Writers-to-be, unite! Actually, writers-who-already-are, feel free to come along, too. Philip Freeman, who holds the Fletcher Jones Chair in humanities at Pepperdine University, has issued a new and more concise translation of Aristotle’s famous work “Poetics.” Freeman’s translation is part of Princeton University Press’s ongoing Ancient Wisdom for Modern Readers collection, to which the author has already contributed five translations of other classic works.
Becoming a Better Writer Through Tradition
Just as we do today, Aristotle experienced the works of great writers, good writers, and bad writers. The ancient philosopher discusses the many reasons for the disparities. Typically, it is because there are writers who either abide by or disregard the rules of writing. Aristotle’s instructions are based on his knowledge and study of literature—both good and bad.From his study, he lays out what exactly works in literature and why. “Poetics” is similar to Aristotle’s other works in that it is a study in natural philosophy. In other words, there are laws of nature that should not be broken, and when they are, it creates an undesirable result—such as a person of poor character (“Nicomachean Ethics”), a subpar city-state (“Politics”), or bad literature (“Poetics”).
This idea of natural law applying to even fictional stories can be summed up in one of Aristotle’s statements: “We can’t change traditional storylines. The task of the writer instead is to be creative and make good use of a given tradition.”
“Tradition” in this sense doesn’t refer to religious, political, or cultural traditions. Rather, it is in reference to specific rules for writing. Aristotle points out the basics in his book, which include plot; the sequence of a beginning, middle, and ending; and avoiding unreasonable writing by ensuring that the dialogues and actions are probable, or at least possible.
This doesn’t mean that the action itself has to fit within the actual laws of nature. Anyone who has read ancient works knows that much of the writing of the time involves divine intervention, actions taken by mortals that seem otherworldly, or characters who are themselves otherworldly (that is, half mortal and half deity).
Aristotle is discussing literature—in particular, fiction—or at least historical fiction as in the works of Homer. Therefore, the writer, as is pointed out consistently in the book, should be writing for the audience, and an audience that has agreed to the terms of the suspension of disbelief. According to Aristotle, this suspension of disbelief is acceptable only as long as the writing (that is, action and dialogue) is believable. Aristotle summarizes this by stating that “in stories, what is impossible but believable is preferable to what is possible but unconvincing.”
In other words, don’t sell readers short by taking quick, lazy, or unconvincing paths to resolution. This idea of resolution is often a stumbling block for writers today, just as it was for ancient writers thousands of years ago. The resolution is central to the plot of the story because it brings the plot to its conceivable conclusion. And Aristotle warns that the conclusion must be conceivable. Otherwise, future writers should prepare for what the past writers had to endure: the booing and hissing of the crowd.A Necessary Read for Writers—and Readers
Freeman’s translation of Aristotle’s famous work is a very concise translation. Its concision, however, doesn’t eliminate the important aspects of the book. On the contrary, it eliminates the convolution of the original and allows the reader to focus solely on what Aristotle suggested, and proved, to be the pivotal (that is, natural) elements of good literature.Although young writers should adhere to Aristotle’s instructions, these instructions can also guide readers in identifying good literature, as well as plays and movies. When readers (or viewers) have the correct expectations and understanding of what makes good literature, the bar will be set higher for writers, and therefore the stories will be better.
