1. Bal, Mieke. “Mimesis and Genre Theory in Aristotle’s Poetics.” Poetics Today 3.1 (1982):171-180. (Min Kang)

      Mieke Bal focuses on Aristotle’s concept of mimesis which derives much debate on the relation between literature and reality.  The two opposing sides of the debate are “those claim realism to be the consequences of mimetic thinking, and those who claim the creation of new objects to be the real meaning of the concept, and hence the autonomy of literature to be crucial” (Bal 171).  He accuses Western binary thinking of forcing people to strictly choose between two possible meanings held by the two opposing sides of the debates.  This article is divided into three sections which are titled “”1. Mimesis as a semiotic concept,” “2. Genre as a multidimensional system,” and “3. Conclusion.”  
     After a brief introduction, the first section starts out by distinguishing between art and science.  The main distinction between these two is fictionality which differentiates art and reality.  Thus the translation of mimesis by an article supported by the author is opted to be representation and not imitation.  Bal asserts that representation implies that the object is absent and is replaced.  Bal states his argument as, “if mimetic reception is a construction or reconstruction by the recipient of the semiosized model, the difference between figurative and nonfigurative art is negligible as far as the relation of art to reality is concerned, for in the case of an “emergency,” the receiver just makes up a “model” if no existing one is available.”  Bal argues that because the perception of mimesis is a cognitive event where the receptor logically reconstructs or constructs the model, the realism aspect is irrelevant.  If one was faced with an object where there was no existing model to decode it by, one could come up with a model to guide its process of reconstruction.  This contention supports his claim that the realism debate is thus irrelevant and so the two opposing parties of the debate are misconceiving the essence of the argument.

2. Butterworth, Charles E. Averroe’s Middle Commentary on Aristotle’s Poetics. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1986. (Sarah Nason)

    The main focus of this book seems to be to use Aristotle’s Poetics to analyze works of poetry cross-culturally but also a lot focuses on poetry written by people of his own nationality, Arabs. The book begins with an introduction by the editor, followed by a section called “Order of Argument”. In this section, Averroe summarizes his argument, paragraph by paragraph and point for point numbered, in short one or two sentences. I found this to be interesting as well as informative in regard to someone reading this text that needed a clear understanding of Aristotle’s Poetics. Averroe’s choice to do this makes his analysis more organized, and prepares the reader for his argument. Then in the next section he gives a textual analysis of each summarized point; a more in depth explanation of Aristotle’s argument. It is very clear that Averroe completely supports Aristotle’s view on poetics and uses continuous examples by using poetry from his own culture or other cultures and analyzing them according to Aristotle’s view and explaining why his points are valid. What I found to be particularly interesting is how this analysis of Aristotle’s work is a little incomplete, due to the fact that the translation (from Greek into Arab) was never completely finished. The editor also mentions in the introduction that some parts of the Arab translation were inaccurate. Despite these facts, Averroe still does a good job of supporting Aristotle’s view on poetics in his argument. 

3. Davis, Michael. Aristotle’s Poetics: The Poetry Of Philosophy. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1992. (Min Kang)

     Michael Davis structures his book into three parts titled “Mimésis”, “Praxis”, and “Logos”.  Under part I called “Mimesis”, located are the first four chapters called “Second Things”, “In What”, “What and How”, and “Dramatic Imitation”.  Part II titled “Praxis” is comprised of “Tragedy”, “The Parts of Tragedy”, “The Unity of Action”, and “The Structure of Action”.  Chapters 9-12 called “Parts”, “Eidé”, “Metaphor”, “Epic and Tragedy: Action in Speech and Speech in Action” all can be found under Part III called “Logos” respectively.  Davis acknowledges that the long traditions of scholarly controversy difficulty are due to the ambiguity of certain terms used in the Poetics such as katharsis, mimesis, hamartia, and peripeteia.  He asserts that even if one might argue that the truth of the Poetics goes deeper than its outer surface, one must be careful not to trivialize its meaning by tainting Aristotle’s overall straightforward intentions of the book with the imperfections of human subjectivity.  
     Although the Poetics is generally about the structure poetry and more specifically tragedy, Davis argues that it is also about the fundamental structure of human action.  He writes, “if reason is what is distinctive to human action, a book about the structure of human action must also be a book about reason” (Davis xiv).  Because human action and reason are interdependent, Poetics must comprise both of these subjects and furthermore, show how they interact with each other.  This profound connection between these topics makes it a necessity for one to juxtapose and discuss these matters collectively.  Davis argues that Poetics is not an esoteric writing in which Aristotle has purposely concealed a deeper level of meaning underneath the surface because this inevitable association forces readers to reinterpret the meaning of the book as a whole regardless.   He continues to reason that Aristotle did not make an explicit connection between the relation between reason and human action not because he wasn’t aware of the relationship between the two subjects but because it is up to the interpreters to decipher it.  Davis maintains that Aristotle’s works “allows interpreters to do what they cannot in any case resist doing by virtue of an impulse deeply rooted in the nature of thinking itself; it allows them to see that a text means more than it first seems to mean, that its ordinary surface has a depth, a being underlying its seeming” even if the task is an ironically unending cycle (xv).  
     Davis further addresses the motive for Aristotle’s indirect way of presenting the relationship between poetry and action, which seem to be clearly distinguished in other works.  He proposes that the integration of the theoretical and the poetic must be reconciled through an examination of the form and the content of the text itself.   Davis concludes that poetry makes it possible for humans to experience their actions as whole before it becomes a whole.  I agree that Poetry’s capability to constitute the experience at once is what allows humans to experience life as wholes.

4. Ford, James E.  “On Thinking About Aristotle’s ‘Thought.’” Critical Inquiry 4 (1978): 586-96. (Troy Wilton)

     This is mainly in response to Leon Rosenstein’s “On Aristotle and Thought in the Drama.”  James Ford states plainly that Rosenstein misunderstood thought and that it was a character’s non-logical speech that created thought and that thought was to solidify actions.  He describes why thought is not merely a thematic subject and defines that the plot and story are not the same entity.  He also describes why thought is not a subordinate to character.

5. McLuhan, Schoeck, Sirluck and Olson, eds. Aristotle’s “Poetics” And English Literature: A Collection of Essays. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press, 1965. 175-191. (Sarah Nason)

     I found this short essay to be interesting because of how it criticizes Aristotle’s Poetics. Olsen begins by immediately criticizing the fact that while Aristotle’s work on Poetics and Rhetoric are famous, it isn’t really philosophy, but more of a list of literary rules and can’t be related to art.  The three main points that he focuses on are what knowledge and science meant to Aristotle, Aristotle’s view on art, and how both of those things affects how Poetics is structured. He explains in detail how Aristotle divides up the sciences and his theoretical methods, how he views what art is, and how that contradicts what he is trying to do with Poetics. While very scientific and useful when analyzing text structurally, Olsen makes a good argument that Aristotle did not take art into consideration when writing poetics and therefore it is not appropriate for people of our time to try and apply it to the artistic value of poetry. 
   
6. Valency, Maurice.  Tragedy.  New Amsterdam Books: New York, 1991. (Troy Wilton)

     Maurice Valency’s Tragedy argues what a tragedy is often citing parts of Aristotle’s Poetics as well as Horace’s and Plato’s works.  It begins by defining a tragedy, stating that one of the key elements is sorrow.  From there, it outlines the history of Greek tragedies and the theatre.  It continues to define how the plays were put on, with players using masks and the role of the chorus.  He then comments on all the aspects of a play, highlighting the six main aspects, which Aristotle wrote of and supplements it with pieces of other writer’s work.  He also talks about Aristotle’s idea of catharsis.