What everybody gets wrong about Aristotle’s Poetics

It’s a tragedy, really

The Book:

Poetics
By Aristotle
Translated by Joe Sachs
4th Century BCE

The Talk:

If you are an aspiring writer, you’ve probably read some books about storytelling.

And if you’ve read some books about storytelling, you’ve seen advice based on the principles of Aristotle’s Poetics.

I’ve read many of these books, and every one of them wants you to know that in his Poetics Aristotle lays out the eternal, universal principles of storytelling. And they want you to know these are the principles you should follow to write your next novel or play or movie script.

And I’m here to tell you that I’ve read the Poetics, and they are all liars.

The Poetics is not about general principles of storytelling. And it’s not a set of rules that should apply to your next screenplay. Aristotle was attempting to explain how to create a specific effect within a specific subgenre of a specific art.

Aristotle writes about tragedy plays during his lifetime. And he wants to figure out why some tragedies are off-the-charts excellent and others are just mediocre. He believes that the rare, truly great tragedies create a moment of audience experience where our minds are paradoxically stuck between two positions—between fear and pity. This creates a moment of stunned wonder (catharsis), in which the bad things that happen are both the main characters’ fault but also not their fault at the very same moment.

In his introduction and translation, Joe Sachs does a great job drawing out how this insight—hitting the perfect mean—fits within Aristotle’s broader theories of virtue and excellence. Hitting the mean (like hitting a bulls-eye in archery) is very hard to do, but when you hit it, it’s awe-inspiring.

But it’s also clear that every concept Aristotle lays out in his discussion is in support of creating this one effect, an effect that he sees as the distinctive characteristic of tragedy, which makes it different than other forms (like comedy).

Aristotle’s views on character and plot are in service to creating this singular tragic moment. They are not meant as principles to make every story better. To repeat, Aristotle’s explanation of plot is in service to creating a particular psychological effect unique to Greek tragedy.

How Aristotle actually thinks art works

There was a time when tragedy was not.

Aristotle’s introductory remarks reveal a lot about how Aristotle actually thought about the development of art—and it’s pretty common sense. Aristotle writes:

“From the beginning those who were naturally disposed toward [harmony and rhythm] the most, progressing little by little, brought the poetic art into being out of their improvised performances.”

Poetry emerged out of improvisations, as people with a knack for rhythmic speech played around. Aristotle then goes on to say that different genres of poetry emerged out of different kinds of personalities of poets, and poetic meters over time developed until it was discovered that certain meters seemed to fit better with certain kinds of stories.

Next, poets started to add actors, sets, a chorus, songs, etc. Out of this trial-and-error, over a long period of time, the art form of tragedy emerged.

“And when tragedy had gone through many changes it came to rest, since it had hold of its nature.”

Aristotle sees the tragic plays of his day as a kind of fully matured art form, that grew over time out of a evolutionary cultural process. Elsewhere in the book, Aristotle writes:

“For in seeking, poets found out not from art but from luck how to present this sort of thing in their stories.”

So what Aristotle presents in his poetics is not an attempt at defining the eternal rules of storytelling. Storytelling emerges as a practical craft through trial-and-error and a bit of luck, over a long period of time, as poets have tried new things.

Tragedy too is not a timeless art form, but something that developed and matured in Aristotle’s lifetime into a coherent genre of theatrical performance. Given the changes of culture and time, it’s even possible that Aristotle is describing an emotional or psychological audience experience that we can’t quite experience the same way. Maybe we only feel a small part, when reading or watching Greek tragedies, of what Aristotle was pointing to.

Could following Aristotle harm contemporary storytelling—according to Aristotle?

Aristotle would be completely baffled to see screenwriters using his ideas to plot out action movies or rom-coms. Surely, some of Aristotle’s ideas make for great drama. But Aristotle makes it clear that one should “not give a tragedy an organization suited for epic poetry.”

Aristotle would likely see each type of art, and the genres within each form of art, as having their own distinctive kinds of excellence. The real work (in mature art forms) is identifying the excellent cases that get at the unique perfection of each form, which only emerges through cultural experience. In immature art forms, the real work is messing around and trying all kinds of different things to see what seems to work well.

In any art form, the last thing Aristotle would advise would be to follow a rulebook or guidebook from thousands of years ago. It would only lead you away from discovering the excellence of the art that has emerged in your own time.

In other words, following Aristotle’s ideas for creating excellent Greek Tragedy to create anything other than Greek Tragedy is to ruin that art. If we teach new writers to follow his ideas, we are likely doing more harm than good, according to Aristotle’s own line of reasoning.

Honor Aristotle. Forget Aristotle.