Through a detailed study of Hamlet and comparative reference to The Revenger’s Tragedy, discuss the ways tragedies do or do not reassure audiences that good can triumph over evil.

[INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPHS OF WHAT WOULD NEED TO BE A LONGER ESSAY FOR AN EXAM OR COURSEWORK] 

Tragedy as a genre is unique in its ability to create a sensation for its audiences that is paradoxically both relieving and horrific. Aristotle named this sensation ‘catharsis.’ This paradox of catharsis has been long and inconclusively debated. Kierkegaard, in his reflections on the pleasure we reap from ‘the horrific’ in art identified a teleological drive behind Tragedy that presents the audience with the possibility of possibilities. Therefore, regardless of the tragic outcome of the plot, through our judgments of the characters’ decisions, we might holistically reap hope. Nonetheless, there does exist an undeniable desire to indulge in the genre and as an audience, whether to quench some morbid thirst, (as Freud might suggest with his theory of the death-drive) or to experience Aristotle’s catharsis, we feel ourselves almost willing a bloody conclusion.  The relevance of this discussion to the consideration of the reassuring triumph of good probably lies in the acceptance that the effect of Tragedy on its audience is far more complex than the binary ‘horrible versus exciting’ debate might suggest. We must consider whether or not catharsis constitutes reassurance and whether the death of the good can be compatible with its triumph.

Hamlet’s purpose is fulfilled in quite a different way from Vindice’s and Hamlet’s ending is arguably more tragic. Where Vindice’s stage-life can be expanded and viewed as a metaphor for the nature of human life, especially within the revenge tragedy framework in that he achieves his purpose is happy then dies, Hamlet’s death, inversely seems unnecessary and unjust. Revenge usually has quasi-biblical attachments concerning the peaceful rest of the dead and ‘unfinished business’ being a hindrance to this. Throughout The Revenger’s Tragedy, Vindice seems to have a firm grip on his sanity and his machinating is, within the parameters of the genre, controlled and sensible. Hamlet’s presumed unintentional madness, contrastingly, results in a more tortured story - his decisions are inconsistent and his methods frequently unwise despite his obvious intelligence. Furthermore, Middleton dwells only briefly on Vindice’s grief whereas Hamlet’s mourning is thoroughly explored and heart wrenchingly communicated. Further still, Hamlet has just moments to recognise his success whereas Vindice’s celebrations are so completely enjoyed that finally it leads to his death. From this perspective we might see The Revenger’s Tragedy as the one more likely to reassure its audiences that its protagonist’s efforts were not in vain and that good can ultimately triumph over evil. Hamlet however, relishes its own brutality slightly less and renders an image of a triumph more bitter than sweet.