[…] Part 23: …read more […]

This reminded me to work with the 'unity of action' more. For me, this was the most helpful part in this series so far. Thanks, Scott!

Seems like an important distinction you've pointed out here, Scott, that unity is derived from the inclusion of all of the necessary story elements, not from the order in which they are arranged. . .and it's also fascinating to see how the "snapshot bio" of a subject's life works almost like fractal theory, just as long as the right representative moment is chosen to represent the whole; and seems similar to the style of compression poets use as well, such as when Pound compares beautiful faces in a crowd to petals on a wet, black bough in his poem "In a Station of the Metro" and so transports the reader into the immediacy of the scene by conflating these two disparate, even seemingly incompatible, images into one fleeting, emotional experience. How cool is that. . .

To the degree that repetition is an essential element of instruction, this is a useful chapter, especially so because of its brevity and succinct examples. But I see little being said here about Tragedy (as opposed to Epic) that has not already been put forth in Chapters 6 through 9. What Aristotle doing here, it appears to me, is bringing Epic back into his discussion. Way back at the beginning (end of Chapter 5) he said that, while Tragedy contains all the elements of Epic, it has also developed a few new elements of its own. Then he spends the bulk of his discussion describing all the elements of Tragedy. Here he returns to Epic by pointing out that, although the performative aspect of Tragedy made the unity of action essential, even in Epic poetry, when done well, it is a key feature. Otherwise the poet is merely chronicling a series of otherwise disconnected historical events. Thus, Aristotle is distinguishing art from simple reportage of fact, and upholding Homer as an artist as opposed to being the ancient equivalent of a journalist. So he is using his return to a discussion of Epic to drive home his point about unity of action as an essential element for a narrative art form. And he is warning poets in both mediums to keep the work focused if they aspire to create art.

I think the Poetics repetitiveness is a reflection of its likely origin as a compilation of lecture notes; teachers are apt to repeat themselves. It is also probable that Aristotle kept hammering away on "unity of action" because he witnessed a lack of it in too many tragedies--it was such a common dramatic problem. And perhaps because poets wrote plays around "unity of an idea" rather than "unity of action" -- which came across as didactic, "preachy". By tailoring characters and events to emphasize an abstract message, such plays failed to deliver an emotional payoff -- catharsis. Or as another philosopher phrased it: "I love only what a person hath written with his blood. Write with blood, and thou wilt find that blood is spirit."-- Friederich Nietzsche >>> that single action becomes a touchstone for all aspects of the narrative — plot, characters, themes, dialogue, scenes, transition. Hence the power of unity of action. Yes, and I think the plotting of "Lawrence of Arabia" is an excellent example of unity of action, cohesive narration that "resembles a living organism in all its unity". At 3 3/4 hours in screen time, "Lawrence of Arabia" may not exactly be a snapshot bio, but neither is it a sweeping biography of the life of T.E. Lawrence. As Homer in the Iliad focuses on the wrath of Achilles in the Iliad -- one episode in a ten year war -- the movie covers barely 2 years (1916-1918) of the 47 years of the life of the remarkable and enigmatic title character. And though it has the feel an epic saga, it conforms to the Aritotle's rule of unity of action. After a lengthy setup, Lawrence begins to assert himself in Feisal's tent when he goes off message and contradicts the advice of his superior, Colonel Brighton, that the Arabs should fall back on Yenbo. Faisal: " What do you think about Yenbo?" Lawrence: " I think it is far from Damascus." Lawrence's dream is to rally a united Arab movement that liberates itself from not just Turkish domination but from European domination. His unity of action, his objective goal, is get to Damascus and establish an independent Arab government. The rest of the movie is about his struggle to get to Damascus -- unity of action. And he gets to Damascus... only to have his dream of Arab unity and independence unravel. And he has paid a high personal price for a Pyrrhic victory, not just in terms of suffering, but also in terms of compromised ideals. [BTW: for those who obsess about pacing, Lawrence's "far from Damascus" statement occurs in the 47th minute of the film, after about 20% of the movie time has elapsed -- within the percentage of time usually alloted to a first Act.]

Thank you, pgronk - & it seems to me your "Lawrence of Arabia" citation also is a perfect example of the kind of micro-macro/macro-micro examination of themes that is, alas, often lacking in modern filmmaking (such as the way that Jean Rhys used a personal "micro" relationship between two lovers of unequal stature to deconstruct the "macro" idea of colonialism in her novel "Wide Sargasso Sea" - but then the same examination was not done at all, alas, in the movie of the same title)--fascinating stuff here. . .thank you!