[…] A well-constructed plot should, therefore, be single in its issue, rather than double as some maintain. The change of fortune should be not from bad to good, but, reversely, from good to bad. It should come about as the result not of vice, but of some great error or frailty, in a character either such as we have described, or better rather than worse. The practice of the stage bears out our view. At first the poets recounted any legend that came in their way. Now, the best tragedies are founded on the story of a few houses- on the fortunes of Alcmaeon, Oedipus, Orestes, Meleager, …read more […]

So Aristotle seems to be saying that while comedy (which he considered lesser, "second-tier" entertainment) might have complex, convoluted plots, the best tragedy always will have a plot or throughline as pure and straight as the arc of an arrow, the better to strike home hard into the heart of the audience? And I like what you said, Scott, about how that second paragraph may be a nascent attempt to distinguish between art and commerce - perhaps between writing as attempt to reveal the ideal Platonic form of the work vs. writing to please the audience? (And reading this section after hearing today of Doris Lessing's death, I remembered the first time I read her short story, "To Room Nineteen," and the horror it invoked - not because I didn't understand it, but because I did. . .)

>>>A well-constructed plot should,therefore, be single in its issue. I take "single in its issue" to mean that a play should answer one dramatic question, focus on one theme. (The general, if not the the iron-clad rule today?) >>>The change of fortune should be… from good to bad. The difference today is that as most screenplays are not tragedies, the reversals are from good to bad... to good again by the end of the drama. The general principle of dramatic reversal of fortune still pertains. >> It should come about as the result… of some great error or frailty. The ancient Greek notion of harmartia is not congruent with our modern notion of the character flaw for reasons previously cited. And because we internalize what the ancient Greeks externalized. That is, if a character went mad in a Greek tragedy, it was the fault of the gods---they drove him mad. Whereas today, if a character goes mad, it is because of some inner conflict or intrapsychic wound or biochemical imbalance or cognitive dysfunction. >>>Anything less than these three dynamics in a play and presumably it would fall short of a “well-constructed plot.” For a tragedy to be acted in the venue (and time constraints) of the Dionysian religious festival. And in order to evoke the desired emotional response: fear and pity. But as has been previously noted, these dicta have been honored as much in the breach as in the observance in the surviving plays by the Big 3 of Greek tragedy. Of course, structure remains important. But there are more parts to a "well-constructed" screenplay plot these days because there are (usually) more characters, more settings, more music, more props and special effects--more of just about everything. Ari's complex plot seems to have gotten more complicated.

I think the most important point buried in these two paragraphs is the notion of Tragedy as having it’s own pleasurable affect because of its ability to create catharsis in the spectator (through pity and terror). Not exactly helpful that Aristotle begins by distinguishing between the single and double plot without adequately explaining what these are. I found a useful explanation in the Richard Janko translation: “A single plot ends with everyone in the same state of good or ill fortune; a double one ends well for the good and badly for the bad, like the “poetic justice” seen at the end of the Odyssey [the evil suitors are killed and Odysseus and his adherents triumph]. Aristotle disfavors this type because it satisfies our moral sense, but does not arouse pity and terror.” In other words, unlike in the Odyssey, which is an epic poem, a Tragedy’s purpose is to evoke pity and terror and, to achieve that, it should have only one change of fortune, which should be from good to bad, on the part of a character who has committed an error but is otherwise not a bad person. To include a second change of fortune in the plot that results in a positive outcome would be to dilute the pity and terror-arousing impact of the negative outcome. As a sort of side note, Aristotle then says it is, thus, pointless to criticize Euripides for having unhappy endings since he is simply fulfilling the definition of Tragedy. You can criticize Euripides for all kinds of things (which Aristotle goes on to do in later chapters), but there’s no denying Euripides’ plays are Tragic. Aristotle then decidedly gives a lesser status to the happy-ending plot. This type of structure may please audiences, but it is not art. If you want happy endings, you should look to comedy where the bitterest of enemies, in unlikely fashion, are suddenly friends by the end and no one kills anyone. While Aristotle acknowledges the pleasure this may give audiences, apparently it gives him little pleasurable affect. He’d rather have hardcore catharsis any day.

What I take away from this chapter is that during the times of Aristotle, there was a dissent in what constitutes a great story, much like there is today. Euripides' tragedies were censored, because of their unhappy endings. Obviously, theatre makers were afraid the audience might hate them in the end. Doesn't it remind you of today's producers? Like any writing teacher, Aristotle had a taste of his own. He aknowledges the power of myth, the epic stories like the Odyssey, but he ranks them second. Doesn't make me wonder, in a book that's about writing tragedies ...

Good observations. One other issue with the translation in this chapter is use of the term catastrophe ("catastrophe for the good and for the bad"). The Greek word katastrophe nowhere appears in "The Poetics" -- nor anywhere else in Aristotle's writings. The usage of "katastrophe" to mean the final turning point in a drama appears much later in Greek literature. And an observation about Aristotle's statement: " Now, the best tragedies are founded on the story of a few houses on the fortunes of Alcmaeon, Oedipus, Orestes, Meleager, Thyestes, Telephus, and those others who have done or suffered something terrible." Greek tragedy was not about the problems of the common man. It did not seek to imitate the manners or people of everyday society. (That was reserved for comedy and then to ridicule, parody, mock.) It was unthinkable to present something like "The Death of a Salesman" which is surely a modern tragedy of the common man -- but it isn't Aristotelian tragedy. As the Greek scholar Daniel Mendelsohn observes in an essay on the "The Bad Boy of Athens" -- Euripides: "Greek tragic drama...unlike contemporary psychological drama didn't strive to have audiences 'identify' with its characters -- if anything, Athenian audiences were likely to find the chorus more sympathetic and recognizable than the outsized heroes with their divine pedigrees-- and which was relatively uninterested in the whole modern notion of 'dealing with failure' (and you suppose, finding 'closure'). For the Greeks the allure of so many tragic heroes is... the heroes' strength, their grandeur, their power, the attributes of intellect and valor that they must resort to in their staged struggles with a hostile fate..." Different strokes for different folks in different times.

[…] Studying Aristotle’s “Poetics” – Part 13(B): A Well-Constructed Plot (gointothestory.blcklst.com) […]

[…] Studying Aristotle’s “Poetics” – Part 13(B): A Well-Constructed Plot […]