Is Aristotle's definition of drama still relevant? Why or why not?

Expert Answers

An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

When Aristotle divided “poetry” into epic, lyric, and dramatic, he was concerning himself with the kinds of narration that separated them.  When he defined drama as “imitation of an action by action” he was referring to its theatrical expression, and of course had no comment on “recorded” imitation (film, etc.)  His definition of tragedy includes a sense of catharsis. What has changed since his delineations is the non-liveness of cinema drama, the rising and falling actions on screen, recorded in the absence of the recipients, the “audience” or, more accurately, the “spectators.”  The most irrelevant aspect, then, of his definition, is the catharsis the citizenry feels from witnessing the enactment of the drama.  While there are several emotions evoked from viewing a film, it is hard to list catharsis among them.  Film, TV, etc. can reproduce a plot, even some psychological character, but no-one is “fooled” into thinking they are witnessing a real “tragedy.”  Also, the "citizenry" represented by the chorus, is no longer a unified body.

See eNotes Ad-Free

Start your 48-hour free trial to get access to more than 30,000 additional guides and more than 350,000 Homework Help questions answered by our experts.

Get 48 Hours Free Access
Approved by eNotes Editorial