Customer Reviews

Poetics (Penguin Classics)

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

After reading Aristotle's "Poetics," I felt a severe sense of shame for not having read it much, much sooner. As a student of literature, I found that many of the concepts upon which my evaluation of literature are based, whether I picked them up in classes or through amateur theorization, are founded in the "Poetics". The "Poetics," which the Penguin editor Malcolm Heath explains in his outstanding introduction/explication, is probably comprised of lecture notes, and not intentionally meant for public consumption, nonetheless stands as the standard against which literary criticism is gauged. This is amazing, as the work itself is hardly 50 pages long.

Aristotle begins by talking about the origins of art in imitation: Artists convey their sense of the world through imitating what they see and feel around them. This is accomplished both in visual art, and for a more thorough understanding of human events, in poetry. Aristotle goes on to explain the history of literature: how encomium(praises) and invective(curses) give rise respectively to epic and lampoons. These then pave the way for tragedy and comedy. In terms of these basic steps, in the later part of the "Poetics," Aristotle gives definitions to parts of speech, to wit, nouns, verbs, etc., and how they are used in different forms of speech, and in various contexts within the genres he outlines.

Spending the greater part of the work on an investigation of tragedy, Aristotle examines the component parts of what he takes to be the best kinds of tragedies. In terms of quality, the work must be complete, showing the causal relation of events and the causal reactions of characters to those events. It should have a plot wherein a character or characters experience a reversal of fortune or a recognition that leads to the conclusion of that plot.

Plot is essential to Aristotle, and, to appropriate Heath's translation, 'universalizes' the "Poetics" to encompass even those prose works for which Aristotle himself admits to have no definition. We can apply his standards to short stories, novels, and so on. Aristotle's notions of unity, completeness, and magnitude are the conventions to which and against which all Western literature and criticism can be seen to either conform to or struggle against. Without Aristotle's strict definitions of tragedy, comedy, unity, and so on, I can scarcely imagine how we would have notions of mock-tragedy, tragi-comedy, or even the modern or post-modern literary forms. In short, the "Poetics" is absolutely crucial reading for anyone who reads anything.

I teach a course on Ethics and Aesthetics in Aristotle to graduate students. This translation and its introduction are the best for my purpose. Both are clear, crisp, and readable. The translation is reliable and the endnotes are very helpful. I would highly rcommend this edition to anyone who has a serious interest in either Aristotle or aesthetics that does not rise to a level that requires a reading knowledge of the Greek text.

The "Poetics" contains Aristotle's observations on what elements and characteristics comprised the best tragedies based on the ones he'd presumably seen or read. He divides "poetry," which could be defined as imitations of human experience, into tragedy, comedy, and epic, and explains the differences between these forms, although comedy is not covered in detail and tragedy gets the most treatment. For one thing, tragedy, he states, seeks to imitate the matters of superior people, while comedy seeks to imitate the matters of inferior people.

To Aristotle, the most important constituent of tragedy is plot, and successful plots require that the sequence of events be necessary (required to happen to advance the story logically and rationally) and probable (likely to happen given the circumstances). Any plot that does not feature such a necessary and probable sequence of events is deemed faulty. Reversals and recognitions are plot devices by which tragedy sways emotions, particularly those that induce "pity and fear," as is astonishment, which is the effect produced when the unexpected happens. He discusses the best kinds of tragic plots, the kinds of characters that are required, and how their fortunes should change over the course of the plot for optimum tragic effect.

With regard to poetic language or "diction," he emphasizes the importance of figurative language (metaphor, analogy) in poetry and the importance of balancing figurative with literal language. It is his opinion that metaphoric invention is a natural ability and not something that can be taught. Of all the poets Aristotle mentions who exemplify the ideals proposed in the "Poetics," Homer draws the most praise.

Malcolm Heath's introduction in the Penguin Classics edition offers some helpful and amusing clarification and commentary on the "Poetics," including a demonstration of the Aristotelian method of constructing a tragedy using the story of Oedipus as an example. A work that is scant in volume but rich in ideas, the "Poetics" demands to be read by all those interested in ancient thought on literature.

The principles in what was probably a compilation of Aristotle's "lectures notes" are timeless, and have influenced story analysis for the past 2400 years. His understanding of story as a contrived mechanism aimed to MOVE audiences should be a relief to every writer who takes it to heart: the elements required for drama and dramatic fiction and nonfiction are not infinite but a handful. But that handful must be dealt with properly or the assembly will have no effect on audiences. He tells us Homer's greatness was that "he himself is nowhere to be found in his works, his characters everywhere"; that Homer began "in the middle of things" (Latin rhetoricians called it, "in medias res"; and that every great story needs a discovery that leads to a turning point in the protagonist's progress toward comedy or tragedy. Don't leave home without it!

By this time, the importance of Aristotle as a philosopher and the first analyst of drama is well known. For budding screenwriters, reading and understand his Poetics is one of the requirements for building good stories. Since I can't read the original in its Attic Greek, good translations are worth their weight in gold.

Malcolm Heath's excellent translation is incredible. First, the introduction to the main work is longer than the translation itself. Heath dissects and explains EVERYTHING so that when reading the main work, things are clear. Not satisfied with that, there are notes to the translation as well! One comes away from this work with a crystal clear understanding of the concepts Aristotle teaches.

This definitely is my preferred translation of the Poetics. 10 stars!

Aristotle's "Poetics" attempts to enquire into the qualities requisite for the production of epics, the visual arts and tragedies and, in the process, he establishes concepts that have since become the cornerstones of Western dramatic and literary practice, as well as aesthetic theory. The greater part of the work is taken up by the investigation of tragedy, in which Aristotle enjoins that the perfect tragedy must have certain features: unity (of time, place and action) and completeness (consistency of plot and of the causal and psychological relations in the characters' behaviour). He also defines magnitude, (the amount of incident in a tragedy) as well as the reversals and recognitions that lead to the conclusion of the play. An important formulation is "hamartia", the tragic flaw (Othello's jealousy or Hamlet's indecision, for instance) which precipitate the protagonist's undoing. However, Aristotle's thesis, maintaining that the origin of art is in imitation, has been proven to be an untenable standpoint. Imitation is merely a mode of art, not the source of it, which is, in fact, emotion. The definition of comedy, on the other hand, is missing and, moreover, the text is corrupt and the arguments are elliptical and confusing. Aristotle's most famous conception arrived at in the "Poetics" -- (the purging, or "catharsis" of the emotions of pity and terror) which is assumed to be the principal role of tragedy, is much overrated. Basing his insight on ancient organ psychology, he makes a statement that contradicts some known facts. It is a fact that in the case of some strong emotions - such as distress or the physical act of lovemaking, for instance - the drive does not undergo a release, but is actually strengthened in the long term, regardless of its temporary abatement. Why must it be otherwise with pity and terror? Does not catharsis apply to other strong emotions as well or is it only just pity and terror? What strikes one as absurd is Aristotle's belief, or apparent belief, that there were organs that produced pity and terror and it was the objective of tragedy to empty these organs of their harmful contents. In this respect, Nietzsche (and also Plato) were correct. Aristotle was wrong.

Aristotle, one of our earliest and greatest extant recorded thinkers, explains his views on poetry in its ancient forms, epic and tragedy - what makes them work and what makes them work well. This explanation is on a basic and elemental level, and thus his ideas are still applicable to the modern forms of poetry and performance (as actors generally performed poetry in Aristotle's time, competitvely and non-competitively), making the text useful today in the application of his ideas as well as in giving us an interesting glipse of this art in Aristotle's era. However, this is not one of his originally published texts but probably lecture notes, the larger text intended for public dissemination being sadly lost. Thus much of Poetics is quite cryptic or truncated; this leaves some segments open to interpretation, which readers who favor the open-ended may prefer while those desirous of knowing the author's exact ideas and intentions may dislike. The meaning sometimes, however, is so obscure as to be beyond interpretation. Fortunately, translator Malcolm Heath's copious notes and sprawling introduction elucidate its murkier aspects, clarifying what Aristotle most likely meant in most cases and offering probable interpretations for others along with popular alternate theories from other translators. He also explains why the text is so cryptic, especially in its discussion of comedy, telling us of a second part which is no longer extant and the fact previously mentioned that these are most likely lecture notes. All in all this is a very interesting and usually useful text as well as a wonderful and wonderfully annotated translation, clarifying what would have otherwise been unclear and, at times, quite frustrating. I highly recommend it, especially in favor of finding a free and non-annotated text online.

No joke - the introduction written by a modern scholar is more or less neck to neck with Aristotle's 'essay' on storytelling (Poetics) as far as length is concerned. This is good because, quite honestly, the average person will have a hard time understanding the concept Aristotle is trying to get across with his archaic (no insult intended) analysis.

But first, my "credentials" as a reviewer:

I started reading Plato because I watched some movies (Truman Show, The Matrix) and some Anime (The Big O) in which the screenwriters heavily borrowed from Republic and other Platonic dialogues when shaping their plots. At first, I read just so I can understand the plot of these works of visual art a little better. After a couple of dialogues (I especially liked Phaedo and Theatetus - I still haven't finished Republic), however, I began appreciating Greek philosophy in and of itself. Having read a bit of Plato (Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Cratylus, Theatetus, and part of Republic) I decided, hey, why not go in for some of Aristotle? Supposedly this 'common sensical' philosopher was the foil of the more heavenly inclined Plato - so why not compare and contrast?

That said, Poetics has been my first exposure to Aristotle.

Quite different from Plato too! For starters, Aristotle views poets, dramatists, "novelists" and fiction writers in general much more sympathetically than his 'teacher' - he sees them as humans with a talent who can put it to good purpose (as opposed to Plato's perception of them being the scum of the earth).

A point I would like to bring up - some people say 'Poetics' is universal, applicable to any time in history for any fiction writer or storyteller. Quite a few successful screenwriters have taken this position. The scholar who wrote up the introduction to this edition, however, disagrees - as do I. Most of the stuff Aristotle's mentions as being for making a story has already crossed my mind at one or time or another - in less stuffy, more conceptualized form, certainly, but the ideas have occured to me. Not only that, but his somewhat rigid formula, although he himself acknowledges that it isn't absolute, is very restrictive in 'what's good, what's bad'.

That said, Poetics contributes to literary theory. Plus, it can reinforce some writer's ideas about how their craft should work. More significantly, however, it is the thought of Aristotle, a highly influential philosopher, accessible through word that really captivates the reader - what he thinks about is important, but the way he thinks is what really makes him 'timeless'. His views on storytelling, however, are visibly from an era that no longer strongly coincides with our own.

Note - yes, yes, I've read some books on Greek history and know it is the Cradle of Western Civilization, spread by Rome and a major influence on history (including democracy) - but Greek academia is largely alien.

Poetics is an illuminating analysis of poetry and its origins. Aristotle analyzes the writing of famous ancient Greek poets such as Homer, Aeschylus and Sophacles and outlines the difference in construction between poems that are tragedies and poems that are Comedy. This book is really only for those who are true Greek poetry lovers, or at least serious students of literature. I found it hard slugging indeed. But if you want to complete your education on ancient Greek philosophers, Aristotle must be read. His presentation of argument and topics for disucussion cannot be beat.

I read these works for a graduate seminar on Aristotle.
Poetry appeals to human passions and emotions. Powerful beautiful language and metaphor really appeal to emotion. This idea really disturbed Plato, who takes on Homer in the Republic. Plato thought that early Greek poetry portrays a dark world; humans are checked by negative limits like death. Tragedy has in it a character of high status brought down through no fault of his own. Plato says this is unjust. Republic is about ethical life and justice. It starts with the premises that might makes right and then moves onto the idea much like modern religions that justice comes in the afterlife. Plato hates the idea that in tragedy bad things can happen to good people. He wanted to ban tragedy because he found it demoralizing.

Aristotle's Poetics is a defense against Plato's appeal to ban tragedy. Tragedy was very popular in Greek world so Aristotle asks can it be wrong to ban it? Yes, it is wrong thus he decides to study it. Plato says Poetry is not a technē because the poets are divinely inspired. Aristotle disagrees Poetics is a handbook for playwrights. Mimēsis= "representation or imitation." Plato uses it in speaking of painting, thus art is imitation. Another meaning is to mimic, like actors mimicking another person. Plato and Aristotle use it to mean psychological identification like how we get absorbed in a movie as if the action were real, eliciting emotions from us. We suspend reality for a while. Aristotle says this is natural in humans; we do this as children, we mimic. If imitation is important for humans then tragic poetry is worthwhile for Aristotle to study.

Definition of tragedy- "Through pity and fear it achieves purification from such feelings. This is a famous controversial line. Katharsis= "pity and fear" thus the purpose of tragedy is to purge katharsis. Katharsis can also mean purification or clean. There is a debate if it means clarification, through which we can come to understand katharsis. Aristotle thinks tragedy teaches us something about life. Tragedy is an elaboration on Aristotle's idea that good or virtuous people sometimes get unlucky and in the end, they get screwed. Tragedy shows this so we can learn to get by when life screws us. The whole point of tragedy is action over character. Action is the full story of the poem like the Iliad. Character is only part of the action.
Aristotle distinguishes between poetry and history. Poetry is concerned with universals, history is concerned with particulars.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy. Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.