Paradise Lost - Ad Naseum

In a bizarre twist, my Shakespeare TA is using our tutorial time to have the students perform various (modernised) takes on Hamlet. Our TA, Regi Khokher seems to think we'll understand the play better if we act it out. Of course it doesn't matter if we understand the play on a textual level - i.e. whether the ghost is benign or malign. Apparently, it matters if we can stage a "Godfather" version of Act 1 Scene 2, or a Queer reading, or anything postmodern/colonial - ad naseum, indeed. Evidently it's wrong to wish to tackle the text, or look at the issue of the Mousetrap. My tutorial seems content with Paolucci's lecture about "espionage" in Hamlet, so any student's attempt to interrogate the play is a trifle to them.

So, if I try to explain Christian themes/allusions in the play everyone figures I'm some bible-toting fundamentalist. And we can't be having anyone bring up the Bible, or Christianity, or religion - even if it's part of the text - in a class devoted to superficial, assuming postcolonial/modern readings. When I tried to start up a discussion about the ghost in Hamlet, suggesting it could be an "Adam" figure based on textual nuances - even my tutorial leader looked confused - and segued to an anecdote about how he first disliked reading Hamlet in high school, and that he prefered plays that addressed "postcolonial" issues (race, gender, etc.). I have no problem with looking at these aspects, but what happened to reading Shakespeare as...what he wrote in his plays. Sheesh. I feel like I'm being punished for wanting to read the nuances (puns, allusions) of the text.

It seems TAs like Jeremy, no-nonsense thought-provokers are things of the past.