Читать книгу Original Plots - Bryan O'Neill - Страница 4

Aristotle was a brilliant philosopher of his time. He was fascinated with a multitude of subjects that touched on everything from scientific writings to conjectures about everyday people. It is said that Aristotle found great entertainment in watching plays.

In Aristotle’s time, plays were made up of someone reading poetry that was set to song via flute or lyre, sometimes incorporating chorus groups. The poet would act as the main narrative voice. The chorus often played the part of the audience asking questions and answering them as the poet continued through. Greek competitions were often held for playwrights eager to showcase their work.

As an avid fan of poetry and the stage, Aristotle was said to have attended these competitions any chance he could get. Sitting in those audiences thousands of years ago, he, like many of us, watched the stories being played out with a critical eye. His favorite play of all was Oedipus the King (429 BC) by Sophocles, and he compared the plays he saw with kind of quality he felt the Oedipus contained.

He felt many plays of his day were underwhelming, at best. Many consider Aristotle to be one of the first major critics of the theater. In response to Plato’s challenge Aristote wrote Poetics to make a case of poetry’s merit in society, and define his own rules Aristotle felt would make a well received play. His ideas influenced and changed the way plays were performed for centuries.

Poetics has been a loved, hated, and controversial work through the ages. Some have found it uneven in its temperament on what real poetry should be; others find it a great document defining the poetic tragedy. I think it is a great dialogue about what plays were in those times. The work influenced and changed plays and added storytelling elements that are still in wide use today.

Tragedy in the old world sense is another name for Drama. Drama is just another name for a story that brings Catharsis. Yep, that’s right: Catharsis. Those studying english literature may cringe at the word because they know for centuries there has been a question at the central debate when learning about Poetics or drama in general.

Aristotle viewed catharsis as the feeling of arousing pity and fear, after a play ended. By arousing pity and fear he meant emotional reaction or the stirring of feelings for the events or person in a tragic work. Historians and scholars have endlessly debated why he chose pity and fear over other emotions to describe tragedy. While pity and fear most certainly are the best examples of emotions that describe tragedy, they do not adequately describe the rest.

Then again, this is old world Greek society we are talking about. The Greeks prided themselves above the world as being the boldest and most enlightened people on the planet. Greek warriors on foreign shores fighting for the people back home would tell stories of how they came, saw, and conquered through fear. Greek Society also contained slaves. If poetry was meant to persuade, then it is possible Aristotle used the word fear as a motive. A story meant to keep the peoples opinion in line through fear.

Most of the debate has been whether Aristotle meant catharsis was meant in a literal or figurative sense. I think he meant it both ways. Pity and Fear as literal emotions can move a person to act a certain way, but in a general figurative sense, an emotional reaction is the heart of Catharsis. Catharsis might stir sympathy in someone, or it might truly move someone to understand and enjoy a story.

I believe if you are going to tie an emotional response to a great story, the word we are looking for to describe that response is empathy. An audience has to not only have sympathy for the characters in the story but be empathic to their situation.

It starts with sympathy for the characters, and the reaction they bring to the audience. The audience must identify with the story through understanding, but also see parts of themselves in the characters to evoke an empathic response.

Having sympathy for a character is hard enough; giving characters and a story life enough to build empathy is what we, as writers need to achieve. Emotional investment is crucial to a story’s drive and pacing. If you are invested in a story and do not feel empathy for the characters, the story is failing you. watch a comedy and do not laugh, or watch a drama and do not begin to feel empathy for th, or watch a thriller and are not scared, yes, the story is failing you.

Great stories need to have depth of character and allow you to emotionally invest in them. If a story can not do that within the first act, it is a waste of time and effort on the storytellers part. If a story can not connect with an audience then it will not prove to be successful.

Aristotle’s works were varied, covering many subjects and at times, unclear in their reasoning. He was a great philosophical man, but still just a man. Societal differences and thinking of his time helped to influence his writings. This would be true in any culture. Your upbringing and surrounding culture is going to influence your work.

In defining poetry, Aristotle described it as imitation of action, not people. This is where his theory shined; the precedence of action over character. Characters do not drive action, action drives character. In watching stage plays he, noticed that many plots were written with the intent to play up the actor’s strengths.

According to Aristotle characters should be placed around action. The characters should react to action in the story. In short, a writer should never build a plot around a character. Actors are the tools used to tell the story beyond a book setting. Millions have played Hamlet but they all follow Shakespeare’s words. Actors are the puppets, writers will forever be the puppet masters.

Poetics established components of dramatic theater, namely plot, character, diction, thought, spectacle, and song. Unity of Action is another fundamental of the work. In this, action takes the center stage. A great story will follow a character’s response through a string of actions.

Plato’s main argument against poetry was that emotion and fiction-based poetry could be construed as truth if mishandled, which in turn, would be a threat to a just society. Aristotle defended poetry as an art of possible events that would not be confused with historian works.

Even today, that debate between what is and is not fiction still reigns. News organizations do try to use an “info-tainment” slant when presenting themselves. In many ways, Plato’s argument does have merit. Entertainment is sometimes construed as truth without proper research to say otherwise.

During Aristotle’s time, a Chinese philosopher named Mencius was studying Confucianism. China, at the time, was then in the middle of continuous warring as government states tried desperately to conquer one another for control. Like Aristotle, Mencius believed peace in society could be achieved by figuring out a pattern of behavior people could follow.

Just as Plato wrote about Socrates who left no personal works behind, Mencius wrote about the great Chinese philosopher Confucius. He believed if a ruler did not bring peace or champion good for the people then the people had a right could start a revolution to overthrow the King from power. It is no surprise that Mencius was not well received by the Kings in that day. In most cases his writings were considered dangerous and banned.

The cornerstone of Mencius’s theory; however, was he believed that human character is built from society’s treatment of you. If a society did not offer positive cultivation you, as a part of that society, could become corrupt or fill with emotional contempt.

It is not hard to find people who do not believe they are getting what they want or need out of the society they live in. Mencius hoped society would be better for all if Kings worked for the betterment of their people and that would trickle down to foster great behavior in people. His ideas would not see the light of day in those times especially in China.

Dictatorships, and Communism are forms of government are easily corruptible. A democracy where the people truly have freedom of speech, and freedom to demonstrate is a form of government where the citizens can struture the society they live in.

The main motivation for many well written villains in a story is one of a person that is treated harshly by the society in which he lives who decides to lead a revolt, or rebel somehow. Mencius’s focus on character is the important part to focus on here. His concept provides a motivator and justification for villainous acts. Why does a villain become a villain? If unjust treatment by the society they live in is the answer then that leaves open an opportunity to describe a villain’s background.

Mencius’s theory on society assumes a just kingdom or government would be in support of their citizens. A democracy achieves this but only if the government meets the people halfway to help make decisions that better everyone within that community. Even a democracy can start to become corrupt if it gets too big and the people’s ability to change it is lost. In the war torn lands of China Mencius was not able to achieve his dream of change, at least not in those times.

It is interesting that Aristotle and Mencius were alive at the same time and deep in thought about society and how it effects real world character development. Aristotle was learning and developing character behaviors that would influence the western world while Mencius was developing character behaviors that would later influence the east. Both have contributed a wealth of knowledge for story development when it comes to character relationships.

Aristote and Mencius, like many philosophers have studied in depth how people’s actions and thoughts influence the word around them. Character relationship study has a direct on the stories you tell.