finally figured out how to get back here

Aristotle, Nietzsche, Lakoff, Jakobson
For some reason I found Aristotle very appealing. I wonder what this says about me. Probably that I am overly methodical and organized...Which I don't really think I am, I just wish I could be. Maybe that is why I like it. I like the idea that everything can be broken down and neatly categorized, but it is just not realistic in life, is it? Anyway, Aristotle. I found that I agreed with a great deal of what he says. It may be oversimplified, but most of his assertions regarding drama and tragedy hold true even today. The idea of reversals and recognitions as the central plot twists in drama was like a light bulb turning on over my head. These are crucial to a good drama, or even a Law and Order episode. How the playwright goes about revealing the reversal or recognition is also very important. I wonder if Aristotle was the first critic to identify the flaw of coincidence. It is undoubtedly a big problem in drama, and difficult to avoid. I also found that his condemnation of characters acting inconsistently really resonated with me. As an actor, I have occasionally had a very difficult time proceeding with a scene that I feel is inauthentic, and the main block for me is character inconsistency. Then again, perhaps an actor is not the best judge of such things, I tend to identify with my characters, and thus only want to believe the best of them. She wouldn't kill her husband! But, of course, that may not be the case. Food for thought, anyway.I disagree with Aristotle on a few issues, though. The "appropriate" character designation, of course. Maybe the gender and class specific unintentional slurs colored my opinion. OK, I think I can admit that they definitely did. And I know that I have to keep in mind that gender roles were much more rigid in thie time, and Aristotle is just a product of his culture. But still, from a modern day viewpoint, I think that characters behaving in a way that is opposite to stereotypes of the day, as long as he or she is consistent in this behavior, adds richness and depth to drama. It causes the audience to question this behavior, which in turn causes them to question their own beliefs and prejudices regarding stereotypes. So, I have to disagree with him there. The other thing I questioned was the hiearchical order of importance of elements, placing plot above characters in significance. OK, maybe, but I don't think it is a foregone conclusion. Perhaps the dramatic climate of our day is just different from his, since writers emphasize originality much more. Instead of retelling the same stories about the same families over again in different ways, the invention of new characters, pushing the limits of character development, is far more prevalent. Does this make his points about plot less valid? No. But it does create room for argument. And the statement "without action a tragedy cannot exist, but without characters it may", I just don't quite see how he justifies this. Anyway, as for the other readings I really didn't find any that I did not enjoy. I particularly delight in the way Nietzsche says things. I can understand why people are not sure whether to classify him as philosophy or literature. As for Lakoff, such straightforward reasoning is immediately refreshing. I am not quite sure what it is that he is hoping to accomplish, but again, I like the way he says it. And it did make me think about ingrained metaphors in my own perception. Perhaps that is what he was trying to accomplish, making us think!