Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- 2012:aristotles-animals [2012/03/24 19:41] – created frank
+++ 2012:aristotles-animals [2015/12/16 11:03] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+<html>
+<a href="http://lucianofsamosata.info/wiki/doku.php?id=submission_page"><img src="http://lucianofsamosata.info/images/contact.png" /></a>
+</html>
 ====== Aristotle's Animals - Literary Theory ======
-{{:2012:aristotle_animals.jpg?200 |Aristotle's Animals}}
+<html><p xmlns:dct="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"><a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" style="border-style: none;" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><br />This work (by <a href="https://lucianofsamosata.info/wiki" rel="dct:creator">https://lucianofsamosata.info/wiki</a>), identified by <a href="http://meninpublishing.org" rel="dct:publisher"><span property="dct:title">Frank Redmond</span></a>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</p></html>
+==== Authored by Frank Redmond, 2005 ====
+{{:2012:aristotle_animals.jpg?400 |Aristotle's Animals}}
 I. Autopsy
@@ Line 10: / Line 21: @@
 He argues further, that what we consider a "fine" animal (and by way of analogy, a "fine" text), must be tangible to a human. He says: "For this reason a fine animal can neither be small, for observation becomes confused when it approaches an imperceptible instant of time; nor can it be very large, for observation cannot happen at the same time, but its unity and wholeness vanish from the observers view, e.g. if there were an animal a thousand miles long". He comments after this long sentence, that consequently only something we can comprehend as a whole, something that is memorizable, is of rational worth. In other words, the animal must have a visual beginning, middle, and end for us to understand its worth.
-	Now one can easily see why Aristotle uses an animal as a metaphor for a text. For him, an animal is a self-sustaining, complete entity. An animal is a whole made of parts where each part has a useful magnitude and reliance on other parts. Aristotle speaks of plot in a similar tone. He says: "[The plot's] parts ought to be so constructed that, when some parts is transposed or removed, the whole is disrupted and disturbed".
-	For Aristotle, a text is best when the parts within the whole are given the correct magnitude/size. For example, an hour long tragedy should have less actors and scenes than a eight hour epic film. If the opposite were true, then either the whole would become too saturated or depleted. He makes it clear that the whole must be divided into rational, differently-sized parts to ensure its effectiveness.
+Now one can easily see why Aristotle uses an animal as a metaphor for a text. For him, an animal is a self-sustaining, complete entity. An animal is a whole made of parts where each part has a useful magnitude and reliance on other parts. Aristotle speaks of plot in a similar tone. He says: "[The plot's] parts ought to be so constructed that, when some parts is transposed or removed, the whole is disrupted and disturbed".
-	In section 8, Aristotle begins discussing what makes a plot good. As a principle, he says: "A plot is not unified, as some suppose, if it concerns only one single person". Some of the poets have made a blunder in Aristotle's mind by only having one character. One character doesnÕt mean unity, because unity is formed through plot and not person. Aristotle uses the example of the Heracleid, a poem about Heracles' life. It's major flaw is that it tells the reader or listener everything about Heracles, and therefore, it has no plot. What makes a text effective is its cast of characters and their interactions around the general plot.
-	Instead, Aristotle idealizes Homer. He says: "Just as Homer is superior in other respects ... in composing the Odyssey, he did not put everything in his poem that happened to Odysseus". Homer excels because of his ability to weave a plot with many characters. The whole of the Odyssey is constructed around a single action, and similarly, the Iliad too. And neither have the shallowness of plot of the Heracleid. Homer effectively balances the text by using proper proportion and magnitude. His poems are like an organic creature.
+For Aristotle, a text is best when the parts within the whole are given the correct magnitude/size. For example, an hour long tragedy should have less actors and scenes than a eight hour epic film. If the opposite were true, then either the whole would become too saturated or depleted. He makes it clear that the whole must be divided into rational, differently-sized parts to ensure its effectiveness.
+In section 8, Aristotle begins discussing what makes a plot good. As a principle, he says: "A plot is not unified, as some suppose, if it concerns only one single person". Some of the poets have made a blunder in Aristotle's mind by only having one character. One character doesnÕt mean unity, because unity is formed through plot and not person. Aristotle uses the example of the Heracleid, a poem about Heracles' life. It's major flaw is that it tells the reader or listener everything about Heracles, and therefore, it has no plot. What makes a text effective is its cast of characters and their interactions around the general plot.
+Instead, Aristotle idealizes Homer. He says: "Just as Homer is superior in other respects ... in composing the Odyssey, he did not put everything in his poem that happened to Odysseus". Homer excels because of his ability to weave a plot with many characters. The whole of the Odyssey is constructed around a single action, and similarly, the Iliad too. And neither have the shallowness of plot of the Heracleid. Homer effectively balances the text by using proper proportion and magnitude. His poems are like an organic creature.
 II.
@@ Line 65: / Line 80: @@
 Homer. Iliad. Trans. Rieu, E. V.; revised by Rieu, D.C.H. London: Penguin, 2003.
-{{tag>Articles}}