Here is an excerpt from the 'Poetics' of Aristotle.
A story or Plot must be of some length, but of a length to be taken in by the memory. As for the limit of its length,so far as that is relative to public performances and spectators, itdoes not fall within the theory of poetry. If they had to perform ahundred tragedies, they would be timed by water-clocks, as they aresaid to have been at one period. The limit, however, set by the actualnature of the thing is this: the longer the story, consistently withits being comprehensible as a whole, the finer it is by reason of itsmagnitude. As a rough general formula, 'a length which allows of thehero passing by a series of probable or necessary stages frommisfortune to happiness, or from happiness to misfortune', may sufficeas a limit for the magnitude of the story.
By the way, the reason for this length to be taken in by the memory is this: one cannot see the pleasant proportions of a thing unless it can be comprehended as a whole.
Now we have a puzzle. Aristotle says this, yet The Lord of the Rings seems much too long to fit into this category of proper length. How do we resolve this difficulty?
It is my personal opinion (I would like you to contest it, if you have such a desire) that:
1. Aristotle (and many other philosophers and artists) place too great of an importance on the numerical proportions of things. (Think "Golden ratio" (3/5) etc.) I will not deny that some ratios cause more pleasure than others, but unless it can be proven to me that this pleasure is in some place other than just our heads, I believe that a skillful person may disregard it and still produce pleasure through other elements, perhaps even more effectively than if he did obey the numbers.
2. The Lord of the Rings is such a large undertaking, both in terms of raw size and thematic and character profundity, that its plot cannot fit into Aristotle's proportions without significant damage to these other elements. Hence, we neither care nor notice.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Plot (a distninct from other elements) of the Hobbit:
Gandalf, a wizard* is looking for a burglar and finds Bilbo Baggins, a hobbit*, and presents him to the 13 dwarves* who need one to take back their heirlooms from the dragon* Smaug. He accepts out of vanity.
They set out while he is sleeping, Gandalf wakes him, sets him on a pony*. For some time he is mainly a nuisance - least experience, least courage, least equipment.
A soaking rainy night, Gandalf absenting, they spy trolls*, and ask him to burgle for them, which action discovers them to the trolls. Gandalf saves them by staging a quarrel between the trolls until the sun rises and they turn to stone. From their lair two swords and a knife are taken.
In Rivendell*, Elrond the Halfelven* teaches them important things about the swords and the map before letting them quit his hospitality.
In another soaking rainy and stormy night in the Grey Mountains* they seek refuge in a grot, Gandalf present. They sleep, goblins* take them captive, the swords are recognised but Gandalf intervenes with fire magic to free them. Bilbo is taken on the back of a dwarf who loses him in flight, he is knocked out.
Alone in the dark, he finds a ring, encounters its former keeper, the viciously hungry and agressive Gollum*, escapes him and finds that the ring makes him invisible. He passes through goblin ranks as he exits the Grey Mountains on other side.
Goblins chase them up into trees; they are put under fire, saved by eagles*, carried close to Beorn*. He lends them new ponies. Gandalf leaves them to fight the Necromancer*.
In Mirkwood they have to evade a sleeping spell river*, fight giant spiders* and are made captive by elves*. Bilbo, using the ring, helps in escape from spiders and (the much gentler) elves, gets them in tuns to Laketown*. They are received, then given ponies and new equipment to get back what is theirs.
On the astronomically important Durin's day* as explained in Rivendell, the enter the side of the Lonely Mountain and send Bilbo to spy on dragon. He angers Smaug, but discovers the weak spot in the belly.
Smaug now burns Lake Town, but a bird sent by the dwarves gives Bard* the knowledge of the weak spot, he shoots Smaug to death, with an arrow.
The dwarves try to keep all of Smaugs treasure, against the homeless from Laketown and their friends the elves of Mirkwood. Bilbo hands Bard the Arkenstone, and Thorin, the chief dwarf has to accept the deal to get it back, this peace being made just in time before facing goblins and wargs*. Thorin and some more die in battle. Their relatives who had been summoned against men and elves did service against goblins and wargs. Bard refounds a little kingdom close to Beorn's place.
As Bilbo comes home, he finds he has absented for a year and has to stop an auction in order to get back what is his. His cousins, the Sackville-Baggins, have already stolen spoons there.
*all explanations pertaining to persons, localities, entities et c are outside the plot properly speaking: in antique Greece, knowledge of such was taken for granted, in a supposed Middle Earth after the Red Book of Westmarch was written, it would equally have been a question of things either mainly known or explained separately.
That said, it should be obvious that Aristotle's "plot" equals MEng usage of "synopsis".
What is MEng usage of synopsis? In my opinion, after Tolkien's plots are fleshed out into full tales, they are waaay larger than Aristotle's proportions.
Aristotle is NOT talking about when they are fleshed out into full tales. He is talking about the bare synopsis/plot, without the fleshing out.
I disagree; I think Tolkien followed Aristotle's rules very well, and indeed took this line as a challenge: the longer the story, consistently withits being comprehensible as a whole, the finer it is by reason of itsmagnitude.
The reason I say this is that, in his introduction to The Lord of the Rings or perhaps in one of his letters, Tolkien says, "I wanted to try my hand at writing a really long story" and holding the reader's interest throughout, at which he has certainly succeeded. And in fact, the length of the Lord of the Rings is necessary to make the progress from its beginning to its ending at all probable, when you consider distances, obstacles, and the magnitude of the task involved.
Anyway, thanks for the interesting post!
Well, I suppose that whether the Lord of the Rings is too long to fit in Aristotle's category is a matter that is relative to the memory of the reader. (I sound like a leftist compromisist, don't I? :) I know that in my personal experience, I remember the plot of Lord of the Rings very well, but many books that I liked as well that were shorter have very unmemorable plots. When my younger siblings read them, and tell me about them, I am surprised about what is there.
I totally second Lucia Rosa.
The bare outline of LotR would be only three to four times that above of the Hobbit - or could even be reduced.
The fleshing out, Aristotle makes no limit, as long as the plot (=bare outline) can be memorized.
What Aristotle is talking against is considering for instance Ovid's Metamorphoses as ONE epic, rather than a string of epyllia. Or what you find in soap-operas. LotR so clearly has a beginning (Frodo inherits a ring and learns it has to be destroyed) and an end (he fails to destroy it himself, but it is destroyed anyway, leaving him to ache for it, until he can be healed in Elfland) that are beginning and end of one and same plot.
Let's say it shorter:
Aristotle is not talking about long full fleshed out stories, he is talking about unmemorizable (=too complicated, i e too long in mere outline) plots.
I see. But wouldn't you admit that it is possible that in the fleshing out of a plot, it could happen (though not in Tolkien, praise God) that an originally tolerable plot is forgotten because the fleshing-out somehow interferes with our ability to remember and/or discern the bare outline?
That is the fault Aristotle called a poem being episodic (too many episodes/subplots)
Post a Comment