. . . Webster's plays are flawed, however, by the obscurity of the action, which is always secondary to characterization. Because his protagonists are surrounded by corruption and do not achieve any deep new insights, Webster's plays lack that sense of affirmation found in Shakespeare's tragedies. Thus, in spite of well-drawn characters and powerful dramatic poetry, they manage only to raise important issues without suggesting answers. (Brockett 163)
While I agree that characterization seems the most important element of Webster's Duchess of Malfi, Brockett's statement gives Shakespeare too much credit while unjustifiably discounting Webster. Shakespeare's characters usually come to a point of acknowledgement, but this is not always the case. I can't remember the penitence speeches of Iago or Claudius. In The Duchess of Malfi, Ferdinand, Cardinal, and Bosola are all corrupted and none are ever penitent, but they do become aware of the horrors of what they have done. Immediately after killing his sister, Ferdinand feels a pity that has simply come too late, and Bosola is aware of the horror of his livelihood throughout the play. Of Ferdinand's realization, David Allen White acknowledges Webster's poetry and characterization when Ferdinand says, "Cover her face: mine eyes dazzle: she died young" (White 2007). Ferdinand does not say outright that he realizes he has been too cruel, but he says this just after his sister dies and goes insane immediately after. We've missed the target a bit to say these characters achieve no insight.
My reasons for believing Webster may be more affiliated with the modern taste is that I believe the Duchess of Malfi simply has more focus as Webster moves to an understandable conclusion. For example, I find it difficult to explain the theme of Othello. Does Desdemona deserve to die because she has disobeyed her father? Are we to believe that Iago is jealous by the pittance of evidence he offers, or will we continue to congratulate Shakespeare for Iago's unmotivated evil, a characteristic we would condemn in characters of any other writer? Is Henry V to be scorned, knighted, or forgiven for the treachery of his friends? I believe plays with such characters do not fit with the modern audience, possibly especially after Stanislavski, when they do not have a clear through-line. In the strongest case, the modern audience may be farther away from Prospero in The Tempest as he conquers Caliban and his mother. Of his plays, I believe Lear is the most modern because he truly does come to realize what he has done wrong and truly is "more sinned against than sinning." Of course, Shakespeare's plays are appreciated because they are Shakepeare's; the poetry is great and the poetic philosophy that we discussed with Eliot is stronger in Shakespeare than it is with any writer in history. The question of modernism remains: would Shakespeare's plots and characters be welcomed to the modern stage if he were our contemporary?
