Studying Aristotle’s “Poetics” — Part 9(A): Poet and Historian

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 9(A): Poet and Historian

It is, moreover, evident from what has been said, that it is not the
function of the poet to relate what has happened, but what may happen-
what is possible according to the law of probability or necessity.
The poet and the historian differ not by writing in verse or in prose.
The work of Herodotus might be put into verse, and it would still
be a species of history, with meter no less than without it. The true
difference is that one relates what has happened, the other what may
happen.

Part 9 has a lot of stuff going on in it, so I’m going to break it down into several parts.

Based on what follows in Part 9 and elsewhere, I think it’s safe to make the assumption Aristotle is speaking about how many, if not most plays of the time were based upon or grounded in historical events and/or figures. Later in Part 9, he does mention Agathon’s Antheus, “where incidents and names alike are fictitious,” but the detail into which Aristotle goes in articulating his line of reasoning suggests he is talking about stories based upon actual occurrences in the past.

Given that frame of reference, we can see why this point he makes here — “one (historian) relates what has happened, the other (poet) what may happen” — which seems quite obvious is a critical one worth underscoring. Whereas an historian’s domain is about what is already known, the poet’s area of focus is on what is not known, that is the outcome of the story’s plot. As a result, there is a kind of dynamism that derives from the latter that history cannot replicate for as long as a writer can create a narrative with the potential for anything to happen, that is in theory at least more compelling and engaging for the audience: the mystery of what will happen, how will it turn out, how will it get to the point where it does resolve itself.

As a screenwriter, this speaks to me in a powerful way relative to the dynamic of Time that exists in a script universe. As we discussed this week, screenplays are written in the present tense, unlike most novels and short stories which are composed in the past tense. That means there is an immediacy in the action that pulls the reader into the narrative because of an experience we have that it is unfolding in the The Now.

But there is, I believe, something more going on in the Present of a script: There is the push of the Backstory and everything that happens post-FADE IN after the fact, what we may call Present-Past, and there is the pull of Narrative Destiny and everything that lies ahead, what we may call Present-Future. So that in any given scene, there can be this dynamic tension between the Past and Future, each tugging on and influencing the Present.

And that is where I plug into Aristotle’s idea that unlike historians, poets craft stories about “what may happen.” A screenplay that unfolds in the Present and carries with it in each moment the mystery and potential of what may happen can be a powerful thing. That aura of an indeterminate Future influenced by the forces of the Past looms large over any script we write. Hopefully.

But as we shall see, Aristotle has a vigorous view about how “what may happen” must be grounded in logic, not just some random set of events. We pick that up in the next few weeks as we continue our exploration of Part 9 of “Poetics”.

I welcome the input of the traveling feast of Aristotelians who have taken to gathering here for a weekly discourse. If you have just stumbled onto this series, you should really go back and read the comments in each post as the folks who have been participating have added incredible insight into this seminal work by Aristotle.

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.

Comment Archive

For the entire series, go here.