(LITERARY PLOT ANALYSIS [continued])[4th April 1987] .1821 [continued]

[Redbook3:112-113][19870404:1821g](LITERARY PLOT ANALYSIS [continued])[4th April 1987]

.1821

[continued]

I think I remember reading somewhere that in all (i.e. presumably most) operas the plot involves a good tenor, a wicked bass (?or baritone), and a soprano (?or contralto?) whom in the end the tenor gets despite the bass. In Othello*, of course, **he gets her, as it were, because of the wicked feller; and it may be that plays can commonly be analysed in this way also, with variations. So, often, can Romantic novels.

For tenor, read +M (as Archetype); for bass, +Mk; for contralto, +K. Sometimes, +K chooses +M instead of +Mk's allure. Sometimes +M gets +K despite +Mk's obstructions. But what, where +M has to choose?

In Macbeth, arguably, +M and +K bump off +C at the beginning; +Mk is everywhere manifest, and controls them. Similarly, in some romantic novels, does +M choose +C (sexes interchangeable here) instead of +K?

The diagonal Archetypes come in useful here, lending perhaps more precision: +M chooses xS instead of xP. More precision still might be possible*** between the diagonals and the cardinal Archetypes, but I expect to fill them randomly, not systematically: in [2], for example, Rachel (I believe) comes somewhere between xP and +Mk, but probably closer to xP.

In Hamlet, +M attempts to separate +K (or xP?) from +Mk, who has killed +C; in the process, +C (or xS) drowns herself, again. In [King] Lear... but I am running out of comparisons. I do not think this system of analysis is of much value – unless, perhaps, done in great depth and detail, and allowing for the possibility that it does not always work.

*the play <890930>

**the 'hero' [protagonist.] <890930>

***{i.e. in [Circle] locations}

[PostedBlogger04022016]