[…] Part 15(B): …read more […]

The fact that Aristotle mentions "necessary or probable" so often [11 times in different ways in my translation] seems to indicate how pervasive he thought the problem was in his time. Was his criticism also targeted at Greek satyr comedy where pell-mell plotting and deus ex machina's were SOP? Or did he think it as a 'feature' not a problem? Did he accept Greek satyr comedy for what it was, free-form farce and burlesque? We can only speculate. In any event, modern movie comedy requires better character motivation and tighter plotting. >>Every single one of these problems could be resolved if a writer dug deeply into their characters (especially the Protagonist), Yes,and it seems to me that another entry on that illuminating list suggests writers need to dig more deeply into the Antagonist, too: --The villains are cartoonish, evil-for-the-sake-of-evil (53 scripts) In the Jungian scheme of dramatic relationships, the Antagonist is the shadow figure of the Protagonist. So it follows that to draw a shallow or cartoonish Antagonist would be to miss the bull's eye of the target (harmartia!) of the Protagonist's character flaw -- to fail to comprehend the full nature and extent of the Disunity. It would constitute a failure to perceive the secret symmetry between Protagonist and Antagonist. And the result is more likely to be a weak foil, someone who does a lousy job of providing credible "necessary or probable" threats and provocations to the flaws and inner conflicts of the Protagonist.

pgronk, you and I are trolling the same creative waters. Jung's articulation of the shadow crystallizes the symbiotic relationship between Protagonist and Nemesis. Hollywood loves Nemesis figures for many reasons, not the least of which is if the Protagonist has a Conscious Goal and the Nemesis has that same Goal, albeit with different intentions, then you have immediate, comprehensive, built-in conflict. But as to the nature of that conflict and the tone it takes on, as well as its deeper meaning, exploring the Protagonist's 'dark' side and looking at the Nemesis as a projection of that dark side, a writer opens up layer after layer of potential psychological dynamics which can be mined. So when C.C. Baxter in The Apartment interacts with Mr. Sheldrake, the latter represents the physicalization of what Baxter's ultimate desire for corporate success would be. Thank heavens Fran Kubelik (Attractor) and Dr. Dryefus (Mentor) come along to help Baxter get in touch with and embrace his Authentic Self, his inner 'mensch,' otherwise his soul may have very well been lost. And when Clarice Starling in The Silence of the Lambs confronts Buffalo Bill, he is the projection of the 'boogeymen' who killed her father, and the pain, even guilt she feels about his death need some form of blood sacrifice to wash away those 'sins,' translating into that story's narrative imperative: Clarice blowing away Buffalo Bill. One could even argue that Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz, as she confronts Miss Gulch and her alter ego the Wicked Witch of the West is facing down the prospect of a Future Dorothy, one who never found a place she could call home, becoming a bitter old woman, all alone, and angry at the world. This circles back to Aristotle's idea of the "necessity" which dovetails into Jung's concept of "individuation." Per the latter, the task of an individual is learn about, understand and embrace all aspects of his/her psyche including the shadow which is often both painful and terrifying... but ultimately necessary. We, as humans, cannot approach anything resembling unity unless we embrace our shadow. Likewise that is the most fundamental aspect of Protagonist metamorphosis and why so many stories featuring a clear Protagonist-Nemesis dynamic, compelling the Protagonist to confront the deepest, darkest aspects of their own psyche in the form of another "personal agent." All quite fascinating, isn't it!

In addition to showing why plot must unfold in an organic way, isn't Aristotle also arguing here for consistency? Even though we want to see the protagonist undergo a transformation, their actions, reactions and behaviors still must remain consistent, and believable, at each step of their journey, in order for their transformation to feel realistic. Also, in memory of Peter O'Toole, I just have to share this wonderful clip of him making an entrance on Letterman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K561m7Nq7kk And thank you again, Scott, for keeping us grounded as we work our way through the Poetics.

Indeed, Aristotle is going back to probability and necessity (what we tend to think of as cause and effect) to, justifiably, make another harangue on the subject (as you point out Scott with the recent info graphic, the message always bears repeating). While he's at it, he also rails against the practice of relying on intervention from the gods to bring the plot to a tidy resolution. I find it interesting, though, that he, somewhat arbitrarily, makes certain exceptions such as for events that occur before the drama, and need to be reported, or those that will happen after, and therefore must be foretold. He seems to be saying, “Since we accept that the gods see everything, it’s okay to use them to announce these events,” rather anticipating the all-knowing voice over narrator of today. But I can’t help feeling he’s also bending the rules to fit his preference. In the case of Oedipus Tyranus, it has been oft-noted among scholars the improbability that Oedipus never thought to investigate the death of his predecessor, King Laius. Of course, if he had, he might have far more readily arrived at the conclusion that he was, in fact, the murderer. Thus, it is a “writer’s convenience” on the part of Sophocles that he doesn’t so that Oedipus can remain “blindered” until well into the drama. Aristotle seems to be excusing this improbability on Sophocles part, whereas he is quick to find fault in Euripides for his Deus ex machina in Medea. But, then, he makes it pretty clear throughout that he is a great admirer of Sophocles, whereas Euripides seems to irritate him no end.

>>makes certain exceptions such as for events that occur before the drama. Is it any different today? Isn't the writer allowed to establish certain ground rules, certain conditions that are the backstory of the movie or the initial setup? (See almost every Sci-Fi movie ever made.) When I examine the backstory closely, or the initial setup of the 1st 10-15 minutes, I can find inconsistencies in the logic, gaps in the narrative of most of them. But I, for one, am able to suspend disbelief as long as everything in the movie itself happens in a "necessary or probable" and consistent way that flows from the premises and conditions in the back story or initial setup. (Others' mileage may vary.) And then there is Oedipus the King. For many years I could not suspend disbelief about Sophocles' play. It seemed so obvious to me that all the guy had to do was not kill anyone old enough to be his father; don't marry anyone old enough to be his mother. Curse defeated. But Sophocles was adapting a well-known myth about the theme of fate. And in his time, people took fate seriously. However incomprehensible it may seem to my oh-so modern sensibility, it was logical to the ancient Greeks that Oedipus could not avoid his fate. He was doomed to fulfill the curse no matter what he did. Sophocles was being faithful to the religion and Zeitgeist of his era -- not mine. And within the framework of the play itself, everything follows in "necessary or proper" beats from the backstory, from the premises with inexorable logic.

Scott: I am curious to know why your prefer to use the term Nemesis where others use the term Antagonist in referring to the adversary of the Protagonist? Nemesis was the Greek goddess of retributive justice -- the agent who punished those who violated the moral order or defied the gods. I realize we have to do some alchemy on these terms to make them useful to our modern ideas of drama. And I can think of movies where the adversary seems to be a Nemesis in the primitive sense of the Greeks. And I can think of movies where roles are reversed, where the Protagonist seems to be the Nemesis to the hubris of the Antagonist. That's how I see Katniss Everdeen in "The Hunger Games". Her behavior literally gets under President Snow's "skin" -- bothers and irritates him to no end. It's not just what she does but HOW she does it that disturbs him. He senses that this young girl, whether she knows it or not, intends it or not, could be an incarnation of his worst nightmare. She could spark another revolt against the cruel oppression of Panem. Unwittingly, Katniss is his Nemesis, fated to become an agent of retributive justice. Anyway, I certainly agree with you that Nemesis is critical to a psychologically sound story.

pgronk, here is an excerpt from my Core III: Character lecture on Nemesis:

The word “nemesis” has an interesting linguistic history: Nemesis, the ancient goddess of vengeance. Dictionary.com defines nemesis as “an opponent or rival whom a person cannot best or overcome.” And that is why I prefer Nemesis over the term antagonist. Whereas the latter is merely an “adversary,” a Nemesis represents someone who by definition holds the upper hand against the Protagonist. By all rights, they should defeat the hero, thus immediately casting the Protagonist as an underdog -- and this dynamic makes for a more interesting and compelling story.

Also the way I teach character-development is about exploring multiple layers of the relationships between characters, especially Protagonist-Nemesis. Antagonist can be reductionist, a black-and-white view, the Protagonist this way, therefore the Antagonist is that way. That can be the pathway to stereotypes. The Protagonist-Nemesis relationship often is much more nuanced, thus, more compelling, interesting, and entertaining, and so I find using Nemesis [in my teaching] gets writers out of the more formulaic mode represented by Protagonist-Antagonist. I have no problem with the use of Antagonist and often use it myself. I just prefer Nemesis for the above reasons.

Melanie, you will remember how we discussed this very point in our Quest Workshop. In life, we may change as individuals, but it's a messy process, one step forward, two steps back, a constant battle between will and rebellion, and little coherence to it. In a story, especially a movie, it's nearly a requirement that whatever a character's metamorphosis is evolve in a consistent fashion, stage by stage. There must be a coherence to it in order for the narrative to make sense. If we can tap into those set of passages in a character's transformation, that can help us organize the plot into an equally coherent whole, one that is both probable and necessary. And THANKS for that video clip. What an awesome entrance! I love the movie "My Favorite Year" and to see O'Toole on a set like that sent memories of that movie rushing into my mind.

Jennine and pgronk, thanks for your background on Oedipus. Honestly your observation had never occurred to me, but you're right: It does smack of writer's convenience. I suppose if one can shroud that in a compelling and entertaining story with characters we care about, that can work, as it did with me. But that's a big glaring example and as you note Aristotle seems to make a tacit acknowledgement of it. Re backstory and fate: I explore this fully in my Core VIII: Time class. Just as Ovid wrote, "The seeds of change are within," backstory [in my definition] reflects the specific experiences of a character that have a direct bearing on what transpires in the Present and plays out in the future [as compared to simply one's personal history]. Thus in movies, we often see a Protagonist tethered to this event or that which has them tied up psychologically, unable to move forward with their lives. Moreover it is often the nature of the backstory that has an implied destination in the future [see Clarice Starling as noted in above comments]. This gets into the idea of 'narrative imperative.' Practically speaking this means when we, as screenwriters, write in the Present tense, it's more than just capturing the vibrancy and immediacy of the moment, it's also about Present-Past and Present-Future: That is each scene feels the push of the past and the pull of the future. There is no such thing [or should not be] as a static moment. I suppose we could get the same sort of feel by using probability and necessity, that the seeds of change in any scene lie there, waiting to be watered by what transpires, and either the probable or necessary blossoms out of the moment, and blooms us into the future, almost always impacted by the past. Again so much fun to think about these things!

Scott, Thanks for the clarification on your use of Nemesis. It makes "probable and necessary" sense. I think you are spot on that the way people think about the adversary in terms of an Antagonist too often leads to a simplistic, black-and-white perspective on the relationship between the good guy/gal and the bad guy/gal. And thanks to all for today's thread of discussion. It has given me much to think about.