It is somewhat surprising how modern and relevant Poetics is. As a theory, it is not spectacular, but that is in large part because Aristotle was writing under certain cultural assumptions that no longer hold true, or are only partially true. For example, Aristotle wrote:
The perfect Plot, accordingly, must have a single, and not a double issue; the change in the hero's fortunes must be not from misery to happiness, but on the contrary from happiness to misery; and the cause of it must lie not in any depravity, but in some great error on his part.This is pretty specific and contrary to a lot of our current cultural assumptions. We in fact like movies where people move from misery to happiness. We like to say they evidence a "triumph of the human spirit." And furthermore, we often like movies about depraved characters. The prime example of this is would be There Will Be Blood, which was critically acclaimed and essentially a study of an evil character.
So, Aristotle's theory isn't perfect, but he still makes a lot of excellent points that remain relevant today. For example, he argues that plots should be tightly constructed:
The truth is that, just as in the other imitative arts one imitation is always of one thing, so in poetry the story as imitation of action, must represent one action, a complete whole, with its several incidents so closely connected that the transposal or withdrawal of any one of them will disjoin and dislocate the whole. For that which makes no perceptible difference by its presence or absence is no real part of the whole.And he says that episodic plots are to be avoided:
Of simple Plots and actions the episodic are the worst. I call a Plot episodic when there is neither probability nor necessity in the sequence of its episodes. Actions of this sort bad poets construct through their own fault, and good ones on account of the players. His work being for public performance, a good poet often stretches out a plot beyond its capabilities, and is thus obliged to twist the sequence of incident.My favorite part, however, is Aristotle's argument about the proper use of "Spectacle." Simply put the Spectacle is the "stage-appearance of the actors." The point of a tragedy, in Aristotle's view is to make the audience feel fear and pity for main character and the events in the drama. He writes:
The tragic fear and pity may be aroused by the Spectacle; but they may also be aroused by the very structure and incidents of the play--which is the better way and shows the better poet. The Plot in fact should be so framed that, even without seeing the things take place, he who simply hears the account of them shall be filled with horror and pity at the incidents; which is just the effect that the mere recital of Oedipus would have on one. To produce this same effect by means of the Spectacle is less artistic, and requires extraneous aid. Those, however, who make use of the Spectacle to put before us that which is merely monstrous and not productive of fear, are wholly out of touch with Tragedy.Suck it George Lucas.
