The past few semesters, I have used Aristotle more and more in the playwriting classroom. His writing, I believe, has a place even with beginners. After all, it is difficult to talk about theatre in the Western world without mentioning this great thinker. Western drama shows a great reliance—some might say, too great—on this ancient Greek.
The Poetics, thankfully, is a short book. But it’s also very obtuse. I ask the students to approach it “scripturally.” By comparing the Poetics to holy writ, I suggest that it deserves constant study and re-reading. Also, much can be skimmed—for example, discussions of specific Greek word choice or authors no longer extant. These sections can be treated like the genealogies and census reports in the Hebrew scriptures—skimmed over without worry. This comparison works extremely well in Bible Belt Arkansas, where I teach, though it would likely work elsewhere.
The Poetics is filled with valuable lessons. I usually focus on one Aristotelian insight in particular: his six dramatic elements, I find, are especially useful for teaching different dramatic approaches. Aristotle divided drama into six components, often translated as Plot, Character, Thought, Diction, Song, and Spectacle. While Aristotle prioritizes Plot above all else, he sees these elements as necessary cogs in the mechanics of scriptwriting. I use the elements, not to suggest commonalities among plays, but rather to show how different authors use different approaches.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, most playwriting pedagogy privileges realism (Sam Smiley’s Playwriting: The Structure of Action is a notable exception). Put in Aristotelian terms, books and teachers tend to prioritize Character over all else. While some instructors might insist that the elements are inseparable and, therefore, of similar importance, they nonetheless belie their arguments by, for example, giving Plot the limiting definition of Character’s objective in action or whittling Thought down to simply “what the characters want.” While Plot and Thought can be viewed as subordinate to Character, they don’t have to be.
A study of literature in an Aristotelian light reveals that different playwrights prioritize different elements. For example, a spectator might well guess that Tennessee Williams generated his plots only after detailed character work; or that Agatha Christie plotted her mysteries first, starting with functional agents only later to expand them into true characters. Likewise, Bernard Shaw almost certainly started with Thought and then developed his plots and characters to bring ideas to life. Even the three undervalued elements—Diction, Song, and Spectacle—can be starting points for artists, with Diction leading to Gertrude Stein-esque language plays, Spectacle leading to circus acts or dances, and Song to opera or musical comedy.
By highlighting how different playwrights prioritize the Aristotelian elements, an instructor can acknowledge the diversity of playwriting approaches without forcing beginning authors into character-based realism. Do you use Aristotle in the playwriting classroom? If so, how? In which ways do you teach differing approaches to generating plays?
The Poetics is far more readable than The Rhetoric. I have students read The Rhetoric in Survey. They do apply Aristotle in analysis, because his major points are easy to repeat and basis analysis using Aristotle is fairly easy. We do skip much of book II, the loci communes, since these arguments by and large don’t apply.
The Poetics I’ve worked thru several times since graduate school, but only taught with it once. I think you’re right, that it helps students gain flexibility in their playwriting, but I don’t teach playwriting.
Carl, I’ve never had to teach The Rhetoric—luckily, only the much short Poetics. You make some fine suggestions about abridging.