Given Aristotle's definition of thought, he seems to be distinguishing between having a character give a speech, which does not reveal an individual agent's thought as a manifestation of moral character (though it may serve to advance the plot somehow), and having characters speak dialogue (or monologue) which does reveal thought as moral character or ideals. This passage made me think, once again, of how Shakespeare has Hamlet reveal an existential moral conflict as well as his own moral character in his agonized "to be or not to be" monologue (and now I also wonder if Shakespeare maybe lifted that line straight from Aristotle); by contrast, how Shakespeare has Polonius reveal a shallow level of moral character with his "advice" to Laertes, almost a canned speech which consists mostly of regurgitated, shopworn platitudes reflecting conventional, often hypocritical public standards, rather than any hard-won, genuine moral wisdom he wants to share with his son. From a screenwriter's perspective, Scott, I'd also be curious to know how you think this passage might apply and reflect on the need and desire, in modern works, for subtext to reveal thought and character, rather than surface speech or dialogue that is too "on-the-nose" in stating the individual's needs, desires, intentions, or the themes of the story? Thanks!

I'm obviously not an Aristotelian scholar, but it was interesting reading this on the heels of reading a review of Woody Allen's Blue Jasmine. As usual, the new film is filled with more dialogue than most of us can get away with, and I wonder if it's because it's all based on thought, as defined by Aristotle, rather than backstory or exposition. I'd be interested in the question Melanie McDonald has posed as well. Right now I'm thinking a character's thoughts would be revealed through dialogue but the (perhaps conflicting) subtext would be revealed through action. Actually, it would probably be the other way around. We're pretty good liars with our thoughts and words but our gestures, expressions, eye movements, and actions often betray us. Hmm, a character's body in conflict with their speech. That's something to play with.

What is the difference between Theme and the Controlling Idea? Between Theme and the Moral Premise? "Theme" appears to me be a shapeshifter notion. What it means seems to depend on who you read. Whatever it is, I think Theme (aka: Thought) tap into archetypes and myths (as in Campbell's 'Hero's Journey'). Consequently, the audience's interpretation of the Theme or Thought of a drama is subjective, depending on what notes the story plays on the keyboards of their own internal "band" of archetypes and myths. I also wonder if a "Thought-full" drama is one that takes a cue from Hegel's great contribution to the discussion of Greek tragedy specifically, and drama generally. Hegel concluded that at heart of many tragedies was not a tragic hero stumbling over a "tragic flaw", but rather a tragic collision of competing interests and moral principles. Consequently, tragic conflict did not always involve a battle of good versus evil, virtue versus vice. Rather it involved a clash of one-sided principles, each embodying some good, each equally valid, each inseparable from the other. (Shades of his dialectic [Occidental mode] or Tao [Oriental mode].) Applied to modern screenwriting, it seems to me that Hegel's insight suggests that a "Thought-full" story is one that is a "fair" fight in terms of the principles at stake. The protagonist doesn't have a monopoly on all the winning arguments, the best intentions, the noblest motives; the antagonist is more than a mere foil. Aristotle prescribed unity of action for the plot -- but did he prescribe unity of thought for a character? So perhaps Hegel's insight could be extended to a character being trapped in a genuine internal dilemma of clashing interests and principles. His conscience may damn him if he does -- and equally damn him if he doesn't. But, dammit, he must choose.

Just a general observation after reading through the comments: Thank you! This is stimulating 'stuff,' indeed. I know I've said as much previously, but I so glad I followed my gut and started this series as it is turning into one of my favorite from the standpoint of learning. Let me wade into your comments and see what emerges. But again, thanks for those who are participating in this series.

P.S. If Aristotle's list of the 6 parts of drama reflects his hierarchy of importance, then it is worth noting that he ranks Thought ahead of Spectacle which he ranks last. "The Spectacle has, indeed, an emotional attraction of its own, but, of all the parts, it is the least artistic and connected least to the art of poetry." A "Thought" for studio suits to ponder as they write off hundreds of millions of dollars of CGI-eye candy this year.

pgronk, you're stealing my thunder for 2 weeks from now (next week Diction and Song) as I'm going to make precisely the same point. File that under Great Minds Think Alike!

Melanie, subtext is certainly a major subject in any context in which screenwriting is discussed. It's also one of those buzz words that creative execs use a lot because it's something they can easily recommend, able to identify on the nose dialogue. In fact, no less than William Goldman, arguably the dean of contemporary American screenwriters, lists it in his Ten Commandments of Writing which you can read here. This is #9: "Thou shalt not write on the nose – put a subtext under every text." I'm actually planning another Core class precisely about subtext as I think it's so important, but often all we see is the prescription to write subtext, but little to no advice on HOW to do it. One thing that arises from Aristotle's discussion of Thought in today's excerpt raises two points [at least] two points relative to subtext: * The distinction he draws between "character" and "speeches," as you note suggests that a Personal Agent [what we would call a Character] has a CHOICE as to whether to convey moral purpose. So at one level, a Personal Agent has a choice whether to engage in subtext or not. * But "showing what kind of things a man chooses or avoids" suggests that moral purpose can also be conveyed through dialogue without a specific INTENTION on the part of a Personal Agent. And I believe that for most people, this is how we find ourselves engaging in subtext. Our words get caught up in the maelstrom of stuff going on in our Inner World -- impulses, thoughts, images, memories, feelings, desires, goals, fears -- so that subtext emerges not directly through choice, but indirectly without conscious oversight. Now this is a different phenomenon in a script because dialogue is conversation with a purpose, so either a character is CONSCIOUSLY speaking with subtext or UNCONSCIOUSLY conveying subtext. Per the latter, sometimes that derives from the magic of engaging our characters in a relationship and seeing what flows from their mouths. Or as we stand outside the story universe, we may stumble on a great line replete with subtext and we know it just fits the character and the moment. So per today's reading, I think it is fair to look at the idea of Speech, as articulated by Aristotle, as being related to on-the-nose dialogue, as you suggest. And Thought more in the domain of subtext. Yet another interesting way to think of the subject, yes? And more fodder for my Subtext course!

Thank you, Scott - now I'm intrigued by the idea of a character conveying subtext without realizing it consciously. . .and the Goldman list is awesome. Printing that out to stick over my desk!