Week 2: Aristotle and some beginnings of psychology

I must admit Aristotle is a little bit too much of scientist for me. I appreciate theorists who speak very scientifically, and I realize this is huge basis of a lot of literary theory, viewing literature as a science, and I think that can lead to some great and interesting results. And yet, as an artist, I find Aristotle to get a bit too caught up in specific definitions of things, and would have much preferred if he had gone a little more into philosophy and psychology. The idea of catharsis is fascinating to me and I was quite disappointed that he didn’t elaborate on it in his Poetics at all, only just mentioned it (or at least in what we read from the book – is there more he wrote I don’t know about?)

Aside from that complaint though, and ignoring his minor sexist comments about how women shouldn’t be too “manly” and men shouldn’t be too “womanly” (Aristotle 100) (Odysseus is too emo for you, Aristotle? Come now, emo men make great tragedy!), I found Aristotle to have some good points and interesting ideas. My favorites:

Representation: It’s natural to us from childhood, we enjoy it because we naturally enjoy learning. See, this is the interesting psychological stuff!

This is a great way in which Aristotle has proven art’s importance. It teaches us something. Of course, perhaps this was really the same reason Plato was so afraid of it. It’s powerful. Every time we represent, we are saying something, exploring something. And maybe that something is an uncomfortable truth about life. Plato didn’t seem to be a big fan of art that showed ugly truths about life – how people aren’t always really very nice, good, or honest. But would us being ignorant to this truth help us cope with it as Plato thought? Sadly, it’s unlikely that would change human nature. The best way to make change is to acknowledge, not ignore.

Catharsis: Pity and fear in tragedy are therapeutic. Again, good psychology.

Art as therapy has got to be one of its best and most important attributes. Someone else has been there, you’re not alone. We all suffer. By talking about it and listening to each other we relieve ourselves of our pain and fear.

Action: This was interesting to me, how Aristotle says tragedy is less about character and more about plot – action.

These days it seems we place a lot of importance on someone’s character, and when I analyze works I tend to focus on character most. But who is someone without their actions, anyway? Our actions are what define us. It actually may be a more effective way to analyze a character than their personality – after all, personality is fluid, and our actions often don’t fit with our so-called “personalities.” We often surprise ourselves.

An example of a character I normally try to analyze in personality:

(Someone else who would be way too emo for Aristotle, incidentally.)

Zuko, from Avatar: The Last Airbender. (I’m way too obsessed with analyzing him, so expect him to pop up again here from time to time.) Zuko is a good example of a tragic hero who is actually very difficult to analyze outside of his actions. His actions define him absolutely. Reversals (another Aristotle term) are what make his character so powerful – the times he does what one would not expect him to do. It is his actions that make him such a dynamic and interesting character, because they illustrate his struggles with morality.

Anyway, that’s a super quick abridged example of how Aristotle has a very good point I probably don’t consider enough – actions in tragedy (or other fiction) are of prime importance. Even when analyzing character, you must look at their actions first to understand them. This is of course most true for theater, film/TV – performed fiction, as opposed to narrative, which of course is what Aristotle was talking about in regards to tragedy (theater) vs. epic (narrative). (And they were both poetry, to complicate that further!)

There’s Aristotle for you. Now onto Longinus’s sublimity for my first analysis…