Appearantly, Aristotle's definition of catharsis has been the subject of a millenium long debate. In the book "Grenzen der Katharsis in den Modernen Künsten" (English: Limits of Catharsis in the modern arts) by Martin Vöhler und Dirck Linck I found the four most accepted theories: 1. Catharsis as a refining of emotions: An emotional “purificatio” in quantity or quality. It claims theatre as a moral institution. (agents of this theory: Vettori, Piccolimini, Daniel Heinsius, Lessing) 2. Catharsis as a removal of emotions: An emotional “purgatio”, a relief of the emotions that have built up during the experience of the tragedy. It claims theatre as a therapeutic institution (agents of this theory: Minturno, Milton, Bernays, Schadewaldt). 3. Catharsis as a “clarification”: An intellectual clarification of the tragic events that the reviewer recognizes as significant and universal for the human existence (agents of this theory (Butcher, Golden). 4. Catharsis as an intellectual “purification: As a purification of tragic events by the demonstration that the hero is innocent and his actions are not detestable (agent of this theory: Gerald Else). Which theory do you prefer? #6 seems to be the distinction between dialogue, action sequence, montage and "I want song". :D

Wow. I think that need for the dual dynamic, as you've elegantly summarized it, to balance distance with identification, also goes a long way to explain why the writing of such stories is so hard! And might the type and intensity of the audience's catharsis be related to/dependent upon the scale of magnitude of each story's tragedy? In #6, it sseemed to me that the language he defines is what we might call stage speech - even when the actors are ostensibly using "everyday" language, they actually are practicing an elevated style that helps them convey the characters' meanings and reveal their character. And the use of song, as pertains to filmmaking, made me think of the way good scores heighten emotional intensity (the "Jaws" theme still makes my stomach clench every time I hear it!). Reading this section earlier this week, it struck me that Death gave us Story in the same way that Wallace Stevens said it is the mother of Beauty - because once our species became sentient, we craved a way to understand Death and explain it to ourselves. Our human knowledge and fear of death runs like a deep, unspoken current through every story we tell, and the best stories lift it up into the light so we can examine it despite our fear. "Ransom" is a great example of this deepest fear; beneath the parents' fear of kidnapping lies that deeper, darker primal one: the unimaginable agony of fear that the child might die before the parent... Scott, thank you so much for setting up this discussion - not sure I'd have been bold enough to undertake this study on my own!

Sven, thanks for those definitions. Speaking strictly from a writing perspective, I'd like to have ALL of those available to me as I generally want my stories to have multiple layers of possible meaning and interpretation. Plus each character may have a different type of catharsis, as well as each story may focus on one type or another. I don't like rules. I like ideas. Concepts. Possibilities. Metaphors. Things that open up the creative process rather than restrict it or, heaven forbid, lead to formulaic writing. So when Aristotle or anybody for that matter starts talking about definitions, great, but as long as we use them to increase our understanding and not shrink creative possibilities.

Melanie, I know, right? I mean as I was working through this idea of the relationship between "imitation" and "purgation," I achieved a clarity about a dynamic I had known for years and taught in a variety of ways as well, but not in such a clean fashion. In some ways, it is akin to the writing experience of inside-out writing and outside-in writing, those two perspectives we take as we develop and write a story, sometimes WITHIN the story universe, rubbing shoulders with our characters, striving to get inside them and see what comes out, then other times OUTSIDE the story universe, assaying things as the writer, using that perspective to nudge the plot, characters, etc. The latter -- outside-in -- would be parallel to "imitation," as we are crafting a story from a distance to the 'reality' of the story universe. The former -- inside-out -- would be parallel to "purgation," as we are immersing ourselves in the emotional and psychological aspects of our characters' lives. At moments like this, when revelations emerges, I must say I almost enjoy being a STUDENT of writing as much as the actual act and process of writing.

So stipulated that Aristotle's notion of catharsis is the most intensely debated idea in the Poetics. It's a concept that has created and sustained a thriving cottage industry of academic study. In regards to the example of "Ransom", I would point out that the movie is not a tragedy. So does the notion of catharsis still apply? Well, maybe not in the sense Aristotle may have had in mind, but I think that audiences can and do experience a strong, meaningful cathartic effect in non-tragic movies. And I suspect the cathartic affect arises from the audience being able to vicariously experience through the action a satisfactory consummation and resolution of the tension created by the dramatic problem. A consummation and resolution they rarely get to experience in real life. How many parents of kidnapped children have their children returned unharmed AND also get to take control of the situation so that they are able to PERSONALLY mete out some kind of justice? Ditto with any other problem or crisis. How many of us ever get to experience directly the kind of consummation and resolution to life's problems the way we can vicariously experience them through film? It's more complicated than that. But that, I submit, is one aspect.

Sure thing, Scott! It was just interesting to me, what Aristotle meant by his definition. In light of everything we found in this ancient text so far, what do you think Aristotle's own concept of catharsis was? It's true that as writers we have every single one of those concepts (and more) at our disposal. While storytelling has evolved a lot since the times of ancient Greek philosophers, audiences probably haven't. Therefore, I'm leaning towards the therapeutic explanation. People want to be entertained. This was true thousands of years ago and it's true now. People want to experience strong characters, feel empathy and horror and be cleansed of those feelings in the end, when the story is resolved. Of course they might want to grasp a story intellectually or experience a moral vision, but for me that comes on top of this basic principle. The most important thing is to make the audience feel with your characters.

I just watched Captain Phillips and thought the ending was the perfect example of catharsis. And thinking about it, First Blood might be a great example too.