Poetic techniques

http://www.poetryfoundation.org/learning/glossary-terms?category=techniquesand-figures-of-speech

Othello Critics
Samuel Taylor Coleridge
-Finally, let me repeat that Othello does not kill Desdemona in jealousy, but in a conviction
forced upon him by the almost superhuman art of Iago, such a conviction as any many would
and must have entertained who had believed Iagos honesty as Othello did

Genre: Tragedy
Underlying theme: Jealousy
Linking themes: Manipulation, Identity.
Alliteration, caesura: As masterly as he: mere prattle, without practice
Enjambment, simile: Dangerous conceits are in their natures poisons,
Burn like the mines of Sulphur.
Awkward syntax, definitive language, foreshadowing: I am not what I
am.
Othello: Caesura, Repetition, High modality language, Directive words,
logical syntax: No, Iago; I'll see before I doubt; when I doubt, prove.
Emilia: Repetition, high modality, diction: They are not ever jealous for
the cause, But jealous for they are jealous
Othello: eloquent syntax, paradoxical statements Inverted syntax: Most
potent, grave, and reverend seigniors Rude am I in my speech
Othello: Alliteration: More than pertains to feats of broil and battle.
Othello: Vivid imagery, emotional diction: And of the Cannibals that each
other eat, These things to Hear Would Desdemona seriously incline.
Othello: anaphora, paradox: Of one that loved not wisely Of one not
easily jealous,
Iago: Metaphorical imagery of plague, repetition, contrasting diction:
Plague him with flies. Though that his joy be joy
Brabantio: High modality, powerful dictionDamned as thou art, thou hast
enchanted her!
Iago to Cassio: Metaphor, He'll be as full of quarrel and offense
Iago to Othello: Inverted syntax, diction, manipulative language: No, sure,
I cannot think it
That he would steal away so guiltylike, Seeing you coming.

The timeless resonance of Shakespeares paradigmatic revenge tragedy Hamlet is

founded upon the changing interpretations of the play, regardless of contextual barriers.
Hamlet's enduring themes and issues allow it to maintain its textual integrity as Hamlet's
evolving reflections upon revenge, verisimilitude and existential discourse are caused
through the [Q], thus accentuating the uncertainty surrounding his sense of identity. As
such, an exegesis of Hamlet, allows the audience to appreciate the texts treatment of
such transcendental values, confirming Hamlets sustained textual integrity.
The ideological clash of Renaissance humanism and Christian tradition is central to my
view of Hamlet as a tragic hero caught between incongruous microcosms. Hamlets
indecisiveness is a direct consequence of his realisation that society is founded upon the
paradoxical doctrines of murder and regicide, as opposed to righteousness and virtue.
The Ghost triggers a sudden epiphany within Hamlet to avenge his foul and most
unnatural murder, commanding him in the tradition of a Revenge Tragedy, whilst
foreshadowing a rupture in Platos Great Chain of Being through the ghosts presence.
Thus, Hamlet ironically vows to execute this deed with wings as swift / As
thoughts of love, but in doing so, he must become a murderer himself, defying
religious convention, thus creating his moral dilemma. Such contrasts between the
interiority of thought and the exigent physicality of revenge within the confines of
Hamlets incongruity and moral disdain reveal a renaissance weltanschauunang, the
world view that captures the chasm of oblivion separating the worlds of everyday reality
and that of Nietzsches Dionysian Man. Thus, Hamlets conflict is elucidated by his dual
role of scourge and minister, where the juxtaposition between Hamlet as Heavens
nemesis and its minister of justice highlights the moral quandary of being the judge, jury
and executioner. Henceforth, Hamlet is torn between the pursuit of bestial passion
and cogitating the name of action in what Plato defines as metaxy essentially the
in between of human existence that forms his ontological crisis. Thus, the incompatible
secular value system and the Christian ethical code come into direct conflict as a result
of [Q] and demonstrate the prevailing relevance of Hamlets moral dilemma to the
audience.
Epistemological notions of perceptions of the struggle between truth and illusion are
essentially based on the limits of knowledge. The uncertainty of knowledge in
Shakespeares context represents a departure from Renaissance humanism, as such
through the comparison of Hamlet to Nietzches Dionysian Man who is paralyzed by
superior knowledge, it is however, the lack of knowledge which prevents Hamlets
resolve to act. The rhetorical question congruent with the in media res opening, Who's
there? establishes an interrogative context congruently foreshadowing the existential
doubt that resonates throughout the play essentially triggering Hamlets hamartia.
Further, the motif of verisimilitude substantiates this as Claudius declares his annexation
as "my crown, mine own ambition and my queen," whilst paradoxically mourning
King Hamlet's death with repetition "one auspicious eye and one dropping eye."
Thus, due to his lack of knowledge, his reluctance in killing the apparently repentant King
is dramatically ironic as Claudius evidently fails to pray sincerely as his words fly up
thoughts remain below. Therefore, Hamlets dramatic espousal of an antic
disposition as a measured intent to represent the lies and dishonesty encircling him,
causes an epistemological quandary enmeshing him in the depths of an internal conflict,
and he employs the mise-en-abyme, The Mousetrap, as a mediator between truth
and illusion to alliteratively, catch the conscience of the king. Ultimately, without a
reliable character to substantiate the certainty of knowledge, the audience is forced to
seek truth through illusion in an unnatural world where according to Ophelia, we
paradoxically know what we are, but know not what we may be relating to the
dually limitless capacity of human beings, based on the knowledge we possess. The

epistemological conceptualisation of Hamlets world [Q] continues to be pertinent in our

contemporary context, reflecting the limitations of human understanding.
Consequently, these struggles of human nature culminate within Hamlet to form a
philosophical existential dilemma. Surrounded by corruption and isolated in his moral
struggle for vengeance, Hamlets metaphor of deliquescence congruent with repetition,
too too solid flesh would melt, thaw and resolve itself into a dew expresses
his intense desideratum and his irrepressible feelings of insecurity. The accumulation of
dreary imagery in weary, stale, flat and unprofitable, reinforce Hamlets struggle
to find value in his life and his introspective musings into mortality- what dreams may
come... we have shuffled off this mortal coil reflect a world in transition, where
traditional beliefs of a Chain of Being are superimposed by Renaissance values of
individualism and self-determination. Further, his existential discourse is explicated,
using metaphorical caesura, Tis an unweeded gardenrank and gross in nature
to symbolize his eremitic rejection of the physicality of life. Moreover, Hamlet believes
lifes struggles are futile and his rhetorical question What should each fellows as I
do/ Crawling between Heaven and earth? accentuates the insignificance of life
itself. Thus in realizing that he is biblically guided by a special providence... [but] no
man of aught he leaves knows Hamlet paradoxically ascertains that humanity is
lost in the void of meaning, resulting in a lack of self-gratification. Hamlets existential
discourse through his deliberations in [Q], causes him to succumb to his hamartia, thus
remaining pertinent to contemporary audiences, as he prompts us to ponder the value of
our own lives.
Hence Shakespeares delineation of Hamlets Hamartia in relation to moral retribution,
existentialism and verisimilitude [Q]. Thus the audience is able to understand the
relevance of the play to their respective contexts, furthering the plays status as a
canonical text.