Studying Aristotle’s “Poetics” — Part 13(B): A Well-Constructed Plot
As I’ve been interviewing screenwriters, I typically ask what some of their influences are. One book title comes up over and over again…
As I’ve been interviewing screenwriters, I typically ask what some of their influences are. One book title comes up over and over again: Aristotle’s “Poetics.” I confess I’ve never read the entire thing, only bits and pieces. So I thought, why not do a daily series to provide a structure to compel me to go through it. That way we’d all benefit from the process.
For background on Aristotle, you can go here to see an article on him in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
To download “Poetics,” you can go here.
Part 13(B): A Well-Constructed Plot
A well-constructed plot should, therefore, be single in its issue,
rather than double as some maintain. The change of fortune should
be not from bad to good, but, reversely, from good to bad. It should
come about as the result not of vice, but of some great error or frailty,
in a character either such as we have described, or better rather
than worse. The practice of the stage bears out our view. At first
the poets recounted any legend that came in their way. Now, the best
tragedies are founded on the story of a few houses- on the fortunes
of Alcmaeon, Oedipus, Orestes, Meleager, Thyestes, Telephus, and those
others who have done or suffered something terrible. A tragedy, then,
to be perfect according to the rules of art should be of this construction.
Hence they are in error who censure Euripides just because he follows
this principle in his plays, many of which end unhappily. It is, as
we have said, the right ending. The best proof is that on the stage
and in dramatic competition, such plays, if well worked out, are the
most tragic in effect; and Euripides, faulty though he may be in the
general management of his subject, yet is felt to be the most tragic
of the poets.
In the second rank comes the kind of tragedy which some place first.
Like the Odyssey, it has a double thread of plot, and also an opposite
catastrophe for the good and for the bad. It is accounted the best
because of the weakness of the spectators; for the poet is guided
in what he writes by the wishes of his audience. The pleasure, however,
thence derived is not the true tragic pleasure. It is proper rather
to Comedy, where those who, in the piece, are the deadliest enemies-
like Orestes and Aegisthus- quit the stage as friends at the close,
and no one slays or is slain.
This section is intriguing on multiple fronts. First, there is the iteration of what constitutes a “well-constructed plot”:
* A well-constructed plot should, therefore, be single in its issue.
* The change of fortune should be… from good to bad.
* It should come about as the result… of some great error or frailty.
Of course, by “well-constructed plot,” Aristotle infers that by aesthetic necessity, it must be a tragedy. One striking aspect of this articulation is how, dare I say, formulaic it sounds. Note the three uses of the word “should.” No equivocating or nuance here. Anything less than these three dynamics in a play and presumably it would fall short of a “well-constructed plot.”
Looking at these attributes from the perspective of a modern screenplay, “single in its issue” suggests a story that has a tight, clear narrative focus. “From good to bad” seems obvious if a writer is to maximize the dramatic nature of a character’s ‘fall.’
“Of some great error or frailty” I find to be particularly interesting. While waiting for our Aristotelians to weigh in on these two concepts and their more specific historical meaning, I can extrapolate this from a screenwriting perspective:
Error: An event or events that occur in the External World (Plotline).
Frailty: A psychological, emotional, or spiritual condition of key characters in the Internal World (Themeline).
To really work for our purposes, we would have to change the conjunction from “or” to this: “Of some great error and frailty.” The events in the plot of a contemporary screenplay have to be intimately tied to inner lives of the characters, specifically the Protagonist, one feeds the other which impacts the other which feeds the other again which impacts the other again, and so on, a continuous interweaving that translate into a transformational narrative.
As to the meaning of the second paragraph, it would appear Aristotle is suggesting that the best writing aims for some sort of aesthetic purity rather than attempting to satisfy the whims of an audience. Perhaps an early stab at the dynamic tension between art and commerce? Based on this, I doubt Aristotle would have much success going up for open writing assignments in Hollywood where one of the most important questions a screenwriter, agent, producer or studio executive can ask about any given project is this: Who is the audience?
Fortunately, there were no Hollywood movie moguls back in the time of Aristotle. I guess we had to wait for Shakespeare to come along to concretize the notion of ‘popcorn entertainment’… before there was any popcorn, of course.
A reminder: I am looking at “Poetics” through the lens of screenwriting, what is its relevance to the craft in contemporary times. And I welcome the observations of any Aristotle experts to set me straight as I’m just trying to work my way through this content the best I can.
How about you? What do you take from Part 13(B) of Aristotle’s “Poetics”?
See you here tomorrow for another installment of this series.
For the entire series, go here.