The Poetics
by Aristotle
Translated by Preston H. Epps

Highly Recommended


The big daddy of drama texts, Aristotle laid down his rules for stories around 2300 years ago. He based his analysis on the plays of his time, and by dissecting them to find the components common to the good ones that were missing from the bad ones. Of course, all of these value judgements were Aristotle's, so he was a dramatic critic first, and a dramatic theorist afterwards. Nevertheless, he got a lot of stuff right. One should note that this book was only written about tragedy; he seems to refer to a planned second book on comedy, but nobody has ever found a copy of it.

Aristotle argues that plot is the single most important element in a play: he states that a good story with poorly-drawn characters will work, but a bad story with great characters will not. In his (translated) words, "...Without action there could be no tragedy, but there could be tragedy without character" (pg. 13). This is a bit of an overstatement, I think; Egri's book is a good counter-argument. Both claims are supported by my experience, so I feel that a really good story requires both a good plot and good characters.

Aristotle was a linear, analytic thinker; emotion and intuition were only tools to be juggled by the intellectual mind. This approach had its benefits in that it allowed him to create itemized lists of the elements of drama. On the other hand, it blinded him to the emotional and spiritual aspects that elevate a story to the realm of art. Aristotle identified six elements necessary to drama. In his order of importance, these are:

  1. Plot
  2. Character
  3. Thought (i.e. the inner life of the character and his/her struggles)
  4. Spectacle (i.e. the visual aspect of the play)
  5. Diction (i.e. dialog, or what is said)
  6. Music

In his analysis, the first three tell us what the story is about, the fourth tells us how it will unfold, and the last two provide the actual execution.

As befits a pure intellectual, Aristotle was a behavioralist. "Men are the certain kinds of individuals they are as a result of their character; but they become happy or miserable as a result of their actions" (pg. 13). Here we see the first version of the now famous dramatist's admonishment, "show, don't tell." He broke down the basic plot elements into surprise (when something is learned or discovered) and reversal (when something or someone turns out to be the opposite of what they appeared). He felt that plots need to contain three essential characteristics:

  1. Single in outcome (i.e. there cannot be different resolutions for the good and bad characters; such a resolution may sometimes appear to be good, but it really isn't. Aristotle says multiple-outcome plays only seem good to some people because of their own failings; in his words, the "weak character of the spectators".
  2. The change in fortune must be from bad to good (i.e. things must get better for the protagonist - although he doesn't state it explicitly, this is an argument for the happy ending)
  3. This good fortune must come about not because of "rascality" (or sneakiness) but because the character overcame a "striking inadequacy" or made use of a "positive fault".

Further, "good men must not be shown passing from good into evil fortune," nor must "evil men be shown passing from misfortune into good fortune", nor must "a very wicked person be protrayed as passing from good to bad fortune". The only option left for an acceptable plot was for good people to pass from hardship to a better world (the happy ending again, or at least a net improvement).

Aristotle distinguishes morally evil characters into those who are unwittingly bad, and those who are deliberately evil. He observes there are three ways a character can follow-through on a bad action that has begun:

  1. He can finish the evil action with deliberate intent
  2. He can finish the evil act unknowing of its evilness
  3. He can almost finish it, but suddenly understand and disapproved of its negative implications and stop.

He felt the third option was the most powerful, since it showed development of the character.

Aristotle identified four qualities that compose a well-designed character. That character must be:

  1. Morally good
  2. Consistent in action with the status and class to which the character belongs,
  3. A unique person (as expressed by his dialog and actions)
  4. Consistent in action to his personality
Aristotle felt that there were three ways to unify the development of a play over time. Since a play is a linear sequence of actions, somehow they all need to be related in the viewer's mind in order to make a coherent statement. These three possibilities are
  1. Unity of action (i.e. one event follows another through cause and effect)
  2. Unity of place (i.e. everything happens in the same location)
  3. Unity of time (i.e. everything happens at the same time)
This gives a flavor for Aristotle's point of view: he was a reductionist of the first order. Nevertheless, although I disagree with much of what he says, I agree with much as well. It is important to read this book because it's a common base from which many dramatic discussions begin. It gets pretty obscure occasionally, but the preface and the occasional translator's footnote are helpful. This slim volume can be read and digested in a couple of hours; thinking about the ideas can last and last.