Studying Aristotle’s “Poetics” — Part 6(F): Diction Fourth, Song Fifth

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 6(F): Diction Fourth, Song Fifth

Fourth among the elements enumerated comes Diction; by which I mean,
as has been already said, the expression of the meaning in words;
and its essence is the same both in verse and prose.

Of the remaining elements Song holds the chief place among the
embellishments.

Per Aristotle, a play that is a tragedy has six component parts: The first two are — in order of their importance — Plot, then Character. Third is Thought.

You may read the post on Plot and Character here.

You may read the post on Thought here.

In order of importance, Diction is fourth, Song fifth.

Aristotle has little to say here about Diction and I’m guessing he pretty much concludes this is the domain of actors as they deliver the “expression” of the words.

Song is an “embellishment,” so presumably not even necessary for a play, but a pleasurable addition nonetheless.

From the perspective of contemporary screenwriting, I have little to add except to suggest that here again, we find our way into and through this aspect of a filmed script through a deep immersion in our characters, not only to know them so well we ‘hear’ their words which we articulate as dialogue, but also drill down into each ‘personal agent’ and their Core Essence so that actors can grasp what is essential about them. That is the perhaps the best way a writer may ensure an actor will take the dialogue as written and give “expression to the meaning in words” in a way that reflects the writer’s take on the story.

With regard to song, this has virtually nothing to do with screenwriting, but I sure wish modern filmmakers would stop thinking they have to fill every second of a movie with soundtrack music. Take a look at these scenes from just a few movies from the past.

Notice that? Characters. Dialogue. Action. And no soundtrack music. In fact, if you pay attention to precisely this point and screen some of the greatest movies of the 60s and 70s, it’s amazing how little accompanying music they have.

Every time I think of bringing up the subject of how damned annoying the unending music is in contemporary films, I know I’ll come across as a stupid old fart, but here I’ve finally found some cover for my wrinkled ass: Aristotle!

Song is an EMBELLISHMENT! Not a necessity.

So please, any of you who go on to make movies, you don’t have to squeeze every sixteenth note from your composer to amortize the project’s music budget. You don’t have to telegraph with music what we’re supposed to feel each second of the story. Give the characters and the narrative some room to breathe, stretches of quiet so the audience members can process what’s going on rather than be assaulted by a ceaseless cacophony of symphonic noise.

Embellishment. Not necessity.

If you think I sound like a grumpy geezer this week, just wait until next time when we discuss the 6th element of Tragedy which Aristotle considers to be at the very bottom in terms of importance.

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 tomorrow for another installment of this series.

UPDATE: From comments, an observation by Jennine Lanouette:

I did my own immersion study of the Poetics about 15 years ago when, after I had already been teaching screenwriting for a few years, I went back to graduate school to brush up on drama history. I soon learned that what I had been taught about the Poetics in film school was not entirely accurate. I decided to write a term paper on all the misinterpretations of the Poetics I was finding in screenwriting how-to books, a subject I found rather distressing, but that my (theater) professor thought was hilarious. Thus, I have since endeavored, as far as possible, to seek a deeper understanding. A couple of thoughts on the discussion so far:

I think it’s important to keep in mind that the Poetics marks only the beginning of drama theory, not the end. Much more has come to be understood since then and more is yet to be learned. Also, it was written in a specific cultural and historical context that we can’t know fully, which is further complicated by our dependence on translations. I would caution, therefore, against getting too minute and too literal with the text. Better to simply appreciate the general principles.

For example, there are those out there who would like to read Aristotle’s prioritizing of plot over character in a literal manner to justify cardboard character action films. But this doesn’t take into account that for Aristotle the word Character was with a capital C, meaning the inherent moral qualities of an individual, as opposed to personality traits or psychology, and that frequently, in those days, Character was portrayed through declamatory recitation, either by the chorus or the character himself.

It was the tendency to describe a character’s inherent moral qualities through dialogue that Aristotle was arguing against by relegating Character to second place. This came from his philosophical belief that the true measure of a person’s moral character is in his actions. It was also why he considered Tragedy a superior art form to the Epic Poem, in that it provides the opportunity to show moral character through a person’s actions rather than just talking about it. It was the relatively new practice of revealing story elements through action that he was giving priority to by putting plot first.

What does this tell us about screenwriting? First, we can let go of the idea that character is secondary to plot since our understanding of character by now is quite expanded from Aristotle’s, including as it does personality and psychology. He couldn’t possibly have meant character as we know it because it didn’t exist in his world. But more so, when Aristotle placed plot first, he was referring to structure, which is to say the manner in which the actions are organized. What distinguishes drama (Tragedy then, movies now) from narrative (the epic poem then, the novel now) is the ability to use action to tell the story. But in order to be successful, the action must be organized in a coherent structure. This was the radical new idea in Aristotle’s time that still holds true today.

To see Jennine’s paper “The Uses and Abuses of Aristotle’s Poetics in Screenwriting How-to Books,” go here.

Comment Archive

For the entire series, go here.