Eastern Europe after seeking retribution is typically very much frowned upon WWII’s armistice, in civilized society. The strength of for revenge is such that—in the interest of man’s thirst maintaining order—societies have long instituted mechanisms for doling out punishment through judges, courts, juries, and civil law, rather than allowing each man to seek justice on his own. And because society must deny people the exercise of such a deeply ingrained and fiercely felt emotion as revenge, some sort of catharsis must be available to release the emotional pressure that will inevitably build up as a result of that denial. This is where comes Hamlet Shakespeare’s in. Rather than risk folks seeking to purge their emotions on their own, civilized societies have decided it best to provide the masses with catharsis through art and the institution of the theatre; this way, the purging of emotions is predictable and controllable, which is safer for everyone. A revenge narrative, like the one in is so captivating because it allows audience members Hamlet, the catharsis of experiencing revenge vicariously (through fictional characters and events) and safely (within the structure and cultural expectations of theatergoing). Revenge is an instinct as natural as recoiling from a hot flame. Biologically, man’s thoughts of revenge cause a rush of neural activity in the an area of the brain caudate nucleus, that processes rewards (Jaffe). When one considers for example, the defeating one’s enemies, rush of activity in this area of the brain gives one a satisfied feeling. This process serves an evolutionary purpose: if one punishes those who violate trust, a future betrayal is less one’s likely to happen (Jaffe). In Shakespeare develops three separate revenge plots—Hamlet's, Laertes's, and Hamlet, each of which springs from the death or defeat of a father. First, the sheer number Fortinbras’s, of revenge plots within the play suggests that revenge is a natural human response to news that one (or family) has been in particular illustrates the deep one’s wronged. Second, Laertes’s case
Eastern Europe after WWII’s armistice, seeking retribution is typically very much frowned upon in civilized society. The strength of man’s thirst for revenge is such that—in the interest of maintaining order—societies have long instituted mechanisms for doling out punishment through judges, courts, juries, and civil law, rather than allowing each man to seek justice on his own. And because society must deny people the exercise of such a deeply ingrained and fiercely felt emotion as revenge, some sort of catharsis must be available to release the emotional pressure that will inevitably build up as a result of that denial. This is where Shakespeare’s Hamlet comes in. Rather than risk folks seeking to purge their emotions on their own, civilized societies have decided it best to provide the masses with catharsis through art and the institution of the theatre; this way, the purging of emotions is predictable and controllable, which is safer for everyone. A revenge narrative, like the one in Hamlet, is so captivating because it allows audience members the catharsis of experiencing revenge vicariously (through fictional characters and events) and safely (within the structure and cultural expectations of theatergoing). Revenge is an instinct as natural as man’s recoiling from a hot flame. Biologically, thoughts of revenge cause a rush of neural activity in the caudate nucleus, an area of the brain that processes rewards (Jaffe). When one considers defeating one’s enemies, for example, the rush of activity in this area of the brain gives one a satisfied feeling. This process serves an evolutionary purpose: if one punishes those who violate one’s trust, a future betrayal is less likely to happen (Jaffe). In Hamlet, Shakespeare develops three separate revenge plots—Hamlet's, Laertes's, and Fortinbras’s, each of which springs from the death or defeat of a father. First, the sheer number of revenge plots within the play suggests that revenge is a natural human response to news that one (or one’s family) has been wronged. Second, Laertes’s case in particular illustrates the deep