Tuesday, January 27, 2009


Firstly, I apologize to all for an extremely short post. What I think of Aristotle's arrangement of what makes up a play is that it seems like it could go for both a tragedy and a comedy. I would agree with his idea of tragedy steming from noble things and comedy steming from basic things. Only, I think that the two can be one in the same at times, but only when the stories revolve around the characters. This would mean that I wouldn't necessarily agree with his organization of the six parts of a tragedy. I think that character, above all else, is more important and has more magnitude than any of the other parts. I believe this simply because I think that an audience would familiarize themselves more with a character that they can attach to, rather than just be aware of. This goes the same way for comedy. I think that plot has to come in second, for the simple reason that a play doesn't always have to have a strong plot to be a good play. Hell, it doesn't even need a plot sometimes. However, the plot is merely a story that can have so many twists and turns, but ultimately comes to some sort of conclusion.
This may be the strongest imitation of life. I can agree with Aristotle's understanding of a human's love for imitation and harmony. It is a way that we as humans can make sense of the chaotic nature of our lives. We as individuals create our own path. That isn't necessarily a plot, is it?

No comments:

Post a Comment