I think what Aristotle means here is actually the goal of the main character and the sequence of actions. In the German translation, it says MYTH instead of plot. Could this mean what we consider genre writing today? Genre actually represents the plot of a story. In this sense, plot is much more important than character, because it comes first. You will always have to find a frame for your content. You need to establish boundaries, a confinement for you characters in which they can grow and blossom. For example, John Truby categorizes genres by the desire of the main character. Just check if you agree with those: 1. Myth (Desire: to go on a journey that ultimately leads to oneself) 2. Action (Desire: to engage in battle) 3. Love (Desire: to find love) 4. Crime (Desire: to catch a criminal) 5. Detective (Desire: to find the truth) 6. Thriller (Desire: to find the truth while escaping attack) 7. Horror (Desire: to defeat a monster) 8. Fantasy (Desire: to explore an imaginary world) 9. Science-Fiction (Desire: to deal with the tools of an imaginary world) I think that's what Aristotle means with plot being more important. He basically says that the beginning, middle and end - the SEQUENCE of the events - is more important than the characters.

Aristotle (cerca: 330 BC): The tragedies of most of our modern poets fail in the rendering of character; and of poets in general this is often true. Scott Myers (2013 AD): There is way too much focus on screenplay structure, and not enough focus on developing characters. So both Aristotle and Scott seem to be on the same page in their lamentation about weak characterization. And for Aristotle, the remedy for weak characterization is... Jung's typology, Freud's unconscious, Maslow's heirarchy of needs--- But, of course, none of those paradigms existed in his day. For Aristotle, the only definition of character was to be found in the choices people made. People can talk the talk -- but talk is cheap, can be deceitful or delusional. Ultimately,what really reveals and defines character is whether they walk the walk -- the choices they make. Consequently,my personal takeaway from reading Aristotle is that that the sum total of all character choices is the essential raw material for a plot. Sufficient by itself for a good plot? No, the choices need to be molded and causally concatenated [mimesis] by the discipline of structure and pacing. My personal perspective is that plot and character constitute a dynamic Tao -- a yin & yang in perpetual give and take. It seems to me that Aristotle's emphasis on plot reflects his perceptive -- but limited -- knowledge of human nature 23 centuries ago -- and the constraints and limitations of the theater of his day (No CGI!)

Wow, pgronk, that really helps me in my understanding: "the sum total of all character choices is the essential raw material for a plot." And that speaks to Aristotle's emphasis on "incidents" and "action," doesn't it? This series has been a wonderful experience. There is nothing quite like digging into primary source material and meeting the ideas head on. This goes for screenplays, too, one of the many reasons I extol the virtue of that exercise. Anyhow thanks much for accompanying us on this journey. Much to come as I imagine this series will pretty much take up the whole year.

Sven, I appreciate your interpretation, and I don't believe there is any 'right' or 'wrong' about any of this stuff, each of us as writers has to figure out on own way into and through all the ideas and theories we intersect with. But I'm just not prepared to go to this: "Genre actually represents the plot of a story. In this sense, plot is much more important than character, because it comes first. You will always have to find a frame for your content. You need to establish boundaries, a confinement for you characters in which they can grow and blossom." In some cases, this may very well be the case. A writer may say, "Wow, I want to write a heist movie," and so their inspiration for the setting and characters arise from that. Okay, so in that situation, perhaps you could say that plot took primacy over characters, at least in terms of its origination. But what of stories where it begins with characters, genre as yet not revealed? Or even if the genre IS revealed, it still comes after the characters? Is the plot STILL more "important"? And what if a writer starts with theme? Or an image? Or a scene? Plus in all that, we're talking about the origination of the story. In terms of its development, my guess is every writer does that wonderful little dance, bouncing back and forth between plotting and character work, each informing the other. As pgronk said in his comments: "My personal perspective is that plot and character constitute a dynamic Tao — a yin & yang in perpetual give and take." That feels right to me. Now I will grant you this - and this is where I think of all narrative forms, perhaps screenplays come closest to the traditional perception of Aristotle, that Plot is the first principle: Movies are the foundation to make a movie. I dislike the term 'blueprint,' but in some ways that is an accurate description of a script's role in the production of a film. And in that sense, its structure is absolutely critical. Hence when William Goldman says, "Screenplays are structure," I think we can all grasp the relevance of that comment. My concern is HOW WE GET THERE. At the risk of beating a virtual dead horse, after reading literally thousands of scripts in my life, I think there is direct correlation between formulaic writing and screenplay formulas. You may have a perfectly crafted a script where every plot point lands precisely where it's supposed per conventional wisdom or whatever screenwriting guru's paradigm you subscribe to, but if it has no LIFE, no VITALITY, no SURPRISES, it's not a good script. And where does LIFE and VITALITY and SURPRISES come from? CHARACTERS!!! Yes, as evidenced through events and occurrences in the Plot, but precipitated and actuated BY the characters. Hence my refusal to yield on this point: It all starts with character and ends with character. And I don't see that as diminishing Plot because in my view Character = Plot. Their backgrounds and psyches intersecting with the structure of the story universe, events lead to choices, choices lead to actions, actions lead to events, and the cycle weaves through the narrative in a wonderful tapestry... at least in theory! So yet another diatribe on this point. Why do I keep hammering on this point? I guess because I'm an old fart who is weary of too many movies being exercises in soulless visual and audio masturbation, shit blowing up with little to no discernable emotional meaning. Whereas if the filmmakers had taken time to live with and immerse themselves in characters, they may have opened up the story to so many more points of human connection and resonance. Re Truby's list: If it helps you or others, great. I would just say to relegate "to go on a journey that ultimately leads to oneself" to myth as a single genre isn't helpful to me at all because virtually ALL stories are about self-identity (as worked out primarily through the Protagonist) at some level, grappling with this fundamental question: Who am I? I mean that's one of Joseph Campbell's point about the Hero's Journey: "Become who you are," the ultimate reason for ANY story is to put the Protagonist on a journey of self-discovery. Anyhow thanks for you comments. Always invigorating to contemplate. Again no right or wrong, all of us just swimming in the roiling waters of creativity, trying to find our way to shore, from FADE IN to FADE OUT.

No worries, Scott. There are as many approaches as there are writers. There are also as many beliefs as there are believers and I agree there's no wrong way to go about it. In my education, I learned nothing about the popular genres whatsoever. At my school we studied the art of Drama and the art of Myth, always beginning by developing characters first. When you are going to the cinema though, are you asking yourself what kind of character you want to see? Or are you asking yourself: Am I the mood for Science-Fiction, Horror or Romantic Comedy today? It's the sugar coating that most people are interested in. Of course, nowadays you need to combine at least two genres to make your story appear fresh, otherwise the audience will be able to predict the plot points and you will bore them to tears (At least in cinema - German TV is all about mediocre love and detective stories). Myth is the oldest form that can be found all around the world - Joseph Campbell proved that a long time ago - so you will probably find elements of that in a lot of modern movies for the single reason that people recognize the character journey. You can only surprise someone if he's expecting something else. When I finished my logline I'm always looking for the genres that I can mine to develop the idea into a screenplay. There will already be vague ideas about character and plot in my head. What I'm interested in is to find the spine of my story. In that frame, I can create anything and I can even break it later if that's cool. In the crime genre for example, it's clear that you need a criminal, a cop (or another form of law enforcer), a crime, a battle and a resolution. The desire of the cop is to catch the criminal. You can add whatever you want to that. Combine it with the myth form for example (make it a journey for the cop OR the criminal to discover himself along the way - depending on who's the main character) and you probably get a superhero movie. Now it's your job to come up with the characters. That's hardly what I call a limiting paradigma.

Scott: I wholeheartedly subscribe to your diatribe against formulaic screenwriting and cardboard characterization. And yet Aristotle's antidote to the latter seems to be plotting. Specifically, as noted in the latest excerpt from "The Poetics, plotting that incorporates "the most powerful elements of emotional interest in Tragedy -- Peripetia or Reveral of the Situation, and Recognition scenes." Is he right? Is that sufficient? Or is there more to it? "The plot is a conspiracy against the protagonist" -- the single best definition I have ever read of what a plot is supposed to be. So, my own inquiry into Aristotle has been a quest for a good "conspiracy theory". Thank you for the opportunity to take this quest through "The Poetics". Looking forward to getting lost, trapped in insolvable predicaments, doing battle (civilly) with opposing ideas and opinions, emerging at the end with fresh discoveries and, perchance, a peripety.

Apologies for being such a laggard this week (my excuse is that I've been away actually writing). This section seems to me to be the real meat of what we struggle with as story writers. I was struck by Aristotle's comment that "novices in the art attain to finish of diction and the precision of portraiture before they can construct the plot." This reminded me of what some of my instructors used to growl at us back when I was working on an MFA in fiction - that it didn't matter how "pretty" our writing was, or how quirky and interesting the characters, there still had to be a coherent plot, or we didn't have a worthwhile story - that is, those quirky characters had to DO something, make choices, act, and react, to make the story work. But as you point out, Scott, if there's only plot, with no fully developed, fleshed-out characters, the story quickly devolves into nothing but soulless, masturbatory spectacle (I'm so with you on being weary of watching shit blow up; and if I want to see tits, I can just look down. . .). Thank you so much for leading us on this quest, Scott - it's far less intimidating to tackle this work in such wise company, and I look forward to studying and learning much more.