disharmony

[truepenny]

The Hamlet chapter has been disassembled and reassembled, and aside from needing transitional paragraphs, and having two introductions and two conclusions, is looking much better. It's like a bear cub that's halfway along in the process of being licked into shape.

I am fearing that I'm going to have to write an essaylet to go at the beginning of the Elizabethan chapter, just to thrash out the whole silly mess of morality and audience response. I've found five different critical positions so far, four of which are fatuous to one degree or another. Personally, I think the moral question--do we approve of the revenger or not--is a huge red herring. The point of the tragedy is not that the revenger's actions are immoral; it is that they are inevitable and inevitably lead to his destruction. But morality is a Big Hang-Up in revenge tragedy criticism, so I think I have to take a whack at it. *sigh*

And every article I read has footnotes that lead me to other articles I ought to read. This is the other reason I didn't want to do the secondary reading; once you start, there is no good place to draw the finish line.

*bitch*bitch*bitch*

Comments

Morality in Jackobian Tragedy

[dmsherwood53.livejournal.com]

I haven't read any since Univ so apologiesin advance if this is incoherant. But my take is that the original audiance anyway didn't get into moralizing. The point was melodramatic thrills and blood and emotional rollocoster. The audience probably had less of a stretch to get behibnd revenge than Us tho.