Aristotle embarked on the ambitious project of defining and characterizing what a good Greek tragedy should be. That is, the elements that were essential to maintain the audience's interest at all times. Something that, centuries and centuries later, is still perfectly applicable to any type of narration, whether it's a movie, a story, a play, or a novel.

In this little book, we will find very interesting reflections from which we can benefit, whether we are readers or writers. The only drawback? Since it is an esoteric text, many ideas are merely enumerated or mentioned very briefly, and one is left longing for Aristotle to have delved deeper into them. Otherwise, it is highly recommended.

FULL REVIEW: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYN3a...

I had completely forgotten just how extraordinarily thorough Aristotle is. However, at this moment, I can assert with utmost confidence that I have a clear understanding of what a letter is.

His work takes on a particularly fascinating aspect when it is extrapolated to the development or analysis of fictional plots in general. It offers a unique perspective that can enhance our comprehension and appreciation of the intricacies within fictional stories.

By applying Aristotle's principles, we can gain insights into the structure, character development, and overall narrative arc of fictional plots. This not only enriches our literary analysis but also provides valuable lessons for aspiring writers.

Aristotle's thoroughness and the applicability of his work to fictional plots make it a truly remarkable and valuable contribution to the field of literature and beyond.

A Poética is a precious book. Aristotle is a taxonomist; he describes everything as if he were a doctor classifying the organs of a living being and assigning them their proper functions. In this sense, the wrong use of the artistic composition tools would result in a "sick" literary work. The same, I think, would apply to philosophy, to the use of the tools of reason. Whoever does not use the organs of knowledge properly is a sick man: either due to weakness (little use of intelligence) or due to psychopathy (incorrect use of intelligence).

The criteria established in this work to judge what is serious art (the word is Aristotle's own) and what is rubbish must irritate not a few contemporary artists, so eager to invent half a dozen stupidities and call them art. To the despair of also not a few critics, the philosopher makes lists and more lists, through which he classifies, according to their function and in order of importance, each element of the composition of the dramatic and literary work. Certainly, however, the most politically incorrect of his arguments - or, rather, of his observations, which he presents with an admirable and today inconceivable tranquility and security - is that the "myth", the plot, the content, and not the form, is the most important; being in fact what determines whether a work is art or not. I cannot help but think that almost everything that is done today - so marked by the "sensible", by what stimulates the senses at the expense of what nourishes the soul - would fall into the critical garbage can of the Stagirite. But I also cannot help but think about the wrong interpretations that must be made today of his theories, such as, for example, that any modern installation would be high art since supposedly it conveys extremely profound contents (I am talking here about the so-called "conceptual art").
Besides this, there are dozens of marginal questions in the Poetics, each of which provides material for discussion until the end of time, yielding hundreds, thousands of analyses, clarifications, and inspirations in everything that is the field of knowledge. Of course, in truth, they are not marginal at all, but rather a great demonstration that everything is interconnected in human knowledge and - why not? - divine knowledge. Perhaps it is for this reason that his philosophy has served so well the Scholastics and the Church, so many centuries later.
As for this edition of Editora 34, it must be said that it has several problems, even grammatical errors (such as an incorrect "cujo" instead of a "que"), ambiguities in passages due to the translator's lack of skill with the Portuguese language and perhaps an excess of concern with literalness; and missing words that I had to extract from other translations in order to understand the meaning of the text. I also found a note in which an absolutely wrong explanation of a passage is presented: note 172, which attempts to explain the enumeration of the species of "recognition" exposed in chapter 16, is WRONG! The translator lists 4 types of recognition and says that, at the end of the chapter, Aristotle reverses the criterion for classifying the types of recognition from the best to the worst. I wondered about this, because my impression was that there were five types of recognition. I went to check in other books and they all said that there are indeed five and made it clear that there was no such reversal.
Even so, the edition is valuable for bringing excellent explanatory notes to countless other passages and for indicating excellent bibliographies at the end.
Finally, I think it is not necessary to say that this is a book to be read more than once, or more than twice!

My review is not simply founded upon the inherent value of the work itself. Instead, it stems from my personal reading experience and comprehension of it.

During the process of reading, there were numerous aspects that I found myself grappling with in an attempt to truly fathom. The complexity and depth of the content presented significant challenges to my understanding.

However, rather than being deterred, I am filled with anticipation. I look forward to engaging in multiple readings of this work. With each successive reading, I hope to extract more and more insights, gradually uncovering the hidden layers and meanings that eluded me initially.

I firmly believe that through continuous exploration and re-reading, I will be able to gain a more profound and comprehensive appreciation of the work, and ultimately, it will have a more profound impact on my intellectual and emotional growth.

I'm truly glad that I have finally delved into Aristotle's Poetics. This remarkable work is not just an important essay on writing and performing; in fact, it holds the distinction of being one of the earliest treatises on literary theory, creative writing, and theatre. It's a piece that shouldn't be confined to the reading lists of actors and literature students alone. Instead, anyone who identifies as an artist should take the time to explore its depths.

Within its pages, Aristotle dedicates a significant amount of space to the analysis of tragedy and epic poetry. However, what makes this work even more fascinating is that the Greek philosopher also incorporates elements from other arts, such as music and painting. This holistic approach provides a more comprehensive understanding of the creative process and the various forms it can take.

Regrettably, the second part of the book that dealt with comedy has been lost to the annals of time. Nevertheless, the surviving portion of the essay still manages to offer us a tantalizing glimpse into the world of Greek theatre and its renowned tragedies. It serves as a valuable reminder of the rich and diverse history of the performing arts and the profound influence that Aristotle's ideas have had on subsequent generations of artists and thinkers.

Dopdolu, with an additional guiding source.

I think I have become very satiated with knowledge.

Moreover, thanks to this book, my desire to read most tragedies has skyrocketed.

Dopdolu seems to be a valuable addition that not only provides more information but also kindles a greater passion for exploring the world of tragedies within me.

It has opened up new avenues of understanding and has made me eager to delve deeper into the complex and often heart-wrenching stories that tragedies have to offer.

Perhaps through reading these tragedies, I will gain a better perspective on life and the human condition, and continue to expand my knowledge and understanding in this fascinating area.

Me, (taxpayer):

- Good morning, ma'am. I find myself in a bit of a pickle. There are several issues that are rather unclear to me, and I'm not quite sure where to begin.

Tax Official: - Oh, my dear taxpayer, welcome to the convoluted world of fiscal uncertainties. Have no fear, for I am here to guide you through this maze. I am like the Virgil to your Dante, the abacus that brings order to your chaos. Please, speak up, and let the numbers do the talking.

Me: - Ah... You see, my cat, ma'am, his name is Sir Sex. He insists that his tuna expenses should be considered as "business meals". Is this just a joke, or could it potentially be a legitimate claim?

Tax Official (rolling her eyes):

- Fear not, sir. The Tax Code does allow for some creative interpretations. If Sir Sex can somehow prove that his consumption of tuna leads to artistic inspiration, then we might be inclined to grant him a deduction. Perhaps he composes beautiful haikus while lounging on the roof gutters in the moonlight?

Me: - Oh, yes! That's exactly what he does! But only when he's in love. Well, actually, he does it all the time.

Tax Official: - Unfortunately, there is no tax remedy for love. Love is a free and untaxable emotion. One must truly love a person for their own sake, not for one's own benefit. Even if you don't bestow material goods upon them, let alone existence.

Me: - If you say so... I hope I haven't caused too much trouble in the office. I'm here to inquire about some rights. You know, recently, my neighbor, Mrs. Pumpernickel, is claiming her pet rock as a dependent. A rock! What's the deal with that?

Tax Official: - It depends. If that rock provides her with some sort of emotional sustenance, then we may consider granting it the status of a dependent. Do you have any other problems or concerns?

Me: - Uhh...yes... There's this existential dread that I've been feeling. Can I deduct that from my taxes?

Tax Official: - Alas, my dear taxpayer, the Tax Code does not currently have a specific line item for existential angst. But don't lose hope. We shall create one. A deduction for those moments when you ponder the void, a credit for when you gaze into the abysses of life. Write it down in crimson ink, sign it with a quill, and submit it along with your 1040 form.

Me: - And what about my cat?

Tax Official: - Sure, why not? Just make sure there are no whales involved.

Me: - So, I w...

Tax Official: - Fare thee well, taxpayer. May your receipts multiply like wildflowers, and may your metaphors remain unscathed by audits. Until Sir Sex makes his next decision.

Me: - Hey! It i...

Tax Official: - And remember, make poetry, not war.

Written around 335 BC, this work can be regarded as the first ever to handle literary criticism. The philosopher, with an incredible erudition and drawing from a rich variety of authors who are now part of the canon of Ancient Greece's literature, lays the foundation for textual analysis that is still relevant to some extent today.

Now, it is true that he lectures the reader without being engaging, and the number of authors he quotes might be overwhelming for those who are not familiar with most of their work (as I admit I am). Therefore, it can seem boring and pompous. However, his thoughts and arguments can be followed quite easily.

Starting from the question of what poetry is, he proceeds to detail the different genres that define it, mainly tragedy and comedy. Unfortunately, we can only read about tragedy as the parts about comedy have long been lost. He actually dissects various works, showing the importance of plot, characterisation, the language being used, the thoughts being expressed, and even staging effects - which are in the background but still play a role, albeit a minor one. It is interesting to see him analysing such art, from the texts themselves (style, metaphors, the role of the narrator, etc.) to a more global approach (Greek poetry being a performing art: music, songs, and the effects produced on the audience). Thus, he indeed provides a very precise idea of what poetical creation is while also pointing to tools to better analyse and criticise it.

Although it is a short read that one can breeze through, just picking the relevant tidbits as one goes along, this is a classic that should not be missed.

I am in that point of time and space where I can give Aristotle a three, and what will you do to me? I am in another city.

This statement seems rather cryptic and perhaps a bit of a thought-provoking or even humorous musing. It could imply a sense of self-assertion or a play on the idea of evaluating a great philosopher like Aristotle in an unexpected way.

Maybe the person is imagining themselves in a unique position to make such a judgment, and then wondering about the consequences or reactions that might follow. The mention of being in another city could add an element of distance or detachment from the situation being described.

Overall, it's an interesting and somewhat mysterious statement that leaves room for interpretation and further exploration.

Vonnegut once said that this little essay encompassed all that any novelist needed to know. And I, for one, won't dare to argue with Kurt.

His words hold a certain weight and wisdom. In the world of literature, a novelist's journey is filled with countless challenges and decisions.

This little essay, whatever its content may be, seems to offer a concise yet profound guide.

It might touch on the essence of storytelling, the importance of character development, or the art of creating a captivating plot.

Vonnegut was a master of his craft, and his insights are surely valuable.

Whether we choose to follow his advice blindly or use it as a starting point for our own exploration, there is no denying the significance of his words.

As we embark on our own writing adventures, we can look to this little essay as a source of inspiration and guidance.

It may not have all the answers, but it can surely set us on the right path.

This small book is精心organized to analyze tragedy along various lines. It clearly lays out the four types of tragedy, namely complex, sad, ethical, and simple. Additionally, it details the elements of a tragedy, including the prologue, episode, exode, choral song, parode, and stasimon.

However, two concepts from this study are likely to be the most well-known. The first is the idea that stories offer catharsis. Plato, Aristotle's mentor, viewed the stories transmitted through poetry as completely dangerous and without any redeeming qualities. He believed that impressionable young minds might absorb the wrong teachings, and there was little to reduce this risk. Aristotle, on the other hand, did believe in something, and that was catharsis, or the purification of emotions through vicarious experience.

The second concept is that there are six crucial parts to a tragedy, and they are important in approximately that order. A significant portion of the text is dedicated to dissecting these aspects. For example, in terms of narrative, Aristotle extensively discusses reversals and recognition (the moment a character discovers some vital piece of information), teaching us a bit about how these events work best. In terms of character, Aristotle examines the type of character that provides the best story, which is similar to the advice found in modern writing books that discuss flawed but good characters. Perfect people are uninteresting, while bad characters meet their downfall in a tragedy.

I was amazed at how relevant this book is, considering it is perhaps the earliest book of literary theory. It is well worth reading. It is a short read, with fewer than fifty pages (not including the additional material found in many editions), and although it can be a bit dry at times, it is by no means unreadable. Given its historical significance, it is definitely a book that should be read.

I read this for The Literary Life Podcast.

It presents some truly fascinating ideas that have the power to spark both thought and lively discussion.

However, I don't believe for a moment that this could be considered a modern manual for writing in any sense.

Nonetheless, I do think that there are several helpful ideas within it that can serve as a catalyst for further thinking.

These ideas might not provide a step-by-step guide to writing, but they do offer food for thought and can inspire writers to explore new perspectives and approaches.

Overall, while it may not be a comprehensive manual, it still has value in stimulating the creative minds of those interested in the literary life.