He also seems to be beginning to draw a distinction between high art and low art, just as we now distinguish between highbrow and lowbrow (and middlebrow) works, while acknowledging that each style serves to reflect a society's values back to itself. (Thanks for leading this discussion & opening it for comments - so cool!)

For some reason when I read Aristotle's statement, "... it follows that we must represent men either as better than in real life, or as worse, or as they are." I was thinking in terms of theme of story, not the various characters within the story. So, thanks for clarifying that for me in your *Types insight/comments.

Hey Scott, I'm not sure that Aristotle actually meant to distinguish between good and bad with his remark about moral differences. I'm reading the German translation of Aristotle and there's a line stating that while comedy is the imitation of worse people, that's not meant in regards to all kind of "badness", only in the respect that the ridiculous becomes part of their ugliness. He says the ridiculous is an error that doesn't cause pain and unhappiness. On the other hand, characters in a tragedy are often of godly descent, impeccable on the outside, but with a tragic flaw that ruins their lives. Do you think "noble" can be read as the social status a character represents?

>>"for Comedy aims at representing men as worse, Tragedy as better than in actual life." This seems counterintuitive. Not if one considers "as worse" to be the starting point of the character arc in comedy and "as better" to be the starting point for the character arc in tragedy. During the course of the play, the character undergoes peripety, a reversal of moral intention through (at long last) an epiphany. In comedy, the arc is from a worse (than average) person to a better one; in tragedy from a better (than average) person to a worse one.

>>the Tragic Hero who suffers in part as a result of his/her moral rectitude I.E: Hubris. Which has come to be understood in terms of pride, arrogance. But in classical times, the term meant "excess, an attitude or action in extreme (negative or positive)." [The Greek ideal was sosphrosyne, moderation.] Too much of a good thing could lead to the ruination of a valiant or virtuous character such as Achilles in Homer's Iliad or a ironic catastrophe as was Oedipus' fate.

I tried to do something for myself with this Good\Bad notion. I immediately remembered “Ajax”. It starts with delusion of Protagonist, then his realization, and finally tragic consequences (his suicide). And I believe the text never meant to be funny because it deals with hero’s morale towards Good. For example, if there was no his ‘noble’ decision (however immoral especially for ancient Greek suicide was), it would be meant some kind of cowardice, and thus different kind of resolution might be needed. But in ‘noble’ (or ‘true’) tone of Morale to given situation the resolution to that amount of shame is sufficient. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajax_(Sophocles) I think at this time it really would be interesting to look at those ancient screenplays : )))))) Just to check what’s ‘noble’ can be. I think it stands for inclination towards Life (Morale) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_Greek_playwrights Most of the survival texts has comprehensive piece of plot, for quick read.

Aristotle considers a poet as a composer of life who can imitate reality or go beyond reality and therefore sees this a higher form of art than painting. For a screenwriter this means she can make different kinds of interesting worlds, ignoring the existing reality and make it more interesting, challenging.

Good points, Sven. Makes me think I should bust out a Greek edition of "Poetics". I studied classical Greek at Yale for two years, admittedly a long time ago, so I'm more than rusty. But can certainly drill down into specific word usage. Yet another thing to add to the to do list...

The Greek: ??????????. And I assume that reversal may represent an EXTERNAL change in terms of a character's circumstances [e.g., from poverty to wealth or vice versa], but also INTERNAL change in terms of their perception and self-understanding. This would also presume some sort of growing awareness and possibly a moment of revelation or discovery, driven [again] by and EXTERNAL event or INTERNAL revelation, each of which we, as screenwriters, would consider a plot point. And all of it speaks to the idea of metamorphosis. Interesting that Aristotle typifies it as a reversal. That really drives home a key point: Whatever the end point of a character's narrative destiny, their beginning ought to be just about as far away from it, both physically and psychologically, as possible. Thanks, pgronk. So glad we're doing this series!

That's interesting. I jump to Jung with this and his notion of "wholeness" as a goal toward which the process of individuation aspires [although we never reach it]. There is an assumed sense of balance as an ideal whereby the individual has become aware of, understood and in some way embraced all aspects of their psyche. And THAT leads me to the idea of "homeostasis," which also refers to a sense of balance and by implication moderation. Yet ironically in contemporary screenwriting, while balance, wholeness, moderation may be a Protagonist's psychological end point, a narrative's drama almost inevitably takes them through a massive experience of imbalance, or extremes, both negative and positive. How else for a character to have that experience of peripety, such a dramatic reversal unless circumstance upend the status quo? All very interesting...

Per your observations, Roman, I wonder if we, as contemporary writers, may understand the idea of nobility - in terms of story - to be the willingness of the Hero to go on their Journey? Reluctant or willing, by responding to the Call and following their Destiny, that is in itself a noble pursuit, yes? This series may lead us all down a rabbit hole toward ancient Greece!

14Shari, there you go. There is reality: facts, figures, objects, experiences, etc. But the aesthetic truth exists in the eye of the writer, assembling a take on reality that goes below the surface to underlying realities. Reminds me of a quote from Catherine Drinker Bowen: "The writer experiences everything twice. Once in reality, once in a mirror which waits always before or behind.”

>> balance as an ideal whereby the individual has become aware of, understood and in some way embraced all aspects of their psyche. Which is not the case at the start of a movie. The good-guy protagonist is usually repressing, in denial of his shadow -- the not-so-nice, socially unacceptable, consciously abhorrent aspects of his own personality. This is often dramatically expressed in an Act 1 moment where the character emphatically says he would NEVER do something. Or that he will ALWAYS do something. Never and always point to something in the shadow that he can't or doesn't want to realize about himself. And sure enough by the beginning of Act 3, what he says he would NEVER do -- he's done. Or what he said he would ALWAYS do -- he fails to do. Then, hopefully, there is the moment of recognition of that shadow aspect, the beginning of wisdom, the path to wholeness-- and a happy resolution of the plot. Except in tragedies. Like "The Godfather". In Act 1 of "The Godfather", after Michael tells Kay how his father made the bandleader an offer he couldn't refuse he says: "That's my family... it's not me." But by the end of the movie that is exactly who he is. (And lying to Kay about what he has become.)