Finally, I present the rather anti-climactic end to my look at Aristotle’s Poetics. Here Aristotle explores a few ancillary topics before giving some final advice on what constitutes a good drama. By finishing this final summary, though its value to writers is, I think, limited, it does give this project some sense of closure..
Chapter 19 – Diction and Thought
According to Artistotle, diction is more properly dealt with under the heading of rhetoric. It is the element of the play generally referred to as performance and he passes over it. I will do the same, but I am curious as to whether Artistotle’s surviving work on Rhetoric has anything to say to the voice actors of our own era. It might be interesting to find out, but I am happy to leave that investigation to others.
With regard to thought, however, Aristotle’s meaning is a bit more difficult to fathom. He defines thought as “every effect that has to be produced by speech” and lists examples such as “proof and refutation”, “the excitement of feelings”, and “the suggestion of importance and its opposite”.
Thought is a strange term to use for it, but seems to refer to the impact of what happens on stage in the mind of the audience. For the audio audience, of course, the stage on which the play is performed is that of the mind. As a result, it seems to me, that this is referring to the success with which the writer creates the drama in the minds of the audience and evokes understanding and emotion.
Aristotle goes on to say that events should speak for themselves – probably the earliest formulation of “show, don’t tell” ever expressed.
One way to think of show don’t tell is to rephrase it as “describe, don’t explain”. Sound, music, and dialog combine in audio drama to complete a picture in the mind of the audience. On stage we can “see” the play unfold, but audio drama must convey what is seen via these other tools. Music is one of the most useful tools in the audio-dramatist’s repertoire for “showing” and amplifying the emotion in a scene – but it is largely the preserve of production rather than writing. Sound is often ambiguous and cannot be trusted to “show” an audience anything in many cases without context. This context is often created by dialog and it is to dialog that we must turn to “show” rather than “tell”. But since dialog is verbal, the question naturally arises as to how this is achieved?
Let’s imagine a character, Bob, who is angry. Bob might say, “I am angry.” This is “showing” or “explaining”. But it is very unsatisfying for the audience. Far better for Bob to express his anger more obliquely and allow the audience to infer his emotion.
SOUND: BUSY OFFICE – MURMURS, TYPING, ETC.
SOUND: DOOR SLAMS. ALL GOES SILENT.
BOB: (LOUD AND IMPATIENT) Where’s the Rotchester Report? (BEAT) Well? (BEAT) What the hell do I pay you people for. Find it!
SOUND: FLURRY OF ACTIVITY.
In narration it is even easier to see. If the narrator says “Bob is angry” we are being “told” and Bob’s behavior is being “explained”. Instead his behavior should merely be described (“shown”) to us (though in the example below the narrative description is redundant and unnecessary).
NARRATOR: Bob is searching everywhere for the Rotchester Report.
SOUND: BUSY OFFICE – MURMURS, TYPING, ETC.
SOUND: DOOR OPENS, BEAT, DOOR SLAMS. ALL GOES SILENT.
BOB: (LOUD AND IMPATIENT) Where’s that damned report got to? (BEAT) Well? (BEAT) What the hell do I pay you people for. Find it!
SOUND: FLURRY OF ACTIVITY.
Chapter 20 – Grammar
Since Aristotle largely treats of Ancient Greek grammar (and I have written a series of five articles on English grammar) I am not going to deal with this subject here.
Chapter 21 – Words
In this chapter, Aristotle explores the types of words used to express a play. He argues for a general reliance on commonly used words that will allow the meaning of the play to be accessible to the greatest number of people in the audience (more on this in the next chapter).
He also spends some time classifying different ways in which words can be used to paint pictures in the the mind of an audience; in particular through what he refers to as metaphor. This discussion is not, strictly speaking, about metaphors as we would understand them (at least at first). The discussion seems to have more in common with our idea of analogy expressed as a kind of (mathematical) set theory.
The relevance of these classifications to the modern writer are a little hard to fathom, but for the sake of completeness, here’s a quick rundown of how Aristotle sees them.
If I say “my ship lies at anchor”, I am employing an instance “lies at anchor” of a greater set of “things which lie still”.
If I say “there lies my ship”, I am employing the greater set of “things which lie still” to describe the specific instance of “lying at anchor”.
If I say “the sword clove the air and separated his head from his body” I am using two specific instances (“cleaving” and “separating”) of the greater set of “things which are split”.
When Aristotle moves on to discuss the impact of metaphor, his advice becomes more practical in nature.
Concepts can also be related to one another through analogy even in apparant contradiction. “A cup of alcohol is the shield of a drunkard. A shield is the cup of a warrior”. The apparent falsehood of the analogy forces the audience member to think and come to see a new meaning. Alcohol makes the drinker dull to pain, in a way, acting as a shield. Arms and armor are intoxicating and exciting to the warrior, in a way, acting as a cup.
In English, metaphor refers to analogies where one thing is identified with another (“he is a fox”) and simile refers to analogies where on thing likened to another (“he is like a fox”).
Whether in the form of a simile or a metaphor, an analogy creates interest for the audience and paints a picture in the mind that can be invaluable in communicating ideas (particularly abstract ideas) through drama.
SIR DAVIS: The honorable member has her snout in every opportunity for graft that our community presents.
WALTER: When Marcus goes to his dance class he looks like a hippo in a leotard.
Artistotle spends some time talking about new words also. These are words invented to help the author communicate his/her thought. It is often stated that Shakespeare invented some 1700 words. This is actually a bit of a myth, since what is true is that he is the first recorded user of 1700 words that had previously not appeared in print. That said, he did, in fact, invent at least 420 words of his own. He would conjoin words, change verbs into adjectives, use nouns as verbs, add prefixes to words, add suffixes to words, and shorten words. Authors and dramatists have always done this. The science fiction writer, William Gibson has invented words such as “channel-zap” and “neuromancy” as a shorthand to express ideas that were otherwise difficult or clumsy to communicate. The important thing to remember about introducing a new words is that it is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, but the context must make the meaning clear. Otherwise confusion results.
Chapter 22 – Style
In chapter 22, Aristotle deals with style. His preference is for “startling simplicity”. He argues in favor of using simple, familiar words, but warns against using them in a conventional (and cliche) way. He warns against jargon and employing common phrases that are so familiar they slide past us without really entering our minds. Phrases such as “at the end of the day…” have become so worn out by use in our own time that they can be dropped altogether without harming a piece of dialog in any way. Instead, Aristotle suggests that simple language be used to create attention grabbing phrases (without, of course, drawing unnecessary attention to themselves). A writer wants the attention of the audience, but does not want the audience to focus that attention on the words themselves. It is a fine line to walk and, as discussed above, he suggests metaphor is the best way to be startling while being simple.
BOB: I walked in on Steve and his girlfriend this afternoon. You never really notice how much kissing sounds like a cow pulling it’s foot out of the mud until you’re forced to listen to a pair of teenagers going for it in the next room.
Complex, large, and rare words are not to be rejected altogether, of course. They are still useful for characterization. Shakespeare would commonly put large and rare words, wrongly applied, into the mouths of characters he wished to suggest were ridiculous, pompous, or ignorant.
ELSIE: One day I want to be effluent, mom.
MOTHER: I think you mean affluent, darling.
ELSIE: Yeah. That’s what I said.
Chapter 23 – Drama vs. History
Aristotle uses chapter 23 to discuss the differences between a series of events being recounted (such as a history) and a dramatic work. Historical happenings are not necessarily connected. The real world is like that. I might do a dozen unconnected things in any given day. A history of my day, however true or accurate, would not be a good subject for drama.
Drama presents a series of unified events with a beginning, middle, and end that tend to be connected causally and feel unified (around a theme or character goal).
For Aristotle this is a matter of selection and exclusion. He advises us to only select what is essential to the telling of the story and exclude all else.
With regard to the connections between events that form a story and provide a story with unity, I imagine he would likely have approved of Matt Stone and Trey Parker’s oft-quoted advice that story episodes should avoid being connected by “and then” but instead be made up of connections such as “but”, “so”, “therefore”, and occasionally “meanwhile”.
Chapter 24 – The Epic
In chapter 24, Aristotle turns his attention to the epic. In our own time, the epic is best thought of as a series. Series’ come in several types; the episodic series, the anthology series, and the serial. At present we are living in a golden age of serial story telling, but the other forms are still alive and kicking.
The episodic series concerns itself with a telling a single story in each episode with all plot lines resolved by the time the credits are reached. It is unified by the presence of recurring characters around whom each episode concentrates.
An anthology series tells stories that are self-contained yet unconnected. Presenting different characters, locations, and events in each episode. Anthologies tend to be unified around a particular theme (tales with a twist, tales of adventure, ghost stories, science fiction stories, etc.)
The serial follows a particular set of characters through numerous connected episodes that, like the tragedy, unfold as a single large tale. This larger scale of the epic allows greater development of character and and a broader exploration of incident, but in most other regards, must follow the same rules that apply to all other drama. It must be unified. It must have a beginning, middle, and end. It must be populated with characters who we can identify with. It must involve turns of fortune that are believable and engage our emotions.
The main distinction of the epic (or serial in modern terms) is that it can achieve a grandeur as a result of its scale that is often out of reach in the stand alone play.
Having discussed the value of long-form story-telling, Aristotle takes a slight digression to discuss how believability is achieved in drama. He suggests that probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities. What this means is that an impossibility that has the appearance of believability is more convincing than something that could really happen but doesn’t seem likely.
We will happily accept a talking cat in a story if the cat demonstrates a consistent and realistic character, far more readily than we would someone winning twenty consecutive games at the roulette wheel. While a talking cat is impossible, it feels believable if all other elements are grounded. Barring some manner of plausible explanation for the unusual coincidence (cheating, or magic, etc.), the random winning of 20 spins of the roulette wheel (while technically possible) is not plausible and will not easily be believed by an audience.
Chapter 25 – Imitation
In this chapter, Aristotle takes critics to task. He suggests that legitimate criticism consists in a critical examination of story structure (a kind of late justification for his own writing) and not in a criticism of factual errors. As was noted at the beginning of this series, Aristotle views art is imitation. The dramatist imitates life as it is or was, as we imagine it to be, or as it should be. He allows for the fantastical far less than we do today, but permits it if, in doing so, we are given insight into the reality of living (through the awakening and purging of emotion). For this reason he considers a play failed if it doesn’t present a turn, a recognition, a reversal, a sense of unity, properly motivated action, etc. He does not however, judge the work faulty because the writer made an error of fact (mis-labeling a medical condition for example).
He also takes aim at, what could best be described as, bad-faith criticism. Picking on a character’s speech because of faulty yet realistic grammar, deliberately not recognizing or understanding the purpose of a metaphor, writing a heroic adventure when the critic prefers a romance, etc.
The legitimate targets of criticism in Artistotle’s view are things which are impossible, irrational, morally harmful, contradictory, or poorly expressed.
Each of these are important to the writer of audio drama to a greater or lesser degree. Impossibility, irrationality, and contradiction all contribute directly to a failure in believability. Even the most fantastical of tales must be believable in this sense. Unmotivated or ridiculous actions (the irrational) and elements of the impossible that have not been established as a consistent part of the world will destroy believability and writers must strive to present the unbelievable in a well established and consistent framework in which actions and reactions are clearly motivated. Where contradictions exist, the audience will become confused. We don’t want our audience asking how could Jim be breaking into the bank’s vault at mid-day while sitting having lunch with his sister in the next scene at the same time.
We are not nearly as concerned today with drama as a means of moral education, but the moral impact of a work remains a matter of significant interest in our world and authors need to be aware of this dimension of writing and take responsibility for their choices.
Of all these matters, the primary concern of the audio dramatist is expression. Is the story clear? Do the characters feel real? Is the structure satisfying? Does the dialog and action elicit emotion? Does the story feel unified?
Chapter 26 – What is best?
In this final chapter of his Poetics, Aristotle explains his view regarding which storytelling form is best (tragedy or epic). He comes firmly down on the side of tragedy, feeling that the greater efficiency and selectivity of the tragedy makes it superior to the epic.
He dispenses with the idea that the acting of a play can be used to judge its worth, arguing that performance is completely in the hands of the actor. It is easy to agree with this, in part. A bad performance says little, logically, about the quality of the play (though it is hard not to judge the play negatively when badly performed). However, a good performance can create a positive impression about an otherwise sub-standard story.
For this reason alone, finding decent actors for a play is important.
The power of a play is present, fundamentally, on the page. If it is badly written, structured, and expressed, a play will never be more than mediocre. The success or otherwise of the play, ultimately, depends upon the writer and it is the writer’s responsibility to understand to the best of his/her ability the craft of storytelling in all its technical and aesthetic detail.
And there it is, an exploration of Aristotle’s Poetics applied to audio drama as best as I can manage it. All in all, I think it was worth the time it has taken. I can see the value that modern dramatists such as Aaron Sorkin and David Mamet find in it, though I don’t think it is terribly accessible to the modern reader. I hope by working through it in this way, I might make it a bit more comprehensible to myself and others.
Copyright Philip Craig Robotham © 2021 .
