Studying Aristotle’s “Poetics” — Part 6(E): Thought Third
As I’ve been interviewing screenwriters, I typically ask what some of their influences are. One book title comes up over and over again: Aristotle’s “Poetics”. I confess I’ve never read the entire thing, only bits and pieces. So I thought, why not do a weekly series with a post each Sunday to provide a structure to compel me to go through it. That way we’d all benefit from the process.
For background on Aristotle, you can go here to see an article on him in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
To download “Poetics,” you can go here.
Part 6(E): Thought Third
Third in order is Thought- that is, the faculty of saying what is
possible and pertinent in given circumstances. In the case of oratory,
this is the function of the political art and of the art of rhetoric:
and so indeed the older poets make their characters speak the language
of civic life; the poets of our time, the language of the rhetoricians.
Character is that which reveals moral purpose, showing what kind of
things a man chooses or avoids. Speeches, therefore, which do not
make this manifest, or in which the speaker does not choose or avoid
anything whatever, are not expressive of character. Thought, on the
other hand, is found where something is proved to be or not to be,
or a general maxim is enunciated.
Per Aristotle, a play that is a tragedy has six component parts: The first two are — in order of their importance — Plot, then Character. Third is Thought.
What is Thought? Aristotle offers two takes on the concept here:
* The faculty of saying what is possible and pertinent in given circumstances.
* Thought… is found where something is proved to be or not to be, or a general maxim is enunciated.
Saying. Enunciated. This would suggest that unlike the idea of thought being an inner activity of our mind, Aristotle’s take on Thought is something that emerges into the External World through the act of speech.
It is, however, more than simply words, rather it is language that “reveals moral purpose… expressive of character.”
This takes me into the arena of theme. It could be an articulation of what is “possible and pertinent” within the context of the overall narrative. It could be the enunciation of a “general maxim” central to the story. It could be a premise that is “proved to be or not to be.” But it does seem to me that the way Aristotle views Thought, at least as he describes it here, and a general notion of Theme as we typically refer to it nowadays are related.
With these first three components of Tragedy, clearly we see we cannot take them on face value:
* Plot is not just the structure of events, but as mythos, how those incidents are organized to convey a coherent articulation of something of meaning.
* Character refers to moral or ethical quality, not individuals in a story [Aristotle refers to them as “personal agents”].
* Thought is not a mental activity, but an articulation of moral purpose and character, a conveyance of a story’s themes.
All of which is to say, if we read “Poetics” merely at the surface level of meaning, we will likely miss the essence of what Aristotle intended and certainly of what value we can glean from his ideas as they relate to screenwriting.
Okay, Aristotelians. Is this analysis anywhere near the ballpark?
A reminder: I am looking at “Poetics” through the lens of screenwriting, what is its relevance to the craft in contemporary times. And I welcome the observations of any Aristotle experts to set me straight as I’m just trying to work my way through this content the best I can.
How about you? What do you take from Part 6(E) of Aristotle’s “Poetics”?
See you here next Sunday for another installment of this series.
For the entire series, go here.
Comment Archive
