This feels like a very classist statement. He's saying that people of lower classes are too dumb to understand the "refined" "complexity" of Epic Poetry because it doesn't include aids like gestures and spectacle. Given my basic understanding of class systems in Ancient Greece, I get it. But can you imagine someone saying this today?

Expressionism? Am I correct in thinking that expressionism won't become "a thing" for a few centuries? I find it interesting to see some of the things Aristotle comments on and knowing how it relates to drama today.

I believe this is what we would call "throwing shade" today. What justification do you think Aristotle has for calling Euripides out like this? What is it about Euripides' work that Aristotle wouldn't agree with?

I find it interesting how repetitive this statement is. Art imitates life life imitates art

Tell it like it is, Aristotle.

He is saying that if you can take away a certain plot point or event, and the story would have the same outcome, then there is no point to including it at all. No superfluous spectacle here, folks.

Ouch. I'm curious what everyone else thinks of this in modern drama? Our book says something about how modern critics still don't always love spectacle, but I would be interested in looking at how much this perception of spectacle has shifted. I'm a design major who is literally getting a degree to learn how to better create spectacle that is connected to the text so this is conflicting.

I think this is the first introduction of the three unities of drama? This one being time

I read something on the internet once, about how Shakespeare wrote in iambic verse because the stressed-unstressed syllables imitate a heartbeat. Bout as true to life as you can get

Was anyone else alarmed and intrigued by this? Because I totally was. Apparently the Greeks did this thing called "Phallic Processions" (read: penis parades). They were common in Dionysiac celebrations, where people paraded to a town center flaunting obscenities and "fetishized phallus".

I think Aristotle is telling us that the only people who could possibly have conceived comedy were the people leading Penis Parades? Fascinating.

I love the way this describes people who make art, do it because they HAVE to do it by their nature. Very moving sentiment that I think about a lot

I wonder why this is. We feel a greater catharsis by seeing someone of great affluence and power fall from grace because we tend to care for them more. An average Joe falling down is less interesting. In comedy, we'd much rather feel validation knowing that people who are "less than" are portrayed as such onstage.

This reminds me of a debate we got into in our Design II class last semester, where we were debating over how we define an "artist". Like how do you measure the point where you're no longer scribbling words or lines on a page, but creating a work of art? I wish I had had this to bring up at the time. If the intention is to imitate life, then it is art, and you are an artist.