I delved into this book with the intention of bolstering my personal passion for script writing. As far as my memory serves, I came across the information that this is a significant book when it comes to the correct plot structure. After perusing the book, I am convinced that this assertion holds true. It encompasses various aspects such as tragedy, epics, comedies, plot, character, and reasoning, among others. The author's exploration of these elements provides valuable insights and guidance for anyone interested in the art of script writing. By understanding the principles and techniques presented in this book, I hope to improve my own writing skills and create more engaging and compelling scripts. Overall, I found this book to be a valuable resource and would highly recommend it to others with a similar interest.

Well, let me tell you something.

Have you ever watched "Dead Poet's Society"? Do you recall that scene on the first day of school when Robin Williams has the students read that essay aloud, filled with all kinds of formulae and methods for analyzing poetry? Remember when Robin Williams graphs the formula PxI=G on the board?

That's the kind of feeling I had with this. It seems to focus on the details rather than the big picture.

Okay, it's an analysis of drama and epic poetry. But what's the purpose? Aristotle apparently thought it would be prescriptive for writers, enabling them to create better works. Maybe to a certain extent it does.

However, if something works, it just works. The success of any form of art lies solely in its overall impact. Any checklist of qualities used to determine its value is bound to fail.

Περὶ ποιητικῆς = De Poetica; c. 335 BC = Aristotelis de arte Poetica Liber = Poetics, Aristotle

Aristotle's Poetics is a highly significant work. It is the earliest surviving piece of dramatic theory and the first extant philosophical treatise that focuses on literary theory in the West. This traditional view has endured for centuries. The table of contents in the Poetics found in Modern Library's Basic Works of Aristotle (2001) reveals five basic parts.

A. There is a preliminary discourse on tragedy, epic poetry, and comedy, which are the chief forms of imitative poetry.

B. It provides a definition of a tragedy and the rules for its construction, including a definition and analysis into qualitative parts.

C. The rules for constructing a tragedy are detailed. Tragic pleasure, or catharsis experienced through fear and pity, should be evoked in the spectator. The characters must possess four qualities: good, appropriate, realistic, and consistent. Discovery must occur within the plot. Narratives, stories, structures, and poetics overlap. It is crucial for the poet to visualize all the scenes when creating the plot. The poet should incorporate complication and dénouement within the story and combine all the elements of tragedy. The poet must express thought through the characters' words and actions, while carefully attending to diction and how a character's spoken words convey a specific idea. Aristotle believed that all these different elements had to be present for the poetry to be of high quality.

D. Possible criticisms of an epic or tragedy and their answers are also discussed.

E. Tragedy is considered artistically superior to epic poetry. It has everything that the epic has, even the epic meter being admissible. The reality of presentation is felt both in the play as read and as acted. The tragic imitation requires less space to achieve its end. If it has a more concentrated effect, it is more pleasurable than one diluted with a large amount of time. There is less unity in the imitation of the epic poets (plurality of actions), and this is demonstrated by the fact that an epic poem can supply enough material for several tragedies.

After taking the plunge (it's still nothing to say that we are about to read an author of about 300 BC), I am in the company of Aristotle.

My first impression was, "Actually, it's not as bad as I imagined." Indeed, some terms remain beyond our reach, but they should not fool us.

Please read the text as you would a foreign language, passing over incomprehensible words to grasp the essence of the text. This little work is interesting, with sixty pages of text and four pages of notes.

We learn how to produce such an effect on the reader (or the spectator), arouse such emotion, and arrange the facts between them. Even today, writers are inspired by Aristotle to write their stories.

I understand why today. Aristotle's ideas have stood the test of time and continue to influence the world of literature and beyond. His insights into human nature, emotion, and the art of storytelling are as relevant today as they were in ancient Greece.

By studying his work, we can gain a deeper understanding of the principles that underlie effective communication and the power of narrative.

Moreover, Aristotle's emphasis on the importance of observation and analysis can help us to become more discerning readers and writers, able to recognize and appreciate the subtleties and nuances of language and literature.

In conclusion, reading Aristotle is a rewarding experience that can enrich our understanding of the world and ourselves.

Art is a fascinating and diverse field that encompasses a wide range of mediums and expressions.

It has the power to inspire, evoke emotions, and challenge our perspectives.

Whether it's painting, sculpture, photography, or any other form of art, each piece has its own unique story to tell.

Studying art can not only enhance our creativity and审美能力 but also provide us with a deeper understanding of different cultures and historical periods.

Moreover, art can be a source of relaxation and stress relief, allowing us to unwind and express ourselves freely.

In conclusion, art is both interesting and useful, and it enriches our lives in countless ways.

We should all take the time to appreciate and explore the wonderful world of art.

Who am I to rate Aristotle? This thought often crosses my mind when I contemplate the works and ideas of this great philosopher. Aristotle's contributions to various fields such as logic, ethics, and metaphysics are simply profound. His teachings have influenced generations of scholars and thinkers. However, despite my humble stance, I cannot help but be in awe of his pure art. The way he presents his arguments, the depth of his analysis, and the elegance of his prose are truly remarkable. It is as if he is painting a masterpiece with his words, creating a world of knowledge and understanding. Whether we agree or disagree with his ideas, there is no denying the beauty and power of his work. Aristotle's artistry is a testament to the human capacity for intellectual achievement and creativity.

Bio sam skeptičan kad sam počeo da čitam, ali svidelo mi se mnogo više nego što sam očekivao.

Of course, one has to turn a blind eye to the occasional outbursts of misogyny and the constant gradations of what is more valuable than what (and only according to Aristotle's opinion and without any explanation), but it still holds up very well when looking at modern ideas/films/series, even though it was written so long ago.

Some of the parts are very general and therefore still applicable, but some very specifically single out what is important, which is important both in ancient tragedy and in modern drama, which is really impressive.

I found myself constantly noticing things that he writes about in the content that I had watched in the previous days. I also liked that it was unexpectedly exact in defining the concepts that it uses. Especially the parts about the unity of the tragic action, the tragic character, the probable and the possible appealed to me.

Whew. I managed to get through my very first work by Aristotle. If all of his works are composed in a similar vein, then I don't anticipate it being overly arduous. My initial perception was that he was极其 difficult to understand. However, just based on this particular work, it appears that he is merely very thorough. He is a highly precise thinker. So, when he tackles complex material, he does so in a manner that is extremely clear and not convoluted. At least, that is the impression I have thus far...

The following example really stood out to me. It cannot be said that Aristotle never defines his terms.

"A whole is that which has a beginning, a middle, and an end. A beginning is that which does not itself follow anything by causal necessity, but after which something naturally is or comes to be. An end, on the contrary, is that which itself naturally follows some other thing, either by necessity, or as a rule, but has nothing following it. A middle is that which follows something as some other thing follows it."

Well, I probably should have taken all of this for granted had he not explained it to me. I thought this was almost....cute? Can I really say Aristotle was cute? No, that seems rather strange.

Anyway, that unity is a continuously important point for him. In the end, he contends that the lack of unity is the reason why Epic poetry is a lesser art form than Tragic plays, contrary to the popular opinion of his era.

Aristotle predominantly deals with the tragic form of poetry. And it is fascinating solely for its insights into what the renowned tragedians actually did in their writing. I came away with a greater appreciation for Oedipus. And while dissecting the form into minute details and explaining what it is that makes a great tragedy, he does allow for the mysterious "artistic freedom" that poets require.

But I don't think reading this work is solely for the purpose of gaining a greater appreciation for Greek tragedy. He also presents thoughts on why we enjoy watching theatrical forms in general. And his descriptions of different aspects of poetry, such as plot and character, remain relevant today.

If you have the time and if you are truly interested in all the details, my advice to you is to take the edition with the comments by Zdeslav Dukat. It is rather extensive, but it provides an overview from several editions, compares translations, quotes the problematic parts of the text and other things. I have read this so many times in my life that it has become tiresome for me. Even more tiresome were the universities where they swear by Aristotle's "Poetics" and perhaps precisely where it is least his. :D

Of course, that does not mean that it ceases to be important, but we will not now fall into unconsciousness every time, and especially not today, when the question is raised not only whether this is even Aristotle's work at all, but also the question of the interpretation of contradictory passages and comments. In many ways it has been surpassed and become outdated, but it remains as an interesting document and attitude towards the multi-layeredness of reality. In any case: carefully and with moderation.

What I find both fascinating and sad about this work by Aristotle is the extensive list of contemporary poets, playwrights, and plays he references, which have now been completely lost to the passage of time.

Such a rich tapestry of literature that he could draw upon 24 centuries ago has been reduced to mere fragments and memories.

Even so, we are thankfully still in possession of the works of Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes, Homer, and others, which serve as valuable references. I would argue that having a cursory knowledge of any Greek literature makes Poetics an even more worthwhile read.

In this concise book, Aristotle delves into the differences between Epic poetry and Greek Tragedy, exploring the essentials required of both and the core fundamentals that distinguish "good" writing from bad. He also discusses "the differences which distinguish artistic imitation—the medium, the objects, and the manner." Poetics is essentially one of the earliest accounts of literary criticism.

Many of Aristotle's critiques may seem antiquated in today's context, and I believe that in your own contemporary writing, you might do better by doing the opposite of what he suggests. However, the value lies not in the strict adherence to his words but rather in the words themselves. Consider that it was written over 2000+ years ago, and despite the vast gap in time, appreciate that within the human condition, not much has truly changed.

"Poetry is finer and more philosophical than history; for poetry expresses the universal, and history only the particular."

Required reading in Introduction to Literary Theory, and truly, I have been greatly surprised by the impact that this work of Aristotle has had on literature and its study. Despite the centuries that have passed, it remains so relevant today.

It is very interesting and will appeal to all those interested in literature. It offers valuable insights into the nature of literature, its functions, and its elements. Aristotle's ideas have influenced countless literary scholars and critics over the years, and continue to do so.

By reading this work, one can gain a deeper understanding of the history and development of literary theory, as well as the various approaches and methods that have been used to study literature. It is a must-read for anyone who wants to explore the fascinating world of literature and its many dimensions.

Here is a rudimentary tablet of knowledge by one of the greats. First off, it is truly remarkable to consider the year this was written. Almost 2,400 years later, we remain eager to explore the poetics so clearly defined in this aged article. Aristotle exalts the poet and holds him in the highest esteem. Similarly, I have concluded that the novelist of literature is the truest of artists. They imitate what they see, 'paint' things as they are, tell stories as others do, or construct a world in its most ideal and illustrious state. This is just one of the many core concepts Aristotle pries open. Yes, as readers, we are conscious of the literary elements that comprise contemporary fiction. But this is a very significant work for the writer, not just the poet. Aristotle always pits the Epic poem against the Tragedy. He maintains that while a Tragedy has all the same elements as an Epic, the Epic poem does not always include elements of Tragedy. This is the contemporary distinction between epic novels like 'Gone with the Wind' and 'The Thorn Birds', and tragic family dramas like those of Eugene O'Neill and Arthur Miller. But the spirit of drama must flow through both, though the parameters and scales differ. Indeed, some of the dogmas have been explained repeatedly by countless English teachers over the years. So it was a relief to find some of the writer's personal touches in this informative essay. For example, his constant distinction between philosophers and mere men, his fanboy affinity to Homer, his fondness for markedly clear beginnings and endings, how Epic poetry is the "highest" art form (one would imagine that in the modern world Aristotle would have preferred 'Titanic' over 'American Beauty'), and that poetry "is a more philosophical and a higher thing than history." Seemingly rudimentary, this is a must for novelists, even though Epic poems and stage Tragedies are long gone. Sadly, the later chapters in Aristotle's "Poetics" are like trips to elementary school English (letters à words à sentences). That something from 350 BC is still employed in something as vast and, sometimes, as avant garde as literature is both frightening and encouraging.