If melodrama can complicate public understanding by enhancing perception of largely unrecognized issues, how do we determine when this complication is productive rather than overwhelming or confusing for the audience?

This makes me think of toxic discourse, where environmental harm is frequently hidden behind technical language/ Schwarze's argument that melodrama complicates a situation mirrors readings where this has been discussed.

The concept of oneness of feeling directly connects to the Schwarze's earlier critique of Burke. Burke favors the comic frame because it lessens tension and promotes unity. While melodrama does the opposite. Both approaches depend on how audiences are asked to feel their way into a public controversy.

If melodrama helps uncover environmental harm, when does it go too far? Is there a point where it's polarization becomes counterproductive?

Melodrama is a rhetorical frame build around sharp moral distinctions, emotional amplification, and polarized conflict.

The author argues that melodrama isn't just oversimplified good vs evil rhetoric but it's a set of coordinated appeals that can actually reveal hidden injustices in environmental issues. We should judge whether its appropriate and timely instead of seeing it as automatically harmful.