July 30 - October 9, 2018

  "Recognition, as the name indicates,                ARISTOTLE_POETICS
  is a change from ignorance to
  knowledge, producing love or hate         I think this would include
  between the persons ..."                  things like Oedipus suddenly
                                            recognizing that his wife
  "Recognition, then, being between         is his mother.
  persons, it may happen that one person
  only is recognised by the other-- when
  the latter is already known--or it may
  be necessary that the recognition
  should be on both sides."

This is a useful insight I've
been known to miss...
                                        There are these peculiar,
E.g. The realization on A-ko's part     standard "plot developments"
that A-ko loves B-ko, and the           in shoujo fiction that
converse realization on B-ko's part     barely even register on me
that B-ko loves A-ko may be two         as "events":
seperate events in a story.            
                                        A becomes aware of B's existence.
                                        B becomes aware of A's existence.
                                        A realizes they're in love with B.

                                        B realizes they're in love with A.

                                        A continues to avoid confessing
                                        their love to B, but for a different

                                               All of these micro-events
                                               can be juggled in a different
                                               order: slight variations in
                                               plot that the devotees are
                                               highly sensitive too.
  "A third part is the Scene
  of Suffering. The Scene of
  Suffering is a destructive
  or painful action ..."

And that one is really
peculiar-- it's a different
logical order than the other
two "parts" isn't it?  And it
sounds a lot like a form of

Aristotle really likes the oedipal model:

  "Still better, that it should be perpetrated in
  ignorance, and the discovery made afterwards."
Myself, I don't see why that should be so interesting.    
Perhaps: The fear that at any moment we might         
think we know what we're doing, but might not...      

From Section XVI:

  "What Recognition is has been already explained. We will
  now enumerate its kinds."

  "First, the least artistic form, which, from poverty of
  wit, is most commonly employed recognition by signs. Of
  these some are congenital,--such as 'the spear which
  the earth-born race bear on their bodies,' or the stars
  introduced by Carcinus in his Thyestes. Others are
  acquired after birth; and of these some are bodily
  marks, as scars; some external tokens, as necklaces, or
  the little ark in the Tyro by which the discovery is
  effected. Even these admit of more or less skilful
  treatment. Thus in the recognition of Odysseus by his
  scar, the discovery is made in one way by the nurse, in
  another by the swineherds."

Aristotle may very well have "explained" recognition (certainly
he's mentioned it in his lists) prior to this, but it took these
examples to make it clear what he actually meant.

He's referring to something like a scene where
someone suddeny realizes that the household
slave is actually the long lost heir.

                                 I've seen this called a "birth mystery" in
                                 the korean drama world (the writer main
   Another thing you might       character in "Because This is my First Life"
   mean by "recognition"         refers to them dismissively... I can think of
   is a moment at which          examples from dramas from ten years ago, but
   the audience realizes         not recent ones.  Fallen out of favor?)
   something, perhaps
   recognizes something                Presumably there are other variants,
   of themselves in the                like suddenly learning that the funny
   story.                              guy who made friends with you is
                                       really a government agent.

                                       You might say that the murder mystery
                                       is built upon this framework-- the
                                       drive of the story is the knowledge
                                       that there is someone to be Recognized,
                                       but you must learn who.

                                                     "The fourth kind is by
                                                     process of reasoning."

                                                Then there's the much beloved
                                                but rarely played "revelation
                                                of secret identity" scene.

                                      The audience really likes
                                      things like this, but the
                                      writer is always reluctant
                                      to make this move, because
                                      it can only be done once
                                      (per character) and it
                                      changes the story dynamic

                                      Similarly, one might look
                                      at the tendency for the
                                      author of love stories
                                      to drag out the resolution
                                      of the relationship as
                                      long as possible (if not
                                      farther), because once that
                                      source of tension is gone
                                      the story is over-- and if
                                      you want to keep going with
                                      the characters, you have to
                                      tell a different story.

                                            You might say
                                            there's a conflict of interest
                                            between the reader's
                                            desires and the author's.

                                            Alternately: the author
                                            needs to be more far-sighted
                                            than the reader, and delay
                                            gratification to increase
                                            the pay off later.

Is this really supposed to be a fifth type
of recognition, seperate and distinct from
the other four?

  "But, of all recognitions, the best
  is that which arises from the
  incidents themselves, where the
  startling discovery is made by
  natural means."

      You could argue that if any of
      the "recognitions" are done          E.g. the third type, where
      right, it will seem like they        (I gather) a character's
      were done by "natural means".        involuntary reactions may
                                           make something about them
                                           clear to an observer.

  Aristotle's example sounds natural
  but *really dull*:

     "Such is that in the Oedipus                                  
     of Sophocles, and in the              In the Korean drama "Sky
     Iphigenia; for it was natural         Castle" there's a scene      
     that Iphigenia should wish to         where one woman gets         
     dispatch a letter."                   angry at another and         
                                           throws in the line "do       
  A-ko goes through B-ko's bag and         you want me to rip your      
  finds a name badge from their old        lips off?!". The woman       
  Burger King job.                         she's yelling at             
                                           immediately identifies       
                                           her as someone she knew      
                                           as a kid-- her standard     
                                           dialog hasn't changed.  
     This particular list of classifications              
     looks unusually poorly thought out for                                
     Aristotle-- though it has the virtue of                               
     being semi-empirical, it seems rooted in             
     examples of dramas Aristotle (and the                
     intended reader) is familiar with.                                    


                                                  of what?
                                                  by whom?
                                                  on what basis?
                                                  of what significance?
                                                  under what conditions?
                                                  at what time?