[…] Part 19: …read more […]

I like how you emphasize the writer's need to find the balance between Dialogue and Action, Scott, in order to convey Subtext and Intention most effectively. That also reminded me of something Keith Johnstone wrote in "Impro," when he described teaching actors how to play status, high or low, when portraying transactions between characters (and as an example, he pointed out how Charlie Chaplin liked to play characters at the bottom of the status hierarchy, like the tramp, and then use his portrayal of status to lower the other characters).

I look at this paragraph as a reflection of the philosopher’s compulsion to categorize things. We have six elements of drama: Plot, Character, Thought, Diction, Spectacle and Song. Of these six, there are two we have yet to discuss: Thought and Diction. As for Thought, there are two modes of conveyance: dramatic speeches and dramatic incidents. Both of these produce these effects: proof and refutation; emotional response (pity, fear, anger, etc.); and the suggestion of a thing’s importance or lack thereof. Then he adds the slightly nonsensical note that the difference between speeches and incidents is that the incidents should speak for themselves whereas the effects of speech should be the result of the speech, i.e., the words should also speak for themselves. Not sure how that constitutes a difference. However, this does provide the opportunity for Aristotle to point out that if an intended meaning is sufficiently coming across from the incidents, there’s no need to drive it home by repeating it in dialogue. As any screenwriting teacher knows, this point about not bonking your viewer on the head with expositional dialogue about things already made clear in the visuals and action is one that often does need to be driven home with frequent repetition. In the next paragraph, Aristotle goes on to address the matter of Diction. Again, he begins by making categories, separating out what the above translation rather quaintly refers to as Modes of Utterance, but which we would commonly call performance. Then he allows as how this aspect of Diction belongs to the art of Delivery, what we would call acting, and the masters of that science, who we would call actors. He then reverts to his list-making tendencies, breaking down performance diction thus: a command, a prayer, a statement, a threat, a question, etc. This aspect of diction being part of the actor’s craft, he excuses the poet from responsibility for it and then derides Protagoras for getting on Homer’s case about the first line of the Illiad: “Sing, goddess, of the wrath of Achilles” Apparently, Protagoras felt that Homer intended this line as a wish, when actually, by nature it is bound to be a command. But Aristotle can’t take this seriously and leaves aside any further discussion of the matter. All of which is prelude to a longer discussion of Diction over the next three chapters, in which Aristotle minutely breaks down the Greek language, category by category. Since not much of this pertains to film drama, I’d like to suggest that we skip ahead to Chapter 23.

Aristotle's reference to his "Rhetoric" is a reminder of a primary consequence of drama: it manipulates people, what they think, how they feel. Whereas Socrates condemned the poetic arts for doing that Aristotle asked, "How do they do that?" His "Poetics" is an inquiry into the artifice in the art, what works, what doesn't--and why. >>>philosopher’s compulsion to categorize things Aristotle does not lack for modern imitators of his "character flaw". Indeed, the "compulsion to categorize" is now hardcoded in computer programs for screenwriting. >> I’d like to suggest that we skip ahead to Chapter 23. I second the motion for chapters 20 and 21. However, I think Aristotle's topic in Chapter 22, word choice in dialogue, has contemporary relevance.

Good point, pgronk. But I would therefore suggest using the Kenneth McLeish translation for Chapter 22 since he provides translation for the passages that Butcher leaves in Greek. And McLeish's style overall is a little more accessible.

Thanks for pointing that out, Jennine. I hadn't noticed as the translation I rely upon for these weedier portions, by Joe Sachs, does include translations of the passages. (And Sach's introduction to his translation has had a strong influence on my thinking about a key point Aristotle makes in Chapter 24 about the emotional response to drama that, imho, ranks right up there with "fear and pity" but has largely been overlooked by other commentators.) I have no objection to McLeish, but I wonder if extensive quoting of his translation may present copyright concerns for Scott. As a compromise, I suggest referring to the online translation of Chapter 22 at the Tufts University, Perseus Digital Library which translates most of the quotes Butcher doesn't. The relevant text spans Poetics, Section 1458a and Poetics, Section 1458b and Poetics, Section 1459a.

>>>which translates most of the quotes Butcher doesn’t. Ah! But not all of them! And the ones not translated are particularly amusing in the McLeish. Brings a revered ancient classic text down to a more ordinary level, whereas being confronted with Greek characters is distancing and intimidating. McLeish is being quoted for the purpose of critical analysis, which, in my layperson's understanding of copyright law, I believe constitutes Fair Use. I would think McLeish would be glad to see his translation being given some play in this forum since it is offered as an alternative to the Butcher, which is the dominant translation while not necessarily being the best.

Just want to add, thanks for the references to the Joe Sachs and Tufts University translations, which I didn't know about. When it comes to The Poetics, the more translations, the better since no one of them can definitively be called the best. Gotta parse the meaning out from a sort of averaging of as many interpretations as possible.

I have not read McLeish's translation; however, thanks to your recommendation, I have it on order. >>>Gotta parse the meaning out from a sort of averaging of as many interpretations as possible. Yep. It's all Greek to me!