Studying Aristotle’s “Poetics” — Part 14(A): Fear and Pity

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 14(A): Fear and Pity

Fear and pity may be aroused by spectacular means; but they may also
result from the inner structure of the piece, which is the better
way, and indicates a superior poet. For the plot ought to be so
constructed that, even without the aid of the eye, he who hears the
tale told will thrill with horror and melt to pity at what takes
Place. This is the impression we should receive from hearing the
story of the Oedipus. But to produce this effect by the mere
spectacle is a less artistic method, and dependent on extraneous
aids. Those who employ spectacular means to create a sense not of
the terrible but only of the monstrous, are strangers to the purpose
of Tragedy; for we must not demand of Tragedy any and every kind of
pleasure, but only that which is proper to it. And since the
pleasure which the poet should afford is that which comes from pity
and fear through imitation, it is evident that this quality must be
impressed upon the incidents.

We have encountered Aristotle’s rather dismissive attitude toward “spectacle” as in Part VI:

The Spectacle has, indeed, an emotional attraction of its own, but,
of all the parts, it is the least artistic, and connected least with
the art of poetry. For the power of Tragedy, we may be sure, is felt
even apart from representation and actors. Besides, the production
of spectacular effects depends more on the art of the stage machinist
than on that of the poet.

In Part XIV, he drives home the same point in two additional ways. First, Aristotle contrasts spectacle to the “inner structure of the piece.” In modern film, we might say “special effects” vs. “narrative.” And I think we could all agree that the former without the context of the latter is pretty much just a bunch of eye candy and noise, devoid of any emotional meaning [read: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen].

Aristotle goes even further with his second point: “Those who employ spectacular means to create a sense not of the terrible but only of the monstrous, are strangers to the purpose of Tragedy.” There is a certain kind of reliance upon the “spectacular” that can take a story completely out of the realm of Tragedy. I can’t help but get the feeling Aristotle is saying this as a kind of warning, perceiving the “spectacular” to have some sort of lure to writers, a seemingly easy path to creating a reaction in the audience. However that would seem to be a path toward ‘cheap’ writing, not worthy of Tragedy, nor likely to produce content that is consistent with the genre.

Which leaves us with this: What of “fear”? What of “pity”? We have seen this coupling before in Parts IX, XI and XIII. Clearly it is significant. What precisely does Aristotle intend in the use of these two concepts?

I await the insight of our faithful Aristotelians, steeped in the literature as they are. In the meantime, here is my speculative response:

— Pity would seem to be pretty clear to understand, based on the empathy the audience might feel for characters who undergo tragic experiences. In other words, we might feel sorry for them.

— If empathy can lead to a sense of identification, then perhaps fear is a vicarious experience, seeing and hearing tragic events happening to characters which raises a concern: These, too, could befall us.

Over the course of our ongoing discussion, I seem to remember an observation that the idea of “audience identification” was not a goal for ancient Greek dramatists, caught up more generally in the wonder of superheroes, gods and goddesses circumnavigating a series of sizable challenges.

However “audience identification” is important — critically so! — for contemporary screenwriters. This is how we shrink the distance between what is written on the page and the reader’s imagination, luring them into our stories through their connection with key characters, most notably the Protagonist.

Moreover it is the dynamic of “audience identification” that helps to create one of the most powerful aspects of a story: The ability for the audience to safely experience fearful and pitiful events.

I recall the 1996 movie Ransom in which a mother and father go through a parent’s worst nightmare: The kidnapping of their child. The movie grossed $309M worldwide, hugely successful. Here’s the shocker: The primary audience members were parents! Why would they willingly pay money to watch a movie that features the trauma of a child’s kidnapping?

Precisely because Ransom provided a safe haven in which parents could live out their darkest fears. Through their identification with the parents Tom (Mel Gibson) and Kate (Rene Russo), we experience what they experience. We feel their fears. We feel pity for them. Those emotions are real… even if the story is not. And precisely because the story is not real, that enables us, as audience members, to enter fully into it, knowing it is a contained, fictional environment.

Thus for certain stories, we would aim to arouse fear and pity in script readers and audience members. How to do that? Best not through spectacle, but rather the “inner structure of the piece” (narrative). And at least for contemporary stories, aim to create a sense of audience identification with the characters and events in the stories we write.

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.

See you here tomorrow for another installment of this series.

Comment Archive

For the entire series, go here.