The reading continues.  Currently it's Richard III by Shakespeare.  I have read several of the Greek dramas and found them to be simpler in form than Shakespeare, but there's a few years of development between them.  They became more complex, more characters and scene work.  More show, less tell.  Maybe as the form caught on the audience wanted more? 

The last of the Greek tragedies I read was Medea. She was quite a person.  Spurned, vengeful, and a murderer.  Not the girl you bring home to meet the parents, but that is precisely what occurred.  Didn't go well for anyone except maybe Medea herself as she is spirited away in a rather spectacular chariot. 

The offering of the Greek comedy, Birds, left me flat especially after Medea. What it did do was illustrate what Aristophanes thought would amuse the audience. That hasn't changed much in a couple thousand years.  Political jabs still work, as does toilet humor.  It did meet the definition of comedy that Aristotle wrote in Poetics.  Lesser people doing what you'd expect from them.  And possibly succeeding. While in tragedy the more noble folks fail generally from poor decisions.

Morality plays like  Everyman, followed years later and worked because the noble person must choose a course of action. The tension that exists comes from the audience already knowing what is at stake with either course decision.  The choices then were portrayed as heaven or hell.  Not too nuanced, but since they were teaching tools as well as drama, the dilemma could be played out in several ways for interest's sake.  Marlowe's Dr. Faustus works well because Faustus chooses poorly and regrets it later.  

Marlowe's work is much later than Everyman and picks up on the times when knowledge acquisition reigned. That brings me to Shakespeare's time and work which is where I began this post.  See if the Bard lives up to his reputation.  I haven't read any of it since being force fed in high school and that was a very long time ago.