I read books 2 and 3 over a few sittings, and each time I came to it, I was surprised to find Aristotle talking about what we'd now classify as several different fields of study. He seems much like a psychologist at times. At others, he seems to be more of a lawyer. When he starts talking about style, he seems to be the original Strunk and White.
I recognized a lot of concepts that we still hold dear in the areas of psychology, law, and style. Of course, there were also some that didn't quite make sense in a modern setting. I got a little confused by the periodic style discussion, and the idea of a prose writer thinking about iambs is a little foreign.
Some of this information seems so deeply engrained in us that it seems like he's stating the obvious. At other times, such as when he's defining anger and pity and all the ways that these can be evoked, it feels as if he's oversimplifying and trying to pin down and dissect something that is not so simple to classify and understand. Yet, sometimes when I was thinking, "There's got to be more to it than that," I reflected on it and thought, "If we stretch definitions of some of these terms, he might not be so far from the truth."