When it comes to diction, it really bored me a great deal.

Diction refers to the choice and use of words in speech or writing. It can have a significant impact on the clarity, effectiveness, and overall quality of communication.

However, for some reason, whenever I encounter discussions or studies related to diction, I just can't seem to get interested. Maybe it's because I find it too technical or dry.

I understand that having a good command of diction is important, especially for those who want to express themselves clearly and persuasively. But for me, it's just not something that I'm naturally drawn to.

Nevertheless, I recognize that improving my diction could potentially enhance my communication skills and make me a more effective writer and speaker. So, perhaps I should make more of an effort to learn about it and try to find ways to make it more interesting and engaging for myself.

In the spring of 2021, I had the opportunity to teach this to some Honors College students at Regent University.

It was an exciting experience as these students were highly motivated and eager to learn.

I prepared thoroughly for each class, ensuring that I presented the material in a clear and engaging manner.

The students actively participated in discussions, asking thought-provoking questions and sharing their unique perspectives.

Through this teaching experience, I not only imparted knowledge but also learned a great deal from the students.

It was a mutually beneficial exchange that enhanced my teaching skills and broadened my understanding of different ideas.

I am grateful for the opportunity to have taught these outstanding students and look forward to future teaching endeavors.

Stereotypes had led me to firmly believe that delving into the works of Aristotle would be an almost insurmountable task, something that seemed completely beyond my reach and as if it belonged to a different world altogether. However, here I am now, having experienced a profound sense of enlightenment and satisfaction after having read his works.

It is truly remarkable how these stereotypes can so easily cloud our judgment and prevent us from exploring the rich treasures of knowledge that lie within such great minds.

I must also give due credit to the translators. Their efforts in bringing Aristotle's thoughts and ideas into a language that we can understand are truly praiseworthy.

Without their skill and dedication, it would have been much more difficult for us to access and appreciate the wisdom contained within these ancient texts.

This experience has taught me to be more open-minded and to not let preconceived notions hold me back from exploring new and unfamiliar territory.

BOOOOORRRRRIINNNGGGGG!

Major snooze alert!

This is the kind of feeling that often袭来 when we are faced with something that just doesn't engage our interest. It could be a dull lecture, a monotonous task at work, or a repetitive TV show.

The word "boring" seems to sum up that sense of tedium and lack of excitement.

When we are bored, our minds tend to wander, and we may find it difficult to stay focused.

We might start daydreaming or looking for something else to do to pass the time.

Boredom can also lead to a feeling of restlessness and dissatisfaction.

However, it's important to note that what one person finds boring, another might find interesting.

Our individual interests and preferences play a big role in determining whether something is boring or not.

So, the next time you find yourself yawning and thinking "BOOOOORRRRRIINNNGGGGG!", try to figure out what it is that's causing your boredom and see if there's a way to make the experience more engaging.

Plato had a rather strict view on art. He wasn't fond of art that wasn't strictly utilitarian. He criticized Homer's plays for depicting the gods as capricious and vengeful. He believed such stories were meant to appeal to the irrational, appetitive part of the soul rather than the rational one. Since art has the power to arouse intense emotions and corrupt the mind, he thought it needed a moral component.

Aristotle, on the other hand, also saw art as imitation. But he differed from Plato in that he saw value in art's imitative capacity. He believed it was natural for humans to imitate from childhood and that we learn through imitation. He thought that dramatic poetry like Sophocles' plays was useful in a different way. He disagreed with Plato's view that narrative was better than poetry, stating that poetry could express universals. He also believed that tragedies and dramatic poetry could serve as a medium to get rid of negative emotions in a healthy way, a process known as catharsis.
The work on art by Plato and Aristotle has universal and timeless principles. It provides guidelines for creating art that effectively fulfills its purpose. For example, a tragedy should not rely on vulgarity but rather trigger deeper emotions in the audience. The three unities of action, setting, and time are also important for a unified story.
This was my first encounter with Aristotle's work on art, and I found it a very interesting introduction to critical literary theory. Although it was a bit dry at times, it was definitely worth the time spent reading it.

It made me think about art in a new way and understand the different perspectives of these two great philosophers.

I look forward to exploring more of Aristotle's ideas in the future.

The concept of narrative structure lies at the very heart of storytelling. It is the framework that holds together the various elements of a story, guiding the reader or listener through a sequence of events. A well-crafted narrative structure can engage the audience, build suspense, and create a sense of emotional connection. It determines the order in which the story unfolds, the pacing of the events, and the way in which the characters develop. By carefully constructing the narrative structure, authors can effectively convey their message and leave a lasting impression on their audience. Whether it is a linear or non-linear structure, each has its own unique advantages and can be used to great effect depending on the nature of the story. In essence, understanding and mastering the art of narrative structure is essential for anyone who wishes to tell a compelling story.

Poetry is regarded as a form of imitation μιμησις. Its distinct characteristics include the medium, object, and mode. It comes naturally to human beings and brings them universal pleasure. The idea that art is pleasant due to recognition is a very powerful argument.

Tragedy is defined as “an imitation of an action that is admirable, complete, and has magnitude; in language that is made pleasurable, possessing rhythm and melody, with each of its species separated in different parts; performed by actors, not through narration; and it effects the purification of such emotions through pity and fear.” It has six components that determine its quality: plot, character, reasoning (object), spectacle (medium), lyric poetry, and diction (mode). The plot can be evaluated based on its completeness, magnitude, unity, determinate structure, universality, astonishment (το θαυμαστον), emotional impact, recognition (αναγνωρις), and reversal (περιπετεια).

Epic, on the other hand, is imitation in narrative verse. Its plots are constructed dramatically, meaning they are “concerned with a unified action, whole and complete, possessing a beginning, middle parts, and an end, so that the unified whole can affect its characteristic pleasure.” The component parts, except for lyric poetry and spectacle, are also the same as those of tragedy.

One might argue that the “book” is unbalanced as it devotes too much space to tragedy and does not explore the other topics in as much detail. There are records of a second “book” where Aristotle explains the concept of καθαρσις in more detail, but unfortunately, it has not survived.

Aristotle's Poetics truly astonished me. I had no anticipation of encountering such modern and relatable ideas, nor ones that were so deeply felt. I never expected Aristotle to essentially be a Homer enthusiast or to express (writing a whopping 2300 years ago!) such opinions and gripes that you could effortlessly discover in any Goodreads review. Among the various points he makes, in no specific order:

\\"Homer has taught the others the proper way of telling lies.... What is convincing though impossible should always be preferred to what is possible and unconvincing.\\"

It's exasperating and aesthetically unappealing when characters deviate from their established personalities and act inconsistently. Things that succeed in one form of storytelling, like epic poetry, don't necessarily work in another, such as tragedy, and events can seem tragic or absurd depending on how they are presented. He even argues against fanservice, stating that poets (referring to playwrights and composers of epic poetry) who write to please their audiences often wind up with feeble plots. Abusing dei ex machina to conveniently resolve an irreparably convoluted narrative situation is a cheap trick. All the scenes in a narrative should serve the overall objective of the story and be in line with its main focus. It's a shame that many authors know how to construct a good plot but then have no clue how to untangle it. Plot twists, which he refers to as anagnorisis and peripateia, should emerge naturally from the events being told, and the author's hand should not be overly obvious - that is, the plot should not feel forced. This also means that the telling should never overshadow the showing. I mean, what have we actually accomplished in the past 2300 years? What are we railing against bad books and weak plots for? Aristotle has already said it all.

NB: Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that these points are unbreakable rules that must be adhered to in all types of narrative. I'm simply stating that contemporary readers, especially when engaging with literature, film, or stories in any medium with the intention of being entertained, generally have a strong affinity for these principles.

The title of this treatise is rather misleading. In it, Aristotle is not actually discussing poetry in the general sense, but rather drama, and specifically tragedy. The confusion likely stems from the fact that Classical Greek plays were typically written in metred verse.

Aristotle's analysis is incredibly lucid and systematic. It is truly astonishing to think that this book was composed over two thousand years ago. Scholars believe that it was initially compiled by Aristotle's students as lecture notes. Moreover, many of them surmise the existence of a second volume that was dedicated to comedy, but which is now long lost. Interestingly, this missing volume plays a significant role in the storyline of Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose.

Aristotle cites numerous examples from Classical Greek plays throughout the text. Regrettably, I was unfamiliar with the majority of them. However, even with my partial understanding, I was able to recognize that this book is an outstanding testament to an exceptional intellect. It provides valuable insights into the nature and structure of tragedy, and continues to be relevant and influential in the field of literary criticism today.

Poetics or poetics refers to the understanding of poetry, which is an activity in which creativity is the main component. This creativity, in its broadest sense, not only includes any literary creation beyond poetry but also refers to the understanding of any physical creation beyond literature. Therefore, the understanding of "poetry" from poetics is very limited. Of course, the meaning that Aristotle meant by this word in the book "Poetics" and what is currently regarded as the understanding of poetics (poetics) in the current text is only related to the meaning of "literature": something broader than poetry and narrower than art.
Classical texts have a special feature compared to other texts: the thoughts of human beings on these works for hundreds and thousands of years are precious sources of "created" thought. Poetics is no exception to this principle. Perhaps the work itself may not be found by you, but the focused and unfocused commentaries of philosophers and contemporary thinkers on it are a huge source of literary philosophy. One of these unfocused commentaries was my main source of acquaintance with Aristotle's poetics, the first volume of "Time and Narrative" by Paul Ricoeur, a contemporary French philosopher. For Ricoeur, Aristotle's poetics is the main source of the hermeneutic theory of "narrative". The difference between Aristotle and Plato in criticism, its productivity and fluidity, and the essential role of "imitation" in poetics are among the most important points that Ricoeur emphasizes. Ricoeur extends Aristotle's theory of "tragedy" to all literary narratives and derives a complete and perfect theory of narrative from it.
In addition to these points, there are many other interesting points that can be found in poetics and have later become the driving force of subtle topics in the thought of other philosophers, both in the field of literature and outside it: the importance of action over character; the superiority of literature over history (based on the superiority of the probable event over the actual event); the presence of ethics in literature; the relationship between literature and truth and the importance of believability over plausibility in literary narrative. These are just some of the points, and the explanation of each is detailed in the thought of later philosophers.
It is amazing how Aristotle, this outstanding thinker, was able to think so philosophically about every subject. Literature and politics are among the most important of these subjects that have been neglected for different reasons in our Islamic philosophical tradition.
I read this English translation with three Persian texts from the book.
Among the Persian translations, the forgotten translation of Fathollah Majlesi was the best of all, followed by the translation of Seyyed Hossein Nasr and finally the translation of Helen Oliani.
The last translation is not only a more disloyal translation but also does not have the standard international equivalents of the book's sections.

Anyone who endeavors to write about literary theory must pass under the shadow of this foundational work.

It is truly humbling for those of us who would fancy ourselves critics. When we see how such rich and insightful analysis can be compacted into these lecture notes, it makes us realize the depth and brilliance of the original work.

Meanwhile, the endless tomes of deconstructionists and critical theorists seem to trail in its wake like so much fleeting vapor. They may have their own merits, but they cannot overshadow the significance of this classic.

It would be a dire disgrace to dismiss this and any other canonical work as a relic of bygone thought. We must consider whether its contents ought truly to serve as a model for our aesthetic thinkings and doings.

In this case, the dissection of the literary artist's vocation and his options of pursuit cannot easily be ignored. It is of great importance for all writers and readers of fiction.

I'm hoping you realize that this should include everybody. Even the "arid intellectual" Aristotle, whose grasp of the poet's true vocation has hardly been surpassed, has much to teach us.

Therefore, it is mandatory studying for all those who are interested in literature and want to understand the essence of the literary art.

I don't give a score to this book.

Because in its own era, it was probably a book for which the word "valuable" was very little and small.

But at present - with an educational perspective and as a theoretical book - it has almost no value in many parts.

Even perhaps the statement that "go read Aristotle's Poetics and do the opposite of what he said to succeed" seems very likely to me.

This book may have had some significance in the past, but in the current context, its relevance and practicality are quite limited.

It fails to provide useful insights and guidance that can be applied in today's world.

Perhaps it is time to reevaluate and look for more contemporary and relevant works in the field of theory.