Some requirements:

• 4-6 pages; consider 4 a hard minimum
• MLA citation format
• Works Cited
• Numbered Pages
• Title

Due: Wed., Oct. 9

Overview:

The purpose of this paper is to find and discuss an interpretive “problem” in The Spanish Tragedy—in its construction, in its language or imagery, in the ending, in the representation of a particular idea or social element, etc.  Your paper will need to

Introduce the problem as a problem, as opposed to something you’ve merely noticed

Explain why thinking about this problem is important

I need to stress that the problem must me an interpretive problem. In thinking about problems, Wayne Booth distinguishes between a “condition” (a circumstance, a situation) that leads to identifiable “consequences.” In an interpretive problem, then, the consequence is that we, as interpreters, don’t know exactly what sense to make of something without some effort to resolve the problem.

Thus, “how to get revenge” isn’t a problem, at least not for us. And what would be the consequence, for us, of Hieronimo not knowing how to get revenge? Whether the play frames Hieronimo’s revenge as socially or personally productive, as justified, is a problem, and the consequence of that, in a play so conscious of a divinity and afterlife, is the extent to which individual pursuit of moral or social ideals is defensible.

Or consider Horatio’s murdered corpse: how should we interpret it? Lorenzo reads it one way (a deserved punishment for ambition); Hieronimo also displays it as justification, though its meaning is rather opposite. And then there is the (vaguely) Christian symbolism of the elevated dead man. The consequences of this might alight, again, on the justification of revenge, but they might also might involve the play’s perspective on social ambition, on the instability of signs (and, by extension, identity: was Don Andrea a lover or fighter? Which is Horatio? Is Hieronimo a judge or an executioner?).

We get multiple “readings” in the play of the death of DA and capture of Balthazar; we hear multiple responses to the tragedy of Suleiman; we see various responses to the death of Horatio. The play is clearly, at some level, about the possibility or necessity or perhaps futility of interpretation. But for our purposes you need to find something in the play that is unclear (a problematic “condition”) and that matters (has consequences).

1. Introduction.  Your Introduction will describe some aspect of the play that presents a contradiction or tension or irresolution, a condition that leads to an interpretive difficulty.  Besides the specific problems mentioned above, you might look for:

• ambiguities in words, phrases, figures of speech, images, allusions, etc.
• strange or unpredictable character decisions or actions
• conceptual problems raised by disguise or deception
• characters who mistake or ignore something about themselves or others
• “solutions” that don’t fully address the problems they seek to remedy
• a problem in the way social or political power is established, maintained, or exercised

2.  The body of your paper will consist (first) of one or more paragraphs that look at the problem in one or more specific places in the play, with analysis of specific language from those specific places (notice my annoying repetition of the word specific).  From there you need to move to consequence.  You might analyze a practical or plot consequence (so, what happens Pedrigano’s shaky faith in Lorenzo) but you should do so as a way toward raising the larger interpretive questions and consequences that matter.

3. Lastly, you’re going to need to cover more of the play than you might expect through substantial connections. Don Andrea’s plight in the introduction is discussed again (but resolved?) in the last exchange with revenge, but we also find it in the accounts of his death, in Lorenzo’s accusations of “dishonor” against Bel-Imperia, in B-I’s mention of Andrea to Horatio (and her transfer of affection—definitely another problem!), in Horatio’s similar lover-fighter duality, and of course his circumstances for revenge starkly contrast Hieronimo’s. I don’t know if a focus on Don Andrea would include all of this, but it would need to include a good bit.

Objectives:

Aside from the content, described above, I’ll be looking for:

Paragraph organization

• Does each paragraph contain a clear topic sentence? 
• Is that topic sentence linked to the paper’s thesis somehow? 
• Is each paragraph sufficiently developed? 
• Do any paragraphs contain material beyond the scope of the paragraph topic?

Effective use of quotations: 

• Have quotations been properly introduced with a “signal phrase”? 
• Are quotations punctuated properly? 
• Does each contain a citation?  Are the citations punctuated properly?

Close analysis: 

• Is the play language treated in sufficient analytical detail?  That is, are individual words and phrases pulled out of the quotations and discussed? 
• Has analytical attention been given to a passage’s diction (individual word choices); imagery (similes and metaphors, symbols, etc.); shifts or breaks in tone or thought? 

Proof Reading 

• [To be honest, I added this one after reading your first Writing Assignments!] Are there mechanical or stylistic errors? Does the writing strive for clarity and avoid repetition?