvised activities by process of gradual innovation.” This tells us that we are all born as poets, just given different labels, and that all components of poetry are not just in writing but in life. And if imitation is truly exaggerated in our normal lives, does it help to moderate? It seems that our society today has taken the natural human instinct to imitate to an entire new level, making imitation out to be the bad character. But in our modern society we have transferred from Aristotle’s brand of imitation, which answers the why, how, and what will be. Into the more monstrous form of imitation answering the who, what, when, and where. Almost depicting humanity as a Tragedy of his era.

When Aristotle speaks of the success of Tragedy and why it is so popular, I cannot help but feel uncomfortable. He holds a dark mirror up to humanity’s face stating that the path to a successful Tragedy is with a plot creating “pity to do with the undeserving sufferer,” for some reason humans find a sick pleasure in seeing a person go “from good fortune to bad fortune. And this must be due not to depravity but to a serious error.” It is never explained why “some men just want to watch the world burn,” but we all must realize that with good there is always evil.
I highly recommend this book to anyone with an interest in poetics and early human nature.

“Poetry belongs to people who are naturally gifted or mad.” By naturally gifted he means “the person is adaptable.” That person has a knack for “perceiving similarities” and has created their own personal style. It is this personal style that is derived from experiences in the natural world and ability to understand and seek out imitations that he or she has witnessed in nature.
(less)

like · see review

Jul 13, 2012 Mor rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

По-моему, большинство до сих пор руководствуется "Поэтикой": "порицания делаются с пяти точек зрения - порицается или невозможное, или нелогичное, или вредное для нравственности, или заключающее в себе противоречия, или идущее вразрез с правилами искусства". Еще он был бы любим теми, кто делает отзывы на фильмы. Если бы они его читали, конечно. '...красота заключается в величине и порядке, вследствие чего ни чрезмерно малое существо не могло бы стать прекрасным, так как обозрение его, сделанное...more По-моему, большинство до сих пор руководствуется "Поэтикой": "порицания делаются с пяти точек зрения - порицается или невозможное, или нелогичное, или вредное для нравственности, или заключающее в себе противоречия, или идущее вразрез с правилами искусства". Еще он был бы любим теми, кто делает отзывы на фильмы. Если бы они его читали, конечно. '...красота заключается в величине и порядке, вследствие чего ни чрезмерно малое существо не могло бы стать прекрасным, так как обозрение его, сделанное в почти незаметное время, сливается, ни чрезмерно большое, так как обозрение его совершается не сразу, но единство и целостность его теряются для обозревающих, например, если бы животное имело десять тысяч стадий длины. Итак, как неодушевленные и одушевленные предметы должны иметь величину, легко обозреваемую, так и фабулы должны иметь длину, легко запоминаемую." Я не могу полюбить философию чувака, который не считает прекрасными малых существ [ирония]

Тут важно другое: фраза "достоинство речи быть ясной и не быть низкой" мне сразу напомнила критические статьи Элиота. "Избранное" Элиота оказалось несколько странным. В нем минимум поэзии - и масса его воззрений на поэзию и критику. Элиот предстает крайне, даже чрезмерно серьезным по отношению к предмету. Но при этом он там удачно сформулировал смысл поэтов и писателей:

"Можно утверждать, что долг поэта именно как поэта лишь косвенно является долгом перед своим народом; прежде всего это долг перед своим языком: обязанность, во-первых, сохранить этот язык, а во-вторых, его усовершенствовать и обогатить. Выражая то, что чувствуют другие люди, поэт вместе с тем изменяет само это чувство, делая его более осознанным; он побуждает людей более отчетливо себе представить, что они в настоящий момент чувствуют, а тем самым и преподает им определенные представления о них самих. Но поэт - не просто человек, в большей мере наделенный даром осознавать, чем другие; как индивидуальность он отличается от других людей и других поэтов, и он может побудить своих читателей осознанно пережить вместе с ним новые чувства, до него остававшиеся им неведомыми.

Т.е., грубо говоря, поэт за косноязычных людей формулирует их чувства, делает их за счет этого понятными, а следовательно осознанным то, что остальные хоть и ощущают, но смутно, не в состоянии точно определить переживаемое. За счет этого люди получают заново, в дистиллированном виде то, что ими уже ранее было получено, но не было до конца осмыслено. Т.е. часто поэт передает им их собственные чувства, которые они из-за ограниченности воображения не могут облечь в опыт. Это очень забавно, я считаю. Но большей части он их растревоживает тем, что им пережить не дано.(less)

like · see review

Oct 20, 2011 Aurochz rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy, linguistics, ancient-greece

One of his least talked about or popular works among his corpus. Hugely influential in certain fields, such as Greek historiography and literary theory. This book held an influence only surpassed by the influence he held in the natural sciences up until the middle half of the last millennium. Like all of Aristotle's works, the book seeks to catalog and make intellectual commentary on a subject of interest for Greeks at the time. The subject of the book being poetics, which in are language would...more One of his least talked about or popular works among his corpus. Hugely influential in certain fields, such as Greek historiography and literary theory. This book held an influence only surpassed by the influence he held in the natural sciences up until the middle half of the last millennium. Like all of Aristotle's works, the book seeks to catalog and make intellectual commentary on a subject of interest for Greeks at the time. The subject of the book being poetics, which in are language would mean something more akin to literature in general, rather then just what we consider "poetry."

This book was also important in literary history as a response to Plato's challenges and advisement of censorship of the various literary arts of his time in THE REPUBLIC. Aristotle's defense in this regard comes in two ways. First, he believes that imitation or mimesis is a skill that is good in and of itself that can outline and set a standard of virtues for the people to follow. Because Plato believed in the purity of forms, he felt that all art was an imitation of an imitation and was therefore twice removed from purity and virtue. Aristotle's argument directly attacks the central thesis in that way of Plato's reason for censorship. Secondly, Aristotle defends art in general by saying it allows us an outlet of catharsis or a way of purging negative and extreme emotions. Consider it this way, have you ever heard someone defend violent video games by saying it keeps people from being violent in real life? This is very much the argument Aristotle himself might have made, as it mirrors his own second key defense of literature.

It is ironic that Plato's dialogues are literary masterpieces and yet all of Aristotle's writings were dry prose instructive outlines, most likely notes by a student rather then the man himself. Yet the least literary of the two would come to defend literature.

Aristotle's cataloging which may have just been musings to him, came to be canonical definitions about how each genre should be performed and how their form should function. For instance in regards to outlining tragedy, he said it should start from the middle of a story and involve only honorable and aristocratic character types. They don't necessarily have to be "tragic" in the way that we think, tragedy merely has to involve a series of interlocking choices that leads to a crisis in the characters life. Aristotle believed tragedy to be the height of poetic art. Comedy on the other hand should be about lower and middle class characters and involve every day situations that slightly go awry. His views in this regard which he merely saw as observations, came to be somewhat an instruction manual for these genres and others for almost fourteen hundred years. Leading to a series of stagnation periods in these genres until people realized his authority on the matter should be given historical significance but ultimately should be abandoned in this way.

Aristotle's views also have implications that one might miss upon first glance. Aristocratic and heroic personalities in Greek were associated with masculinity. Aristotle did not believe that women could inherently be virtuous and believed only stories about men could be truly interesting and tragic in the form that he held up on high. Even going so far as to criticize Sophocles Antigone, because of its virtuous female lead. This coupled with Herodotus and Thucydides views of history, that it should mainly concern wars and political endeavors led to a literary viewpoint for centuries that basically left women's view of the human experience completely out of literary endeavors. The book also treats the poor as inherently worthless and of course holds slavery and slaveholders in high esteem.

Aristotle's poetics should still be considered important in the sense that it gave us a view of how the Greek's viewed themselves and the art they made. It helped catalog the knowledge of the time and keep us informed of this day of certain literary genres that endured throughout that time and ones that didn't quite make it, such as the dithyramb. His views on the sociology of the matter should not be taken that seriously or merely as a given, it is a mistake to take his objective views on art in general. I would recommend to those interested in philosophy or the history of literary criticism. (less)

like · see review

May 07, 2011 Susan rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: non-fiction

It seems ludicrous to give such a classic 2 stars (Well, I'd do 2.5 if I could). It's Aristotle's theory of poetry -- what it is, what its component parts are, what makes it good or bad. But there was very little in it that meant much to me. It seemed full of definitions and "should"s; and the latter came across as though there is a single answer to every possible question, even about what makes poetry good, and that Aristotle could figure it out. Another reviewer has said "Even art cannot escap...more

like · see review

Feb 02, 2011 Matt rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Aristotle says that the exercise of any capacity brings pleasure. Poetry is language made pleasurable in verse form. Aristotle distinguishes the poetic genres of epic poetry (like Homer's Illiad and Odyssey) and tragedy (like the plays of Aeschylus and Sophocles) and comedy (like the plays of Aristophanes). Aristotle only mentions lyric poetry, which is what we normally think of as poetry (like a sonnet). When Aristotle is talking about poetics, we should think of stories in verse form like Shak...more Aristotle says that the exercise of any capacity brings pleasure. Poetry is language made pleasurable in verse form. Aristotle distinguishes the poetic genres of epic poetry (like Homer's Illiad and Odyssey) and tragedy (like the plays of Aeschylus and Sophocles) and comedy (like the plays of Aristophanes). Aristotle only mentions lyric poetry, which is what we normally think of as poetry (like a sonnet). When Aristotle is talking about poetics, we should think of stories in verse form like Shakespeare's plays.

Aristotle explains that we enjoy poetics because of their imitation (mimesis) of reality. Thus Aristotle doesn't believe that our enjoyment of good poetry is purely subjective or only a matter of taste. The better the imitation of reality and the more pleasurable the language, the more our enjoyment will increase. I suppose that the subjective element is our own version of reality which dictates whether we agree with the author's vision of reality. While Aristotle might have conceded this, he focuses on standards for imitation and pleasurable language.

Comedy is "an imitation of inferior people.... The laughable is an error or disgrace that does not involve pain or destruction" (3.4). When we laugh we recognize something ridiculous in others. Hopefully we can do this when we recognize our own silliness, but Aristotle doesn't "go there." Epic poetry, on the other hand, "is an imitation in verse of admirable people," like the hero Odysseus. "Tragedy is an imitation of an action that is admirable, complete and possesses magnitude ... effecting through pity and fear the purification (katharsis) of such emotion" (4.1). Thus we come to one of the main differences between Aristotle and Plato.

Plato criticized poets in Book Ten of Republic, because their work was a mere representation of reality which stirred up the passions. Plato considered reason the highest human faculty, whose job it was to tame the passions of the heart and discipline the appetites of the body. Thus poets were guilty of creating escapist fiction. Conversely, in the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle said that to feel "fear, confidence, desire, anger, pity and in general pleasure and distress can be experienced in greater or lesser degree, and in both cases wrongly. To feel them at the right time, in response to the right things, with regard to the right people, for the right reason and in the right way--that is the ... characteristic of virtue" (1106b.18-23; cited in Introduction xxxviii).

According to Aristotle, the emotions weren't necessarily inferior to reason, but they needed to be exercised and trained, just like reason. This happened by experiencing emotion through tragic stories. Thus we need plots that imitate reality accurately and character that we can recognize. A defective plot was one in which "the sequence of episodes is neither necessary nor probable.... they draw out the plot beyond its potential" (5.6). We tend not to love books or movies whose plots or actions are not believable or inaccurate within the structure and genre of story.

Good plots, for Aristotle, create astonishment through reversal, recognition, and suffering. Aristotle cites Sophocles' "Oedipus Rex," as an example. At the end of the play when understanding dawns and the great king falls the reader is amazed. A modern example would be the movie "The Sixth Sense," where a reversal occurs at the end of the action producing a recognition that we have been watching the movie the wrong way from the beginning.

The goal of character is goodness, appropriateness, likeness, and consistency. Aristotle says, "The character is good if the choice is good" (8.1). In the movie Shadowlands these following words are put into the mouth of C. S. Lewis: "According to Aristotle, plot is character, character is plot. Forget psychology; forget the insides of mens' heads." This insight into Aristotle is in sharp contrast to our post-modern movies, which often try to reconstruct villains by creating sympathy for them.

From a Christian point of view this is sinister, unless it creates a desire to redeem a character. This happens in Lord of the Rings with Gollum, when we are given a peek into his background and see Frodo begin the "taming of Smeagol [Gollum]." There are examples in the Bible like Jacob's brothers, but the norm in Scripture is bad guys are bad guys and will be judged by their actions. God will call us all to account, and good plots do the same instead of making excuses for badness or trying to create sympathy toward sin.

Also contrary to Hollywood is Aristotle's dictum "no unnecessary badness" (8.1). The gratuitous, the explicit, and the shocking pass for realism today instead of the true, the good, and the beautiful. Their are endless examples of this in recent movies and books. Aristotle provides many from the ancient world and they pale compared to our own. A good example of a terrible villain who isn't unnecessarily bad is Kevin Bacon's character in "The River Wild." I think he says about two cuss words in the whole movie and nothing sexual is ever implied. Oh to read and watch without feeling the need afterwards to take a bath!

Aristotle also has a great discussion on poetic style:

The most important quality in diction is clarity, provided there is no loss of dignity. The clearest diction is that based on current words; but that lacks dignity. By contrast, diction is distinguished and out of the ordinary when it makes use of exotic expressions -- by which I mean non-standard words, metaphors, lengthening, and anything contrary to current usage.... So what is needed is some kind of mixture of these two things: one of them will make the diction out of the ordinary and avoid a loss of dignity ... while current usage will contribute clarity (9.4).

Aristotle gives plenty of examples to illustrate his points and Homer is praised beyond the rest as "he excels everyone in diction and reasoning" (10.2). Constructing quality plots is not easy but Aristotle advises: "nature itself teaches people to choose what is appropriate to it" (10.3). Nature not artifice is the standard for Aristotle. Aristotle also addressed strict imitation vs. poetic license: "Impossibilities should be referred to poetic effect, or idealization of the truth, or opinion. With regard to poetic effect, a plausible impossibility is preferable to what is implausible but possible.... It is probable that improbable things will happen" (11.3). When we think of such a credible incredibility, we normally have the basis for an interesting plot. I'm afraid that many movie makers today start with special effects they want to create, and a screen play is concocted artificially to present it. A return to Aristotle would mean a much needed return to plot and character. (less)

1 like · like · see review

Jul 05, 2010 Matt rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Even art cannot escape Aristotle’s categorical dissection. This analysis of tragedy and epic poetry (as well as extant fragments on comedy) slices the works of tragedians and separates them into their primary parts. Like an entomologist pulling apart the wings of a butterfly to see beauty. It is the scientific method applied to art.

What results is a formula for tragic writing. The quantitative steps are mapped out as well as a general description of the tragic character. It’s a descriptive analy...more

like · see review

Jun 03, 2010 Rowland Bismark rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Aristotle approaches poetry with the same scientific method with which he treats physics and biology. He begins by collecting and categorizing all the data available to him and then he draws certain conclusions and advances certain theses in accordance with his analysis. In the case of tragedy, this means he divides it into six parts, identifies plot as the most important part, and examines the different elements of plot and character that seem to characterize successful tragedies. He tentativel...more Aristotle approaches poetry with the same scientific method with which he treats physics and biology. He begins by collecting and categorizing all the data available to him and then he draws certain conclusions and advances certain theses in accordance with his analysis. In the case of tragedy, this means he divides it into six parts, identifies plot as the most important part, and examines the different elements of plot and character that seem to characterize successful tragedies. He tentatively suggests that tragedy ultimately aims at the arousal of pity and fear and at the katharsis of these emotions. Then he begins to lay out certain theories as to what makes a good tragedy: it must focus on a certain type of hero who must follow a certain trajectory within a plot that is tightly unified, etc. Aristotle's conclusions, then, are based less on personal taste and more on an observation of what tends to produce the most powerful effects.

Aristotle's method raises the fundamental question of whether poetry can be studied in the same way as the natural sciences. Though there are some benefits to Aristotle's method, the ultimate answer seems to be "no." The scientific method relies on the assumption that there are certain regularities or laws that govern the behavior of the phenomena being investigated. This method has been particularly successful in the physical sciences: Isaac Newton, for example, managed to reduce all mechanical behavior to three simple laws. However, art does not seem to be governed by unchanging, unquestionable laws in the same way that nature is. Art often thrives and progresses by questioning the assumptions or laws that a previous generation has accepted. While Aristotle insisted on the primacy and unity of plot, Samuel Beckett has achieved fame as one of this century's greatest playwrights by constructing plays that arguably have no plot at all. Closer to Aristotle's time, Euripides often violated the Aristotelian principles of structure and balance in a conscious effort to depict a universe that is neither structured nor balanced. Not surprisingly, Aristotle seems to have preferred Sophocles to Euripides.

These remarks on Sophocles and Euripides bring us to another problem of interpreting Aristotle: we have a very limited stock of Greek tragedies against which to test Aristotle's theories. Aristotle could have been familiar with hundreds, or even thousands, of tragedies. All we have today are thirty-three plays by three tragedians. As a result, it is difficult to say to what extent most tragedies fit Aristotle's observations. Those that we have, however, often grossly violate Aristotle's requirement. The best example we have of an Aristotelian tragedy is Oedipus Rex , so it is no wonder that Aristotle makes such frequent reference to it in his examples.

Three points stand out as probably the most important in the Poetics: (1) the interpretation of poetry as mimesis, (2) the insistence on the primacy and unity of mythos, or plot, and (3) the view that tragedy serves to arouse the emotions of pity and fear and then to effect a katharsis of these emotions.

Further, narrative is essential to Aristotle's definition of poetry. Not only comedy and tragedy, but also the epic poetry of the Greeks tells stories, as we find in the Iliad and the Odyssey . Both drama and epic poetry are fictional accounts that imitate real life in some way. On the other hand, a great deal of poetry in the modern world does not imitate life in any obvious way. For instance, the Robert Burns line, "My love is like a red, red rose" may be said to "imitate" or represent the poet's love for a woman, but by that token, Empedocles' verses might be said to "imitate" or represent certain philosophical concepts.

Aristotle is not trying to condemn Robert Burns for writing love poems; he is simply trying to catalog the different kinds of poetry that existed in his time. They all employ language, rhythm, and harmony in some way or another, they all deal with people who are engaging in certain kinds of action, and they all involve some sort of direct or indirect narrative. Whether something is an epic poem, a comedy, or a tragedy depends on how it fits within these categories. For instance, a tragedy is a composite of language, rhythm, and harmony that deals with agents who are on the whole better than us, and the poet speaks directly through these agents.

Aristotle further elaborates on the value of the mimetic arts with his assertion that we are naturally imitative creatures who delight in imitation. Aristotle relates this claim to our ability to learn and reason: we exercise our reason when seeing something as an imitation of something else. It takes a certain level of recognition to see a bunch of men dancing and singing in masks as imitations of characters from ancient myths, to see stylized gestures as imitations of real action, or to see the emotional intensity generated both by actors and audience as an imitation of the emotional intensity that would have been felt if the action on stage were transpiring in real life. Aristotle defines humans as rational animals, suggesting that our rationality is what distinguishes us from other creatures. If the ability to recognize an imitation and understand what it is meant to represent requires reasoning, then we are delighting in that very faculty that makes us human.

Aristotle's account of the origin of tragedy seems on the whole quite sound. The sparseness of archaeological and other evidence has long frustrated scholars, but it seems that Aristotle's suggestion that tragedy evolved from the dithyramb is as good as any we have. Dionysus is the Greek god of vegetation and wine, and the dithyrambs in honor of him are thought to have been part of festivals celebrating the harvest and the changing of the seasons. These songs were thus part of religious ceremonies, and the speaker that accompanied the large chorus was probably a priest of some sort. Though initially improvised, these dithyrambs developed a more rigid structure, and the speaker often engaged in dialogue with the chorus. Aeschylus is generally credited with the innovation of adding a second actor, which transformed choral singing into dialogue, ritual into drama. In short, Aeschylus invented tragedy and is the first great playwright of the Western tradition.

Aristotle elaborates on what he means when he says that the action of a tragedy is complete in itself and with magnitude. For a plot to be a complete whole, it must have a beginning, middle, and end. The beginning is a point that does not necessarily follow from anything else, which naturally has consequences following from it. The end is a point that naturally follows from preceding events but does not have any necessary consequences following it. The middle is a point that is naturally connected both to events before and after it.

The magnitude of a story is important, as it is in any art. Paintings are neither infinitesimally small nor monstrously big because they must be of such a size as to be taken in by the eye. Similarly, a tragedy must be of a moderate length so as to be taken in by the memory. Usually, time limits are set by the audience or other outside factors, but Aristotle suggests that the longer the play the greater the magnitude, provided the poet can hold the tragedy together as one coherent statement. As a general rule of thumb, he suggests the action should be long enough to allow the main character to pass through a number of necessary or probable steps that take him from fortune to misfortune or vice versa.(less)

like · see review

Jun 26, 2009 Chris rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: ancient-greece-rome, literature-criticism

Where to start? Honestly, Poetics is one of those books that makes you admire the author while you want to strangle him. This work is highly influential, and you can see its influence in Western Literature in authors such as Shakespeare, Byron, and Miller. It also makes classical literature easy to understand, at least in terms of structure.

In short, if you are interested in literature, you should read this book.

But you will also want to strangle Aristotle. Yes, he's an ancient Greek and woman'...more

2 likes · like · see review

Aug 26, 2010 Fabian added it · review of another edition

Here is a rudimentary tablet of knowledge by one of the greats. First off, it is somewhat incredible to concede the year that this was written, and that almost 2,400 years later we are still eager to explore poetics that are in this aged article so clearly defined.

Aristotle exalts the poet and holds him in the highest esteem. Similarly, I have come to the conclusion that the novelist of literature is the truest of artists, imitating what he sees and ‘painting’ things as how they are, telling it...more Here is a rudimentary tablet of knowledge by one of the greats. First off, it is somewhat incredible to concede the year that this was written, and that almost 2,400 years later we are still eager to explore poetics that are in this aged article so clearly defined.

Aristotle exalts the poet and holds him in the highest esteem. Similarly, I have come to the conclusion that the novelist of literature is the truest of artists, imitating what he sees and ‘painting’ things as how they are, telling it as other people tell it and so is said to be, or constructing a world in its most ideal, illustrious state. This is but one of the many core concepts Aristotle pries open. Yes, as readers we have been conscious of the literary elements and the mixture of these comprise contemporary fiction, certainly, but here is a very significant work for the writer and not just the poet.

Always pitting the Epic poem versus the Tragedy, Aristotle maintains that although a Tragedy has all the same elements as an Epic the Epic poem does not always include elements of Tragedy. Here is the contemporary distinction between epic novels (Gone with the Wind, The Thorn Birds) and tragic family dramas (see: Eugene O’Neill, Arthur Miller). But the spirit of drama must flow through both, though the parameters and scales differ.

Indeed some of the dogmas have been explained over and over the years by countless English teachers. So it was a relief to find some of the writer’s personal touches in this informative essay, such as his constant distinction between philosophers and mere men, his fanboy affinity to Homer, his fondness for markedly-clear beginnings and
endings, how Epic poetry is the “highest” art form (one would imagine that in the modern world Aristotle would have preferred ‘Titanic’ to ‘American Beauty’), and that poetry “is a more philosophical and a higher thing than history.” (Seemingly rudimentary, this is a must for novelists, even though Epic poems and stage Tragedies are long gone. Sadly the later chapters in Aristotle’s “Poetics” are like trips to elementary school English (letters àwords àsentences). That something from 350 BC is still employed in something so vast and, sometimes if we are lucky, so avant garde as literature is both frightening and encouraging.
(less)

like · see review

Apr 13, 2011 Jeffrey Moll rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

The information in this novel will not only force the reader to look at the world differently, but it also educates them in the ways of storytelling. Aristotle uses specific cues for writers to understand how to form a true character that comes alive and transcends the space on the page. His guidelines can be matched with several--if not all--of the successful characters of our time. He explores what it means to be a writer and how important carefully placed plot points truly are. There needs to...more

like · see review

Feb 05, 2009 Jil rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: theater history majors, haters of epic poetry

Recommended to Jil by: Good ol' Gregory Moss

Shelves: school

Is it totally sacreligious for me to say that I think Aristotle is kinda wack? I mean, I admire the man - he threw down pretty seriously in SO many major fields, but when it comes to theater, I have some beef with the man.

My dislike stems partially from the fact that I have been introduced to this motherfucker's thoughts about theater in ninth, tenth, and twelfth grade, and now my freshman year of college. I GET IT: THE THREE UNITIES. I GET IT: CATHARSIS. It just seems so antiquated to me, and t...more

1 like · like · see review

May 18, 2013 JP rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

In 50 pages, the ultimate explanation of what makes for classic writing and the one ideal introduction to all of the Greek tragedies. The whole is defined as that which is necessary to the plot, and no more. The tragedy must invoke feelings of fear or pity. Tragedy can be complex or simple, depending on whether the character's position changes once or several times. Recognition and reversal are key elements which can be done well or poorly. Aristotle judged Euripides to be the best tragedian of...more

like · see review

Aug 16, 2012 Logan Dalton rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Aristotle applies his empirical, dialectic approach to both epic poetry and tragedy in this early and seminal work of literary criticism. Most of Aristotle's observation are purely subjective, but isn't all art subjective? However, he shows how tragedies are more powerful than epic poems because they focus on a single subject in a single location over a single day to create catharsis. Aristotle also delves into language itself and shows how clearer language can be more effective than the use of...more

like · see review

Apr 03, 2013 Jim rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: lit-crit-theory, lifetime-reading-plan, non-fiction, writing-creativity, brain-pain, read-in-2012, author-classical

Aristotle's ideas about plot and character still inform much of literature and cinematic storytelling over 2000 years after he formulated them. It's a challenge to dig the nuggets out, but with a little patience and a good translation there are valuable ideas to be found in this short but influential work.

1 like · like · see review

Feb 13, 2013 Salvatore rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I love when introductions are longer than the actual text they're discussing.

What is Aristotle's fourth kind of tragedy?! Perhaps western civilisation has not reached its full potential since we don't know, we'll never know...

Otherwise, really what can I say about this? It was helpful when I first read it in college (rather than being told about it and its theories in high school) and it probably informed my writing then. The text is certainly still valuable to me. Because Aristotle is probably...more

like · see review

Aug 25, 2012 Scott rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I first read the Poetics when I was a freshman in college, I believe, and I re-read them today, while enjoying this rainy, lazy Saturday.

In my memory the Poetics were significant for understanding the structure of all subsequent Western literature (including those who acted against Aristotle's strictures). In rereading today, I didn't find as much of that as I remembered. Much seemed very boring. And Aristotle comes off, as he regularly does, as a stiff who wouldn't be very pleasant to be around...more

like · see review

Jul 30, 2011 Anna rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Recommended to Anna by: Stephen Cooper

Shelves: i-own-a-copy

SUM: Aristotle discusses the issues of craft involved in poetics, or what I like to think of as storytelling. His includes an obvious emphasis on the dramatic arts, but the information within can be applied to all narrative forms.

REV: Reading translations like this can be somewhat dry, but I was generally intrigued by Aristotle's thoughts on narrative forms. I liked Hutton's translation, though I don't have another one to compare it to, and I think it's worth any author's time to read this just...more

like · see review

Apr 11, 2012 C. Hollis Crossman rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I don't care so much for Aristotle's assertions that poetic works must have certain elements: it's his idea that art must delight and instruct to even be considered art that moves me. Once prevalent, this idea seems to have died almost completely in our modern/postmodern context, thus leaving us without objective measures for evaluating art.

It's time this idea was rediscovered. Aristotle's book is short and easy to digest, and while his dictum that the greatest works are always tragedies is a bi...more

like · see review

Jan 05, 2010 Casimir Radon rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

This volume on comedy is hilarious, and wonderful. Unfortunately it's incredibly rare, and some asshole burned mine.

1 like · like · see review

Oct 04, 2012 Amy rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: classical-and-epics, literary-criticism, plays

Because I am teaching a class on the history of theater, because Aristotle's Poetics has been referred to in so many classes I have taken before, and because this is the first work of literary criticism ever written, I thought I needed to go to the source and read it at last. I'm not sure if all the summaries and interpretations I have heard over the years were necessary. Poetics is brief and not an extremely challenging read. Aristotle's influence on the history of theater and on literary criti...more

like · see review

title link	preview: The Poetics
avg rating	preview: The Poetics Goodreads rating: 3.76 (5252 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1240609.The_Poetics?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1348779697l/1240609.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1240609.The_Poetics?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]The Poetics by Aristotle[/url]

The Poetics

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (206)

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Aristotle

Books by Aristotle

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About The Poetics

Quotes from Poetics