I See . . . Structure.

Having completed Hamlet, I have now read six of Shakespeare’s plays in their entirety: [Hamlet,] Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, King Lear, Titus Andronicus, and Othello. While the endings of these Shakespearean tragedies are by all means serious in nature, and intended to shock their audience, I could not help feeling a bit satirical as I read over the familiar, melancholy text of Shakespeare’s signature ‘murdering-poisoning-suicide-pacting’ closing act. By no means is this a bad thing. I can compare it to watching the Die Hard quadrilogy; for each sequel, you walk into the theater, find a place to sit, watch Bruce Willis beat up a few bad guys and maybe “kill” a helicopter or two, and then walk out thoroughly entertained (no disrespect to Shakespeare, who embeds much deeper meaning into his work than any of the Die Hard directors). Perhaps the audiences of the Elizabethan Era felt this way too, as they grew accustomed to Shakespeare’s writing style.
Just like modern cinema closely follows the mythic structure, so does Shakespeare follow the dramatic structure (which he impart has shaped). In the beginning there is information provided about the protagonist, his environment, and the basis of his conflict – Hamlet who resides at Elsinore castle in Denmark, is the son of the recently deceased King Hamlet, and is troubled by the sudden marriage between his uncle and mother. Then there is a rising action that further intensifies the conflict, ultimately leading to a climax – Romeo and Juliet discover that they are from feuding families, and thus marry in secrecy; Romeo is exiled from Verona, and remains unaware that Juliet has faked her death in hopes of reuniting with him. Finally, the climax falls into the conclusion, where the audience is left with the aftermath of a catastrophe to dwell on – Titus feeds to Tamora a pie which has her sons baked in it, kills her, is then himself killed by Saturninus, who is then killed by Lucius. As the only survivor, Lucius share’s his story to the public – a duel lesson in revenge for the audience of the play.
Whatever the reason may be, Shakespeare’s structure is successful in captivating audiences across many eras. But why is it that not all who attempt the dramatic structure succeed at it? Furthermore, why would one prefer one of Shakespeare’s plays over another (Titus Andronicus is my favorite), if they all share the same structure? What I have concluded, is that a proven plot structure cannot compensate for poor detail. In other words, a book/play needs to in some way (usually character development, or their environment) invoke one’s imagination and connect with their daily life. Shakespeare clearly possess the talent to do so; by assigning Hamlet a subconscious mind he not only make’s Hamlet three-dimensional (visible/imaginable), but also generates insight for readers/audience members who note similarities in their own philosophical pondering.

A few photos from an 11th grade project, where my group reenacts the [Shakespearean] ending of Titus Andronicus.